How you use send effects

Have an urge to learn, or a calling to teach? Want to share some useful Youtube videos? Do it here!
electricthing
Posts: 68
Joined: 08 May 2018

22 Jun 2018

Hi Guys,

I use Reason for 2 months now. :reason:

I saw this tutorial from Stock Music Musician about using mixer channels for send effects.

I prefer this to the original way.
I also saw ReasonExperts use a combinator for f.i. a reverb and eq etc with the original routing.

So I am curious; What is your prefered way to use send fx?
What did you do that you did not like etc.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

22 Jun 2018

I will use a Combinator for multi-FX chains for the reasons mentioned in this video, but don't always use Mix Channels for returns since solo doesn't work properly.
Also, the built in FX returns are automatically delay compensated (and have been this way since the introduction of the SSL "Big" Mixer), though this is less of an issue if using the new Delay Compensation feature (but mix channels are still delayed 64 samples even WITH DC, so won't work with FX that are not naturally delayed, e.g. reverb or delay).

TIP: if you name the Combinator, you don't need to ALSO name the sends/returns and Mix Channel (if used), and it will save you a little time. But this only works if using a Combinator - with a Mix Channel and no Combinator you still need to rename in two places.
Selig Audio, LLC

electricthing
Posts: 68
Joined: 08 May 2018

22 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
22 Jun 2018
I will use a Combinator for multi-FX chains for the reasons mentioned in this video, but don't always use Mix Channels for returns since solo doesn't work properly.
Also, the built in FX returns are automatically delay compensated (and have been this way since the introduction of the SSL "Big" Mixer), though this is less of an issue if using the new Delay Compensation feature (but mix channels are still delayed 64 samples even WITH DC, so won't work with FX that are not naturally delayed, e.g. reverb or delay).

TIP: if you name the Combinator, you don't need to ALSO name the sends/returns and Mix Channel (if used), and it will save you a little time. But this only works if using a Combinator - with a Mix Channel and no Combinator you still need to rename in two places.
Great info, thanks Selig!

So Combinator in the original routing it will be.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

22 Jun 2018

I always was like ~ if we can, why not just add effects directly to our devices, set them up ideally for the sound, add the right amount, and done. To this day, I don't use consoles at all.

electricthing
Posts: 68
Joined: 08 May 2018

22 Jun 2018

RobC wrote:
22 Jun 2018
I always was like ~ if we can, why not just add effects directly to our devices, set them up ideally for the sound, add the right amount, and done. To this day, I don't use consoles at all.
This is your post 666, so I take what you say with a grain of salt ;)

I prefer send fx for delays and reverb, even if it is only for one track.
In that case I use the parrallel mixer track.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

22 Jun 2018

electricthing wrote:
22 Jun 2018
RobC wrote:
22 Jun 2018
I always was like ~ if we can, why not just add effects directly to our devices, set them up ideally for the sound, add the right amount, and done. To this day, I don't use consoles at all.
This is your post 666, so I take what you say with a grain of salt ;)

edit, yeah right, now it seems to be your post 667...
Anyway; I prefer send fx for delays and reverb, even if it is only for one track.
In that case I use the parrallel mixer track.
Aw, man I missed the count...
The method works hella' good for me. xD

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 11175
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

22 Jun 2018

I mostly use send fx for creating a room. If it is not for creating room, I use them for feedback loops or if I want delay compensation. In most other cases I prefer insert fx of they belong to the sound.
Reason12, Win10

User avatar
kuhliloach
Posts: 880
Joined: 09 Dec 2015

22 Jun 2018

The sends on the SSL have gradually become my very last resort. I prefer just about any other method for using effects. Parallel processing, duplicating the track and having the duplicate 100% wet, dangling an effect off the instrument, or channel inserts, or processing busses. I'm not sure why I lean this way - perhaps so I have a single place to go when it comes to modifying and reviewing effects settings: the rack.

jimmyklane
Posts: 740
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

22 Jun 2018

If I’m not routing through my console then I send the 8 sends directly to hardware outputs and back into Reason via audio channels (I monitor in the interface until it’s time to record them).

I’m so used to the console paradigm that I find it tough to break out of. Processors go on inserts, effects go on sends....I don’t really have enough hardware to have 8 full stereo effects going at once, so I’m often recording my sends in 100% wet and reusing the hardware for something new.
DAW: Reason 12

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

RandomSkratch
Posts: 447
Joined: 10 May 2016

22 Jun 2018

RobC wrote:I always was like ~ if we can, why not just add effects directly to our devices, set them up ideally for the sound, add the right amount, and done. To this day, I don't use consoles at all.
I find that sometimes inline effects with a wet dry balance won't leave me enough dry signal for the amount of wet I'm using so need to either use parallel with full wet or a send return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jimmyklane
Posts: 740
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

22 Jun 2018

I do really like incorporating the EMI into my outboard effects setup. By choosing the port and channels that you have configured for manual control in the device you can have a ton of fun syncing parameter changes to the clock inside of Reason.

