Sends housed in Mix Channels

[antic604]

Anyone set up their Sends as Inserts in Mix Channels?





I recently found out about it (it's quite obvious thing to do, if you think about it...) and it's really great, because:
- it's much easier to use device chains as single send (they don't route automatically to next available send slot),
- you can control level, width, pan, filters, EQ, gate/compressor on your sends easily,
- you can send one send to the other(s), although you can't feed in into itself I think,

One additional thing that can be done is route all Mix Channels into new bus (and disconnect Direct Outs), to control overall volume but then you lose the link between Mix Channel name and Send's name, if that's important.

[dioxide]

Yes I do this. If you change the routing options at the top of the mix channel you can EQ the result.

[dioxide]

If you use a MIDI controller for the main mixer you can create a map that allows you to change the Insert FX patch for mix channels. This allows you to browse through a list of patches, perhaps reverbs or delays.

[Loque]

I use this if I need it. The most obvious reason is, when I want send fx on send fx, like give the delay fx some touch of the reverb fx. EQ, gate, expand, compression, bus, pan, wide, phase inversion and volume control you get on top directly with the SSL.

Btw, feeding into itself works great depending on fx. Best suited for delay fx and feedback loops.

[antic604]

Yes I do this. If you change the routing options at the top of the mix channel you can EQ the result.

Indeed, great additional tip!

[selig]

By "sends" I assume you're talking about putting your FX devices into Mix Channel inserts? Technically speaking (and apologies in advance for being pedantic here) the "sends" are just an audio bus where the signal comes from (and the path it travels) - meaning, you can use sends for many different things other than FX such as headphone mixes or for sub-groups to name a few. So it took me a second to understand exactly what you meant (especially since you didn't show any FX in your screen shot).

But now I understand what you're doing, which is functionally exactly the same as using Mix Channels as returns.
As for "grouping" FX, I already do that with Combinators, so there's no advantage with regards to that approach.

The disadvantages are exactly the same as using Mix Channels in place of Returns:
•You can't solo a channel and hear all it's associated FX.
•You add 64 samples of delay on the FX (there's no delay when you use Returns).
•More Mix Channels in the mixer (only a problem because you can't show/hide them).

The advantages have already been mentioned, and yes you CAN send the FX back into itself (with the afore mentioned 64 samples of delay), so be careful!

As for routing all the FX to a new output bus, I'm not sure why you'd want to control all your FX's level as one, but this would definitely help when soloing a channel because you can also quickly solo the FX bus as a whole, meaning you only have to solo in one other place to hear any/all associated FX when soloing any channel.

To me, it makes more sense to route the Mix Channels as Returns, if only because that's how I used the hardware SSL channels back in the day. But again, functionally absolutely no difference one way or the other, other than there being more cabling with this approach.

[selig]

Yes I do this. If you change the routing options at the top of the mix channel you can EQ the result.

Indeed, great additional tip!

If you're talking about EQ and FX such as reverb/delay, it makes no difference if you EQ pre/post FX.

But if you have any dynamics involved, such as a compressed reverb, then it will make a difference.

This works exactly the same way when using Mix Channels as Returns, btw...

[dioxide]

Indeed, great additional tip!

If you're talking about EQ and FX such as reverb/delay, it makes no difference if you EQ pre/post FX.

But if you have any dynamics involved, such as a compressed reverb, then it will make a difference.

This works exactly the same way when using Mix Channels as Returns, btw...

It does make a difference. EQing the input of a reverb results in a very different result to EQing the output. Unless I misunderstood what you wrote?

[selig]

If you're talking about EQ and FX such as reverb/delay, it makes no difference if you EQ pre/post FX.

But if you have any dynamics involved, such as a compressed reverb, then it will make a difference.

This works exactly the same way when using Mix Channels as Returns, btw...

It does make a difference. EQing the input of a reverb results in a very different result to EQing the output. Unless I misunderstood what you wrote?

