Solo Reverbs?

[Troublemecca]

In Logic I just solo my AUX channels... and I can hear JUST the reverb... this is probably not the ideal method for mixing, but once I dial in the reverb settings, I do that to set the individual reverb levels of each track... is there a SIMPLE way to do this in Reason that I'm missing, which doesn't involve complex routing? I'm sure it can be done WITH complex routing, just want to see if there's something I'm missing on the board before I go down that rabbit hole.

[TritoneAddiction]

Good question. I would be interested in this function too.

[pepe444]

Best method would be using the mixer 14:2 and patching like a real world scenario. the FX returns to a mixer channel.

PS: If you use it in teh Reason´s master section make sure the FX return is going for a new MIx channel. But solo doesnt work that way. you always have to send the signal in pre fader , solo the fx return channel and lower the channel volume so you can only listen to the FX full WET.
Another option is to use the effect inserted on that channel and blend with wet/dry knob.

Maybe someone has a better way of doing, lets wait for other users responses.

[Loque]

For send fx, just connect tge fx output to a dedicated mix channel instead of the fx return.

As insert fx, maybe SPEM RE can help.

[pepe444]

For send fx, just connect tge fx output to a dedicated mix channel instead of the fx return.

As insert fx, maybe SPEM RE can help.

You talking about this one?
https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/rack ... cts-mixer/

[pepe444]

If you print the reverb on an audio tracks that will work. Its common procedure for real world studio work, not very pratical if you need to change , lets say, a reverb decay time..but...works.! eheh

[deeplink]

Depends how you have your reverb sent up.

As a send on your main mixer;
Connect the control room output to your soundcard output.
Set the control room listen to the particular aux track.

On individual tracks;
I would simply create a parallel channel, and put the reverb on that channel (fully wet).

[Loque]

For send fx, just connect tge fx output to a dedicated mix channel instead of the fx return.

As insert fx, maybe SPEM RE can help.

You talking about this one?
https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/rack ... cts-mixer/

Yes. It helps with different routings and soloing. Maybe it helps you.

[selig]

I've always struggled to make any sense of a reverb on its own. For one, you cannot hear the pre delay (if used) because it's related to the dry signal. For another, there is nothing to relate to what you are hearing since we have never ever heard just the reverb in real life. As for setting the individual reverb level for each track, not sure how I would even begin to do that if all I was hearing was just the reverb.
It's not even that common in my experience to need to solo an instrument and it's reverb together (unless you're hearing a problem), since mixing is SO contextual. But in those cases where I need to hear the instrument/reverb, I get everything I need by soloing them together so I can hear the "sound" they create together. That's the #1 reason I typically just use the built in FX returns in Reason, so that with one Solo button press I can hear the dry and the reverb signal together exactly as they sound in the mix.

As for your specific question, probably the easiest way (as others have already said) is to switch to the Control Room output (instead of the Master Output) and click on the "RETURN" popup (defaults to "MASTER") for the FX in question.

Other options are not going to be as elegant and require FAR more clicking around just to hear the reverb by itself (Using a Mix Channel as FX return), or potentially not sound the same (using a Parallel Channel as FX Return) due to the way parallel channels are routed "pre-everything", because the signal you typically send to a reverb is post everything except fader (meaning, a Parallel Channel will skip any Dynamics/EQ/Inserts you have used on the main/dry sound). Hopefully that's all making sense…

[pepe444]

Thanks guys, i´ve learn a new thing in reason.
Indeed it works using the control room and listening to the FX returns.
Hope the original poster learned too.
All the best

[Ottostrom]

For send fx, just connect tge fx output to a dedicated mix channel instead of the fx return.

As insert fx, maybe SPEM RE can help.

PS: If you use it in teh Reason´s master section make sure the FX return is going for a new MIx channel. But solo doesnt work that way. you always have to send the signal in pre fader , solo the fx return channel and lower the channel volume so you can only listen to the FX full WET.

You guys probably know this already but if you plug the Send Fx to its own mix channel instead of a return then it can cause timing issues, as stated in this article: https://help.reasonstudios.com/hc/en-us ... what-s-up-

"Here are some signal feedback examples that could cause timing issues with the new audio rendering feature in 10.3 and later:

Returning a send effect on a mix channel. Since the mix channel can be sent to the same send fx, it's a feedback loop (even if you don't enable it)."

[Loque]

For send fx, just connect tge fx output to a dedicated mix channel instead of the fx return.

As insert fx, maybe SPEM RE can help.

PS: If you use it in teh Reason´s master section make sure the FX return is going for a new MIx channel. But solo doesnt work that way. you always have to send the signal in pre fader , solo the fx return channel and lower the channel volume so you can only listen to the FX full WET.

You guys probably know this already but if you plug the Send Fx to its own mix channel instead of a return then it can cause timing issues, as stated in this article: https://help.reasonstudios.com/hc/en-us ... what-s-up-

"Here are some signal feedback examples that could cause timing issues with the new audio rendering feature in 10.3 and later:

Returning a send effect on a mix channel. Since the mix channel can be sent to the same send fx, it's a feedback loop (even if you don't enable it)."

Yea, that really sucks and i hope it gets sorted at some point. I use this technique only for fx, which do not depend much on timing like reverbs, delays, chorus and stuff like that.

[Troublemecca]

I've always struggled to make any sense of a reverb on its own. For one, you cannot hear the pre delay (if used) because it's related to the dry signal. For another, there is nothing to relate to what you are hearing since we have never ever heard just the reverb in real life. As for setting the individual reverb level for each track, not sure how I would even begin to do that if all I was hearing was just the reverb.
It's not even that common in my experience to need to solo an instrument and it's reverb together (unless you're hearing a problem), since mixing is SO contextual. But in those cases where I need to hear the instrument/reverb, I get everything I need by soloing them together so I can hear the "sound" they create together. That's the #1 reason I typically just use the built in FX returns in Reason, so that with one Solo button press I can hear the dry and the reverb signal together exactly as they sound in the mix.

As for your specific question, probably the easiest way (as others have already said) is to switch to the Control Room output (instead of the Master Output) and click on the "RETURN" popup (defaults to "MASTER") for the FX in question.

Other options are not going to be as elegant and require FAR more clicking around just to hear the reverb by itself (Using a Mix Channel as FX return), or potentially not sound the same (using a Parallel Channel as FX Return) due to the way parallel channels are routed "pre-everything", because the signal you typically send to a reverb is post everything except fader (meaning, a Parallel Channel will skip any Dynamics/EQ/Inserts you have used on the main/dry sound). Hopefully that's all making sense…

I mix my vocal reverb to a level I like it at in the full track, then solo the reverb(s) and mix the instruments around the vocal... obviously referencing the full track as I go, but it helps me identify when stuff is too heavy, and what might be causing the mess. If the song sounds natural in just reverb, it tends to translate well to the full track in my amateur experience.


Thank you so much for the solutions guys! This community is awesome!

[illlumen]

"Here are some signal feedback examples that could cause timing issues with the new audio rendering feature in 10.3 and later: Returning a send effect on a mix channel. Since the mix channel can be sent to the same send fx, it's a feedback loop (even if you don't enable it)."

I created a template where every send effect is returned to it's own mix channel. This is much more convenient for me and makes mixing much more transparent. They are finally summed together in a mix bus. Does that mean that I'll always have timing issues even if I don't use the channels as a feedback loop? At least I didn't recognize any problems (and I have been using this method for years).

[illlumen]

I've always struggled to make any sense of a reverb on its own. For one, you cannot hear the pre delay (if used) because it's related to the dry signal. For another, there is nothing to relate to what you are hearing since we have never ever heard just the reverb in real life. As for setting the individual reverb level for each track, not sure how I would even begin to do that if all I was hearing was just the reverb.

I really get your argument. In natural mixing surroundings it makes much sense. What I really love to do (especially in my latest productions, which tend to soak my synths in reverb, eighties style) is to solo out ALL reverb and other effect sends (with their returns connected to its own mix channel) and mix them separately form all the dry signals. It's great fun and I prefer this way for sound design purposes. A nice way to create unnatural and eerie soundscapes. It's like listening to the side signals of a mix only just to clarify where the sweet spots are sitting and which frequency to cut. Have to admit, that I always compare a lot to the dry signals and the overall sound a lot after that. I am getting really transparent and fluid mixes out of this tactic, though.

[illlumen]

Yea, that really sucks and i hope it gets sorted at some point. I use this technique only for fx, which do not depend much on timing like reverbs, delays, chorus and stuff like that.

I am doing that too. But since when aren't delays depending on the timing?
That's why I am worrying if there'll be any issues even if I don't use feedback loops too often.

[Loque]

I am doing that too. But since when aren't delays depending on the timing?
That's why I am worrying if there'll be any issues even if I don't use feedback loops too often.

Sure, in the end all fx depend on timing, but often it is not a big issue. If you have a 3/16 delay, which comes 0.1ms later doesnt matter much.

Its more important for fx which introduce unwanted phasing effects when delayed and mixed back, like amps/saturation, parallel compression and stuff like that.

[tanni]

...
Other options are not going to be as elegant and require FAR more clicking around just to hear the reverb by itself (Using a Mix Channel as FX return), or potentially not sound the same (using a Parallel Channel as FX Return) due to the way parallel channels are routed "pre-everything", because the signal you typically send to a reverb is post everything except fader (meaning, a Parallel Channel will skip any Dynamics/EQ/Inserts you have used on the main/dry sound). Hopefully that's all making sense…

there are some points you wrote, I never had though about, but make sense for me now. So, whats then the right routing if I want to have ONE reverb in the send/return of the Mastermixer in Reason and I want to EQ the several SENDS of the tracks differently, but the original dry signal without this EQing. ? Only the SENDS should be EQed differently. Where I have to place the EQs ? Im a little bit confused now...