Traditional send effects declutter the rack, and allow you to make a “less is more” approach. I’ll often print stuff I only have one of (Lexicon 480L is all over every track I make) and reuse it for another tracks, and therefore I end up with a dry track and a fully wet track that I can balance against each other as well as process and EQ if need be
DAW: Reason 12

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

User avatar
QVprod
Moderator
Posts: 3488
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

22 Jun 2018

RandomSkratch wrote:
22 Jun 2018
RobC wrote:I always was like ~ if we can, why not just add effects directly to our devices, set them up ideally for the sound, add the right amount, and done. To this day, I don't use consoles at all.
I find that sometimes inline effects with a wet dry balance won't leave me enough dry signal for the amount of wet I'm using so need to either use parallel with full wet or a send return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fair point on wet/dry knobs. Works better when the wet and dry levels are independent and you can simply just add the wet signal to the dry signal. Some plugins/RE work like this. However for the ones that don't, the beauty of Reason is how easy it is to set this kind of routing up within the same mix channel so you can still get the benefits of it being an insert effect.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

23 Jun 2018

RandomSkratch wrote:
22 Jun 2018
RobC wrote:I always was like ~ if we can, why not just add effects directly to our devices, set them up ideally for the sound, add the right amount, and done. To this day, I don't use consoles at all.
I find that sometimes inline effects with a wet dry balance won't leave me enough dry signal for the amount of wet I'm using so need to either use parallel with full wet or a send return.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Is that about accuracy? I thought if the wet signal is mixed separately to the dry signal ~ say, both are at 100%, then we get a 50-50 balance. So what's the difference?

EdGrip
Posts: 2343
Joined: 03 Jun 2016

23 Jun 2018

I think Random means that if there's just one Mix knob on an effect, you inevitably end up having to mess around with the overall level downstream to get the dry level back where you want it, and you have to do that every time you adjust the Mix knob. Always better to have a dry signal and a 100% wet signal and set their levels independently.

There's a couple of reverbs and a couple of delays on sends in my default template. They all come back to their own mix channel, and I have run into the problem of mute and solo behaviour not working properly this way. The only things I ever use their mix channels for is EQ, and feedback stuff (usually just putting the delays in the same "room" as the original sound).
I have it saved so that each of those 4 effects has its own M-class compressor underneath it, just so it's dead quick to sidechain any of them with whatever takes my fancy without leaving the rack.
I'm usually just jamming, but I'll bear parallel "effect" channels in mind more after this thread!

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

23 Jun 2018

RobC wrote: Is that about accuracy? I thought if the wet signal is mixed separately to the dry signal ~ say, both are at 100%, then we get a 50-50 balance. So what's the difference?
My 2 cents on Blend vs Send:

The difference I focus on is where the dry signal starts/ends after adding the FX.

When using a send, the dry signal stays at 100% of it’s original value no matter how much send FX you add.

When using a dry/wet control, the dry signal is REDUCED as you add more FX.

In mixing, you generally spend a good deal of time getting your levels exactly where you want them, down to a fraction or a dB in many cases. Using a dry/wet control will reduce the dry signal by 3-6dB between 25 and 50% blend, which is more than enough to wreak carefully set mix balances. Therefore a send approach is generally preferred in these cases.

Earlier in the track building process I may be OK with using a blend control for adding FX, but it limits changing balances later in the process IMO. In general I tend to prefer a blend control for chorus/flanger/phaser type FX over reverb/delay FX because a) I don’t often change balances on those types of FX, and b) when I do change the balance the overall apparent level doesn’t change as much (because the FX signal more closely resembles the original in tone/time).
:)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

23 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
23 Jun 2018
RobC wrote: Is that about accuracy? I thought if the wet signal is mixed separately to the dry signal ~ say, both are at 100%, then we get a 50-50 balance. So what's the difference?
My 2 cents on Blend vs Send:

The difference I focus on is where the dry signal starts/ends after adding the FX.

When using a send, the dry signal stays at 100% of it’s original value no matter how much send FX you add.

When using a dry/wet control, the dry signal is REDUCED as you add more FX.

In mixing, you generally spend a good deal of time getting your levels exactly where you want them, down to a fraction or a dB in many cases. Using a dry/wet control will reduce the dry signal by 3-6dB between 25 and 50% blend, which is more than enough to wreak carefully set mix balances. Therefore a send approach is generally preferred in these cases.