I've been down this road, and provided the proof to the same question in the past (and am happy to do so again if necessary).
But there's absolutely no reason why it SHOULD sound any different.

Why should it?

EQ is linear with regards to level, and reverb is linear with regards to level. That is to say they sound exactly the same no matter what level you feed them.
For example, if I boost the input to a reverb by 6 dB, vs boosting the output of a reverb by 6 dB, they will sound exactly the same. Or better yet, boost the input by 6 dB, then cut the output by 6 dB, and there's no difference to not adjusting gain at all, right?

Or understanding that reverb is simply lots of delays, if we substitute a single delay for the reverb, and change levels before vs after the delay, why should one order sound any different from the other?

So understanding that EQ is simply "level at specific frequencies", and level changes won't affect the sound of a reverb (just it's level), then it makes no difference whether you add EQ before or after reverb. Make sense?

If not, it's a simple exercise to use a polarity test to prove this: Use a drum loop or drum pattern as your source, and split the signal (use a parallel channel) to two Mix Channels each with an EQ and an RV7000 reverb (using Convolution mode to eliminate any random modulations) in their inserts, one with the EQ pre reverb, the other with the EQ post reverb. Invert the polarity of one channel and you'll get silence. Now add pre EQ (any curve you like) to one, and copy the settings to the post EQ. You'll still get perfect cancellation!

[dioxide]

Ok. Going to give this a go when I'm back in the studio.

[selig]

Ok. Going to give this a go when I'm back in the studio.

Made it easy for you - here's a Reason file demonstrating what I described.
Just hit play and you'll hear…nothing. Mute one channel, or change the level, and you'll hear a very reverberant drum loop!

EQ Pre vs Post Reverb.reason.zip

(45.33 KiB) Downloaded 254 times

[Hauser+Quaid]

I almost always route sends like this. I send all my delays to reverbs (makes the delay sound lush!) and I also like to Bus my sends which is also an old trick from my Logic days. I'm glad Reason has this ability, it's very important to how I mix.

[aeox]

I almost always route sends like this. I send all my delays to reverbs (makes the delay sound lush!) and I also like to Bus my sends which is also an old trick from my Logic days. I'm glad Reason has this ability, it's very important to how I mix.

Me too! I love reason workflow so much!

[antic604]

You add 64 samples of delay on the FX (there's no delay when you use Returns).

Why isn't this compensated by PDC?

BTW, thanks - as always - to showing me how little I know and understand of this. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic

[selig]

You add 64 samples of delay on the FX (there's no delay when you use Returns).

Why isn't this compensated by PDC?

BTW, thanks - as always - to showing me how little I know and understand of this. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic

I’m guessing this isn’t compensated by Delay Comp since it’s being fed by a send. And all sends have an intentional 64 samples of delay added for feedback mitigation reasons (when sending a return back to it’s own send, for example).

Also, to the OP: just to be clear, you do NOT need to add the Direct Out routing back to the Return section. There’s absolutely no advantage to adding that extra step when setting up Mix Channels for FX. And as you point out, you must remove it if you bus the Mix Channel “returns” to a master bus, which IS helpful as a workaround to the Solo issue mentioned above.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[antic604]

There’s absolutely no advantage to adding that extra step when setting up Mix Channels for FX.

It's the only way to have send effect names (that are visible in Mixer) linked to Mix Channel names. Obviously I can name them manually, just saying.

[jimmyklane]

Anyone set up their Sends as Inserts in Mix Channels?





I recently found out about it (it's quite obvious thing to do, if you think about it...) and it's really great, because:
- it's much easier to use device chains as single send (they don't route automatically to next available send slot),
- you can control level, width, pan, filters, EQ, gate/compressor on your sends easily,
- you can send one send to the other(s), although you can't feed in into itself I think,

One additional thing that can be done is route all Mix Channels into new bus (and disconnect Direct Outs), to control overall volume but then you lose the link between Mix Channel name and Send's name, if that's important.