[jam-s]

So, whats then the right routing if I want to have ONE reverb in the send/return of the Mastermixer in Reason and I want to EQ the several SENDS of the tracks differently, but the original dry signal without this EQing. ? Only the SENDS should be EQed differently. Where I have to place the EQs ? Im a little bit confused now...

Using a parallel channel for each source to do the processing and feeding the send from there.

[selig]

So, whats then the right routing if I want to have ONE reverb in the send/return of the Mastermixer in Reason and I want to EQ the several SENDS of the tracks differently, but the original dry signal without this EQing. ? Only the SENDS should be EQed differently. Where I have to place the EQs ? Im a little bit confused now...

Using a parallel channel for each source to do the processing and feeding the send from there.

What you will loose in that setup is any processing on the main channel, since parallel channels take their input from the input, not the output, of the main channel. Sends take their input from the output of the main channel, so you'll either have to copy/paste any processing (including inserts) on the parallel channel or alternatively re-patch your parallel channel inputs to the main channel's insert output and make sure the insert is last in the channel (the default routing).

I'm happy to post examples or drawing that explain this if there's any interest.

[jam-s]

What you will loose in that setup is any processing on the main channel, since parallel channels take their input from the input, not the output, of the main channel. Sends take their input from the output of the main channel, so you'll either have to copy/paste any processing (including inserts) on the parallel channel or alternatively re-patch your parallel channel inputs to the main channel's insert output and make sure the insert is last in the channel (the default routing).

I'm happy to post examples or drawing that explain this if there's any interest.

If you want to keep the processing of the original channel, then you could also put it into a bus first and use a parallel of the bus.

[selig]

What you will loose in that setup is any processing on the main channel, since parallel channels take their input from the input, not the output, of the main channel. Sends take their input from the output of the main channel, so you'll either have to copy/paste any processing (including inserts) on the parallel channel or alternatively re-patch your parallel channel inputs to the main channel's insert output and make sure the insert is last in the channel (the default routing).

I'm happy to post examples or drawing that explain this if there's any interest.

If you want to keep the processing of the original channel, then you could also put it into a bus first and use a parallel of the bus.

But now you have three times as many channels as you probably want, just so you can add a little EQ to a send!
The absolute simplest approach (but not the most efficient) is to use two sends, add your EQ or whatnot to one, and then use a spider to merge the two signals before hitting the input of the primary send FX, say, reverb. But then you loose a send…

As I've mentioned on another thread, the situation would be so simple if you could use the direct outs on all channels without automatically muting the main signal on that channel - you could also keep adding as many additional post fader sends as needed on a per-channel basis if only this was possible (and it IS possible on a real SSL, adding insult to injury IMO!).

[Troublemecca]

Best method would be using the mixer 14:2 and patching like a real world scenario. the FX returns to a mixer channel.

PS: If you use it in teh Reason´s master section make sure the FX return is going for a new MIx channel. But solo doesnt work that way. you always have to send the signal in pre fader , solo the fx return channel and lower the channel volume so you can only listen to the FX full WET.
Another option is to use the effect inserted on that channel and blend with wet/dry knob.

Maybe someone has a better way of doing, lets wait for other users responses.

So what I ended up doing, is routing the Master Out to a Mixer Channel input, then routing that channel’s direct out to the hardware/audio out… from there I put a Spider Splitter on the output of the Reverb, routed one output to the reverb’s return and another to a 14:2 Mixer in the (inserts of the) Master Out’s new Mixer Channel.

Solo/Mute does not work obviously…. But when I hit the Bypass Insert button on the Mixer Channel, voila, soloed reverb!

[Troublemecca]

Best method would be using the mixer 14:2 and patching like a real world scenario. the FX returns to a mixer channel.

PS: If you use it in teh Reason´s master section make sure the FX return is going for a new MIx channel. But solo doesnt work that way. you always have to send the signal in pre fader , solo the fx return channel and lower the channel volume so you can only listen to the FX full WET.
Another option is to use the effect inserted on that channel and blend with wet/dry knob.

Maybe someone has a better way of doing, lets wait for other users responses.

So what I ended up doing, is routing the Master Out to a Mixer Channel input, then routing that channel’s direct out to the hardware/audio out… from there I put a Spider Splitter on the output of the Reverb, routed one output to the reverb’s return and another to a 14:2 Mixer in the (inserts of the) Master Out’s new Mixer Channel.

Solo/Mute does not work obviously…. But when I hit the Bypass Insert button on the Mixer Channel, voila, soloed reverb!

Actually, when the bypass insert is selected, it lets through the full signal, and when deselected it solos the reverb… somewhat counter-intuitive, but is one-button press functional. Also worth noting that the ‘send’ to the 14:2 Mixer is disconnected in the mixer channel, so it only receives input from the spider’d reverb.

[Troublemecca]

I broke the soloing for every track on the mixer lol, so my solution is not quite a solution