Earlier in the track building process I may be OK with using a blend control for adding FX, but it limits changing balances later in the process IMO. In general I tend to prefer a blend control for chorus/flanger/phaser type FX over reverb/delay FX because a) I don’t often change balances on those types of FX, and b) when I do change the balance the overall apparent level doesn’t change as much (because the FX signal more closely resembles the original in tone/time).
:)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
I understand that, but what I had concern about was that the send FX add additional loudness to the mix, and while that one sound may get more impressive, the others get out of that balanced mix, or so I felt.
But then again, the way I did it, was more like the first sound design part, so traditionally, I guess normal people would use sends when it comes to mixing.

When I wanted to build a hardware studio, I wanted to go cheap and just use a joiner and set levels and effects at the source of the microKorg, Korg R3, and Korg Radias, that I drolled over. xD Until the Reason manual said that software sounds just as good or even better than digital hardware synths.
So that's also one reason why I simplified my process.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

23 Jun 2018

RobC wrote: I understand that, but what I had concern about was that the send FX add additional loudness to the mix, and while that one sound may get more impressive, the others get out of that balanced mix, or so I felt.
But then again, the way I did it, was more like the first sound design part, so traditionally, I guess normal people would use sends when it comes to mixing.
Well, having concern over something is one thing, but having experience is probably more helpful. Or, “theory is good, practice is better”.

All to say, when add reverb to a sound I’ve never once felt it added any significant additional loudness to a mix - have you?

But when I’ve used a dry/wet control with reverb, I always hear the loudness drop. Is your experience different?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

23 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
23 Jun 2018
RobC wrote: I understand that, but what I had concern about was that the send FX add additional loudness to the mix, and while that one sound may get more impressive, the others get out of that balanced mix, or so I felt.
But then again, the way I did it, was more like the first sound design part, so traditionally, I guess normal people would use sends when it comes to mixing.
Well, having concern over something is one thing, but having experience is probably more helpful. Or, “theory is good, practice is better”.

All to say, when add reverb to a sound I’ve never once felt it added any significant additional loudness to a mix - have you?

But when I’ve used a dry/wet control with reverb, I always hear the loudness drop. Is your experience different?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Probably not, but reverb is not the only effect. And sometimes, we want it to be a little more wet than ~ 50/50.
Effects can change loudness, unless they think of adding some compensation.

Up to everyone though. I don't make money with music, so I experiment freely.

jimmyklane
Posts: 740
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

23 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
23 Jun 2018
RobC wrote: I understand that, but what I had concern about was that the send FX add additional loudness to the mix, and while that one sound may get more impressive, the others get out of that balanced mix, or so I felt.
But then again, the way I did it, was more like the first sound design part, so traditionally, I guess normal people would use sends when it comes to mixing.
Well, having concern over something is one thing, but having experience is probably more helpful. Or, “theory is good, practice is better”.

All to say, when add reverb to a sound I’ve never once felt it added any significant additional loudness to a mix - have you?

But when I’ve used a dry/wet control with reverb, I always hear the loudness drop. Is your experience different?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
I agree. wet/dry controls seem to be a compromise by manufactures in order to allow, say, a reverb unit to be used inline. The traditional usage case for EFFECTS (not processors) is to use an aux send. In Reason, you can get more than 50/50 using the SSL, as it allows up to 6dB of additional gain at the send stage as well as another 6dB at the return stage.

Rob, do you have a compelling reason to use things only inline? I understand for ambient sounds that need to be 100% wet, but other than that I can't think of a reason to do anything other than use the 8 sends first and only if you need more then jumping to either 14:2 mixers or using them as inserts.
DAW: Reason 12

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

electricthing
Posts: 68
Joined: 08 May 2018

23 Jun 2018

Thanks for the input, guys.

I have a 1/4, a 1/2, and a whole note reverb on the sends and a 16th and 8th delay (sometimes dotted or triple)
Besides these I use parrallel tracks for when I want a hard panned instrument get an opposite delay or reverb.
The kick I often put through an audio splitter so I can do a bit more with the signal, 1 parrallel compression track, 1 sc to bass compressor.

Besides this I like to bus a lot. Instrument groups are bussed, every track that has a parrallel track is bussed with it, all instrument busses are bussed in a backing bus.

In Reaper I used to send the vocal bus to an EQ (parameter modulation) on the backing bus to duck the vocal range in the rest of the tracks (just a bit).
Have to find the best way to do that in Reason yet. Maybe with TDR Nova.

I know this is a different topic but I'm still getting a grasp of Reason's routing.
In Reaper I did not put inserts on the official master bus but I made busses before that.
One was a mixbus with all busses routed there.
One was a parrallel compression bus with all tracks but the drums send there
(but this can bite the SC of vocals to all instruments bus in some circumstances).
These two were combined into a masterbus, which had a limiter.
Next to this were some reference tracks that only had some metering, analyzers.
That all went to the official masterbus.