This was extremely common when using large-format analog consoles. Much of the time the effects send was in mono, and the return from the effect was in stereo, so you'd bring them back into the "large" faders , in an inline console, the ones that were meant for sending TO tape, as opposed to the smaller faders that were often used as returns from tape. (as an aside, I often tended to "flip" these if the desk had that facility as you had more eq, compression, and larger faders to work with)

You could also send your returned stereo channels to different effects, getting some very complex routing going on if you were interested in that sort of thing. That is one of the way's that the original plate reverbs were smoothed out....channel eq on the return channels.

[Ahornberg]

Yes, thats's just what my template song looks like.

[Loque]

Just one question.... The Direct Out is not delay compensated. Does this have an impact on the sound of this is used as Send Return?

[Ahornberg]

Just one question.... The Direct Out is not delay compensated. Does this have an impact on the sound of this is used as Send Return?

Good question! I didn't run into problems so far because mostly I use delays and different kind of reverb on my sends.

[selig]

There’s absolutely no advantage to adding that extra step when setting up Mix Channels for FX.

It's the only way to have send effect names (that are visible in Mixer) linked to Mix Channel names. Obviously I can name them manually, just saying.

Not sure I follow - in your screen shot that’s not what I’m seeing, right? It’s showing “Send #1” as the Mix Channel name rather than the effect name.

How are you getting this to work as you describe above?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[selig]

Anyone set up their Sends as Inserts in Mix Channels?





I recently found out about it (it's quite obvious thing to do, if you think about it...) and it's really great, because:
- it's much easier to use device chains as single send (they don't route automatically to next available send slot),
- you can control level, width, pan, filters, EQ, gate/compressor on your sends easily,
- you can send one send to the other(s), although you can't feed in into itself I think,

One additional thing that can be done is route all Mix Channels into new bus (and disconnect Direct Outs), to control overall volume but then you lose the link between Mix Channel name and Send's name, if that's important.

This was extremely common when using large-format analog consoles. Much of the time the effects send was in mono, and the return from the effect was in stereo, so you'd bring them back into the "large" faders , in an inline console, the ones that were meant for sending TO tape, as opposed to the smaller faders that were often used as returns from tape. (as an aside, I often tended to "flip" these if the desk had that facility as you had more eq, compression, and larger faders to work with)

You could also send your returned stereo channels to different effects, getting some very complex routing going on if you were interested in that sort of thing. That is one of the way's that the original plate reverbs were smoothed out....channel eq on the return channels.

As I’ve already mentioned, we did something similar with the real SSL. But what’s being shown in that shot is routing the direct outputs of the channel back into the dedicated FX returns, something I’m guessing you never did (and neither did I).

The question I’m asking is, what is the advantage of this extra step, if any?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[antic604]

Not sure I follow

As I said, it copies Mix Channel's name to Send label in Mixer. Not the effect's That's good enough for me

[selig]

Not sure I follow

As I said, it copies Mix Channel's name to Send label in Mixer. Not the effect's [emoji3] That's good enough for me [emoji1]

Not meaning to get overly pendantic, but you actually said: “It's the only way to have send effect names (that are visible in Mixer) linked to Mix Channel names.”
It’s actually the other way around, right?

But I get it now, and it’s a pretty cool trick - and apologies for my previous confusion!

However, as we have both already noted, the possibly greater limitation is that when routed this way you cannot bus these channels and get the benefit of grouping the FX, especially as it concerns working around the issue when soloing channels and loosing their FX.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[selig]

Just one question.... The Direct Out is not delay compensated. Does this have an impact on the sound of this is used as Send Return?

It’s the mix channel itself that inserts the delay, whether or not you use the direct outs.

The only time you’ll have an issue is when using an effect that doesn’t involve delay (anything that’s not a reverb/delay/phaser/flanger/chorus/doubler etc.), which is not common for most folks. Although one could argue you’ll get a slightly different effect with the phaser/flanger family of FX, it’s probably not noticeable in most cases.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk