Beyond 8 Effects Sends, are Parallel Channels the answer?

[zero-13]

So I've started to get close to finalizing a song template, and now have a pretty good grasp of the send FX in Reason or rather the basics or typical uses for them etc. but not necessarily a full understanding from a more technical point of view.

My question arises from the fact that the vast majority of production tutorials I end up watching are for other DAWs, and I then slowly extrapolate (or try to) how to do the same or similar thing in Reason.

So one thing I've noticed is that some of these other DAWs allow numerous send FX to be created for one off things like side-chaining reverb, on a particular instrument or other types of specialty setups.

If, the need ever arises to go beyond the 8 FX sends that we have in Reason would creating a parallel channel somehow be a sort of work around?

I'm imagining that the original mix channel could be used similar as the send amount, I've only gotten into setting up buses recently with this template so I want to see if my understanding of this type of signal routing is correct, or is even in the ballpark?

Thank you!

[WarStar]

Yeah that's definitely a work around.. sends to me are good for reverb and some delays since these two efx portray space and typically it's alot easier to have multiple sounds appear as if they're in the same space.. if different reverbs are used you run the risk of muddying up your reverb space.. multiple delays can some times build up on top of each other too..

You can always use parallel channels though.. only difference being that the efx on said parallel channel can only effect the original signal not multiple.. obviously you can use a spider splitter to feed more signals into a parallel channel I guess..

[Loque]

In the past i wanted more send fx and in the present time i still think, limitations in software should be left in the last century. But today i find myself getting my work done with 1-4 send fx in >90% of my songs. Its just because where do you really need an fx, which should belong to most of your tracks? IMO its mostl to place them in the same room, but this wont work, since some tracks need to be in front, some in the back, some more right with slap backon the left and others on the left with a slap back from the right...

Parallel fx are my goto for this. Just the routing pre/post insert fx is a bit bad and often requires re-routing outside or a mix bus, but its ok.

But having more than 4 send fx within one channel is a MUST! Creating a sound requires often more fx, also in send or with feedback loops. And it should be god damn delay compensated. Waiting for that since a freaking long time and still not available. So, if i really need it delay compensated, i need to get outside and use a big bunch of parallel stuff and so on, additional send fx for the feedback loops and this can end up in a mess. Compensating with VM01 doesnt work good and i still got phasing issues and sadly not all devices have a dry/wet or a dry and wet control (hello devs!? Its 21st century!).

So yes, i still need more sends within a Combinator via a mixer or outside as a workaround...rarly needed, but needed...

Oh...and still waiting for a simple polyphonic soution like i have in Diversion or Phase Plant...

[Kalm]

I typically just reserve the send fx specifically for Send FX, Reverb, Delay, etc.

Everything I attempt to do is a parallel channel. I work this way in Studio One also as they differ between a bus and FX channel (via solos and parallel routing). Only my spacial effects will be an FX channel on 99% of my sessions. Everything else gets a typical auxiliary bus.

[zero-13]

Guys, thank you very much for taking the time to share your knowledge!

Understanding signal flow and the way the SSL, sends and Reasons unlimited routing capacities are incredible but very daunting to someone that is recently getting into production, but things are becoming a bit clearer.

For example, I've just recently understood the Pre Fader button on sends... however understanding when to use it for a specific intent, that sort of intuitive understanding is still pretty distant.

Again, I really appreciate everyone's time, patience and guidance with what I imagine are very basic things for you seasoned pros, it is immensely helpful.

[Loque]

Guys, thank you very much for taking the time to share your knowledge!

Understanding signal flow and the way the SSL, sends and Reasons unlimited routing capacities are incredible but very daunting to someone that is recently getting into production, but things are becoming a bit clearer.

For example, I've just recently understood the Pre Fader button on sends... however understanding when to use it for a specific intent, that sort of intuitive understanding is still pretty distant.

Again, I really appreciate everyone's time, patience and guidance with what I imagine are very basic things for you seasoned pros, it is immensely helpful.

Took me a while to understand for what a prefader is good for. Still doesnt have much need for it. But there is one thing i use them sometimes for, and thats for creating a parallel channel, editing the signal with EQ and stuff like that and sending this signal to the send fx. This is a workaround for the problem, that you cannot "insert" fx before it goes out to the send fx. This routing is quite interesting, if you want to shapen the sound before a reverb to be not overly prominent in the main sound frequencies as an example...

[zero-13]

Guys, thank you very much for taking the time to share your knowledge!

Understanding signal flow and the way the SSL, sends and Reasons unlimited routing capacities are incredible but very daunting to someone that is recently getting into production, but things are becoming a bit clearer.

For example, I've just recently understood the Pre Fader button on sends... however understanding when to use it for a specific intent, that sort of intuitive understanding is still pretty distant.

Again, I really appreciate everyone's time, patience and guidance with what I imagine are very basic things for you seasoned pros, it is immensely helpful.

Took me a while to understand for what a prefader is good for. Still doesnt have much need for it. But there is one thing i use them sometimes for, and thats for creating a parallel channel, editing the signal with EQ and stuff like that and sending this signal to the send fx. This is a workaround for the problem, that you cannot "insert" fx before it goes out to the send fx. This routing is quite interesting, if you want to shapen the sound before a reverb to be not overly prominent in the main sound frequencies as an example...

Dude, thank you!

This informs in multiple ways.

I had no idea the signal going to send fx Is always dry!

I naivley figured the insert fx went into the send with the original signal but now it is very clear how wrong that assumption was.

If I'm indeed understanding this correctly? It really goes to show how some of this unseen background signal flow is very invisible and kind of counter intuitive to the uninitiated.

[Loque]

Took me a while to understand for what a prefader is good for. Still doesnt have much need for it. But there is one thing i use them sometimes for, and thats for creating a parallel channel, editing the signal with EQ and stuff like that and sending this signal to the send fx. This is a workaround for the problem, that you cannot "insert" fx before it goes out to the send fx. This routing is quite interesting, if you want to shapen the sound before a reverb to be not overly prominent in the main sound frequencies as an example...

Dude, thank you!

This informs in multiple ways.

I had no idea the signal going to send fx Is always dry!

I naivley figured the insert fx went into the send with the original signal but now it is very clear how wrong that assumption was.

If I'm indeed understanding this correctly? It really goes to show how some of this unseen background signal flow is very invisible and kind of counter intuitive to the uninitiated.

I think you can change that routing, or to be precise it is the default AFAIR: sound->insert->eq->send.

What i meant is, that i cannot change an individual sound that is goind to the send fx. If i would use an insert EQ, it would change the overall sound.

If i create a parallel channel and change a EQ there, i still have the parallel sound, so i need to turn it off and use pre-fading to send the changed sound to the send fx without having the changed sound itself. Does this makes sense?

But you also need to check the parallel out, which is dry AFAIR, so you need to send it to a bus before you can use the full sound as a parallel channel

Yea, routings can be difficult and you got understand that if you want to achieve a specific effeckt or sound.

[dioxide]

Another way to do this might be to use a splitter like DirectRE. If you put all your reverbs on on DirectRE connected to a Send, you can select the one you want using automation. That's assuming you don't want to use more than 8 Send effects at anyone time.

[Loque]

Another way to do this might be to use a splitter like DirectRE. If you put all your reverbs on on DirectRE connected to a Send, you can select the one you want using automation. That's assuming you don't want to use more than 8 Send effects at anyone time.

Where is the advantage over this one here?
https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/rack ... -splitter/

[selig]

So I've started to get close to finalizing a song template, and now have a pretty good grasp of the send FX in Reason or rather the basics or typical uses for them etc. but not necessarily a full understanding from a more technical point of view.

My question arises from the fact that the vast majority of production tutorials I end up watching are for other DAWs, and I then slowly extrapolate (or try to) how to do the same or similar thing in Reason.

So one thing I've noticed is that some of these other DAWs allow numerous send FX to be created for one off things like side-chaining reverb, on a particular instrument or other types of specialty setups.

If, the need ever arises to go beyond the 8 FX sends that we have in Reason would creating a parallel channel somehow be a sort of work around?

I'm imagining that the original mix channel could be used similar as the send amount, I've only gotten into setting up buses recently with this template so I want to see if my understanding of this type of signal routing is correct, or is even in the ballpark?

Thank you!

The "other" DAWs have to use Aux sends/buses because they cannot simply patch from one channel to another. For "speciality setups" Reason has infinite connections, where other DAWs have a fixed number, even if it is 64 or 128 or more. The point is, you don't have to use sends for these tasks in Reason because there are so many other (often better) ways of doing the same thing.
For example, to side-chain you just connect from the kick "parallel output" jacks to the bass channel "key input" jacks. Or to gate/trigger a pad from the hi hats connect the parallel out of the hats to the key in of the pad.

And no, parallel channels are not the same as sends, but they ARE yet another way to do things that in other DAWs require using aux/buses. The difference with parallel channels and sends is the source: parallel channels are a direct copy of the INPUT to the channel, sends are a direct copy of the OUTPUT of the channel. So a parallel channel will not have any of the dynamics, filter, EQ, inserts or be affected by the fader of the source channel, while a send will be affected by ALL of those with the only exception being a pre-fader send, which is everything BUT the fader.

[zero-13]

Okay guys, thank you yet again for steering me back onto the road and averting disaster!

This is a very high-level "End Game" type subject, but at least my instincts are correct in that I knew Reason can do things routing wise above and beyond most every other DAW.

There are so many potentials and ways of accomplishing things but that very breadth of capability is what drew me to Reason in the first place.

I'm buried in the books so to speak and intend on learning everything about Reason, chipping away at those 10k hours bit by bit.

So grateful for everyone's generosity of knowledge, thanks to that generosity I'm on a path towards a goal, that only a handful of years ago I saw as nothing more than a beautiful daydream of something that was unattainable.

[dioxide]

Another way to do this might be to use a splitter like DirectRE. If you put all your reverbs on on DirectRE connected to a Send, you can select the one you want using automation. That's assuming you don't want to use more than 8 Send effects at anyone time.

Where is the advantage over this one here?
https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/rack ... -splitter/

I don't know, I've never used this device. There are other ways to do the same thing.

[Benedict]

I would first wonder why you wanted to Send 9+ things. Having 9 separate Reverbs at once on Send busses would raise a flag for me.

As Selig says, Reason's routing is excellent so you could do things like set 4 Bus Tracks with a set of processes on each and assign several Mix Channels to each of those Buses (as I believe Fruity & MuLab do). Buses may always be visible in some DAWs (Mixbus - named after busses yet only has a limited few in total!) but in Reason you only have to see them when you have them which is way smarter. Technically you can probably have 999,999 of everything. Unwise probably but doable.

You can even put other devices in the middle to do all sorts of splitting, processing, splitting again. Probably also generally unwise, but doable in the one event that running a few bits of tape with people going "Aaah" around the room* is the best way to get that track to work.

Great that you are doing the thinking. Never be afraid to ask.



*10cc "I'm Not In Love" in case you wonder.

[bieh]

Took me a while to understand for what a prefader is good for. Still doesnt have much need for it. But there is one thing i use them sometimes for, and thats for creating a parallel channel, editing the signal with EQ and stuff like that and sending this signal to the send fx.

I haven't thought enough about using this approach. Typically if I wanted to EQ a reverb, I'd use an insert reverb with a good EQ. But this is a good approach, especially if you want more of the controls on the main mixer instead of in the rack. So this is very helpful, Loque - I'm persuaded to keep this in mind - put an instrument on a channel, create a parallel track, turn on the parallel track's reverb send and its Pre, turn the send up and the fader right down, and get EQing on that channel.

Conversely the other day I wanted a blend of vocal sounds with a narrower stereo field for the reverb of one vocal than another, so I put the reverb on an insert instead so the mixer channel's stereo width knob would affect the reverb.

[Loque]

Took me a while to understand for what a prefader is good for. Still doesnt have much need for it. But there is one thing i use them sometimes for, and thats for creating a parallel channel, editing the signal with EQ and stuff like that and sending this signal to the send fx.

I haven't thought enough about using this approach. Typically if I wanted to EQ a reverb, I'd use an insert reverb with a good EQ. But this is a good approach, especially if you want more of the controls on the main mixer instead of in the rack. So this is very helpful, Loque - I'm persuaded to keep this in mind - put an instrument on a channel, create a parallel track, turn on the parallel track's reverb send and its Pre, turn the send up and the fader right down, and get EQing on that channel.

Conversely the other day I wanted a blend of vocal sounds with a narrower stereo field for the reverb of one vocal than another, so I put the reverb on an insert instead so the mixer channel's stereo width knob would affect the reverb.

Yea, the "width" is a good example. Or if you want to "pan" before it goes to a reverb or switch the channels or whatever, to create the illusion of the reverb comin more from a dedicated position creating a more spreaded room.

Just keep in mind that pre-fading means, all your adjusted settings on the main sound mixer gain are not reflected and you have to keep an eye on all your pre-fader-send settings. This can be error prone and cumbersome, so i use this setup rarely.

[selig]

I'll just add one feature request that would solve the issue of creating more post fader sends for me. I've asked for this since "Record" was first released, so I'm not holding my breath.
On the "real" SSL you have direct outs on all channels, and on Reason you also have direct outs, BUT when you use them the original signal path is muted. On the SSL there is a button to turn the direct out on/off in addition to still feeding the mix bus - genius!
IF this was how Reason worked (a button to turn the direct out jacks on/off without muting the original signal) you could easily create additional post fader sends. All you would need is something as simple as the Line Mixer to provide send level/mute for each channel feeding each send, or a bigger mixer if more than six channels were feeding the same send.
A companion/related feature that would be very welcome would be another feature the SSL has: "Solo Isolate", the ability to use a Mix Channel as a "return" and have the solo function not interfere/block the return when you solo any Mix Channel (since most folks who mixed on a real SSL used mixer channels for FX returns on a regular basis).
Still not sure why these very basic features (and a few others) from the actual SSL were not considered for this otherwise excellent SSL model in Reason.

[Benedict]

I'll just add one feature request that would solve the issue of creating more post fader sends for me. I've asked for this since "Record" was first released, so I'm not holding my breath.
On the "real" SSL you have direct outs on all channels, and on Reason you also have direct outs, BUT when you use them the original signal path is muted. On the SSL there is a button to turn the direct out on/off in addition to still feeding the mix bus - genius!
IF this was how Reason worked (a button to turn the direct out jacks on/off without muting the original signal) you could easily create additional post fader sends. All you would need is something as simple as the Line Mixer to provide send level/mute for each channel feeding each send, or a bigger mixer if more than six channels were feeding the same send.
A companion/related feature that would be very welcome would be another feature the SSL has: "Solo Isolate", the ability to use a Mix Channel as a "return" and have the solo function not interfere/block the return when you solo any Mix Channel (since most folks who mixed on a real SSL used mixer channels for FX returns on a regular basis).
Still not sure why these very basic features (and a few others) from the actual SSL were not considered for this otherwise excellent SSL model in Reason.

+1 on both of those. Sometimes I look at that Direct Out and then think, oh but I'll lose my signal...
The Solo Isonlate would also be useful as several times I have fallen into the Hard to hear just that bit hole.