I think this will not be possible in Reason with the send fx being were they are?

A new DAW can be a puzzle and I find that a challenge.
Plus I really love Reason when it comes to producing, it sparkles my creativity, love the content also.

User avatar
mcatalao
Competition Winner
Posts: 1826
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

23 Jun 2018

selig wrote:
23 Jun 2018
RobC wrote: Is that about accuracy? I thought if the wet signal is mixed separately to the dry signal ~ say, both are at 100%, then we get a 50-50 balance. So what's the difference?
(...)
When using a dry/wet control, the dry signal is REDUCED as you add more FX.

In mixing, you generally spend a good deal of time getting your levels exactly where you want them, down to a fraction or a dB in many cases. Using a dry/wet control will reduce the dry signal by 3-6dB between 25 and 50% blend, which is more than enough to wreak carefully set mix balances. Therefore a send approach is generally preferred in these cases.

(...)
Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Add to this the fact that if you work this way you will increase the amount of effects and that comes at a price.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

24 Jun 2018

jimmyklane wrote:
23 Jun 2018
selig wrote:
23 Jun 2018


Well, having concern over something is one thing, but having experience is probably more helpful. Or, “theory is good, practice is better”.

All to say, when add reverb to a sound I’ve never once felt it added any significant additional loudness to a mix - have you?

But when I’ve used a dry/wet control with reverb, I always hear the loudness drop. Is your experience different?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
I agree. wet/dry controls seem to be a compromise by manufactures in order to allow, say, a reverb unit to be used inline. The traditional usage case for EFFECTS (not processors) is to use an aux send. In Reason, you can get more than 50/50 using the SSL, as it allows up to 6dB of additional gain at the send stage as well as another 6dB at the return stage.

Rob, do you have a compelling reason to use things only inline? I understand for ambient sounds that need to be 100% wet, but other than that I can't think of a reason to do anything other than use the 8 sends first and only if you need more then jumping to either 14:2 mixers or using them as inserts.
It's just a preference of mine to focus on one sound at a time, then I even create a loop out of it before I take it to the arranging & mixing project.

User avatar
Reasonable man
Posts: 589
Joined: 14 Jul 2016

24 Jun 2018

I know there's nothing new about this but i have been trying/experimenting with for eg. a synth sound and using a long reverb (maybe with saturation or gating or whatever...maybe not) but panning the original sound hard left and the send return mix channel hard right , You can get a ferocious 'big' sound that way.
I have not of yet tried to do a mix with these kind of effects but i'm guessing i would have to be carefull level and pahasing wise with this kind of effect but the thing thats undeniable is the sheer width that can be achieved this way :puf_smile:

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

24 Jun 2018

Reasonable man wrote:I know there's nothing new about this but i have been trying/experimenting with for eg. a synth sound and using a long reverb (maybe with saturation or gating or whatever...maybe not) but panning the original sound hard left and the send return mix channel hard right , You can get a ferocious 'big' sound that way.
I have not of yet tried to do a mix with these kind of effects but i'm guessing i would have to be carefull level and pahasing wise with this kind of effect but the thing thats undeniable is the sheer width that can be achieved this way :puf_smile:
This is a great way to spread mono sounds across a mix, also works for delays etc.

There’s a quick easy way to get these types of FX on sends in Reason, which is to flip the send channels (or returns) L/R. Then when you pan a sound hard left, the reverb/FX is automatically on the opposite side.

The fun with this approach is that you can send more than one channel to this FX just by panning the source. So one channel can pan left with the FX right, another right with the FX left or pan the sound center and have the FX center/stereo. Automating the pan can lead to even more interesting effects!
:)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

electricthing
Posts: 68
Joined: 08 May 2018

24 Jun 2018

Reasonable man wrote:
24 Jun 2018
I know there's nothing new about this but i have been trying/experimenting with for eg. a synth sound and using a long reverb (maybe with saturation or gating or whatever...maybe not) but panning the original sound hard left and the send return mix channel hard right , You can get a ferocious 'big' sound that way.
I have not of yet tried to do a mix with these kind of effects but i'm guessing i would have to be carefull level and pahasing wise with this kind of effect but the thing thats undeniable is the sheer width that can be achieved this way :puf_smile:
I just posted a reply but after hitting submit it's gone.
Anyway; love it with guitars, keys. Mono delay or reverb. And also a center snare or clap can have a panned mono reverb.
I think one of the drums should at least have one of this.
And one of the other instruments.
Great way to make a space.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests