Send Channel in SSL mixer

Have any feature requests? No promise they'll get to Reason Studios, but you can still discuss them here.
User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 8634
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

Post 29 Jan 2021

I just thought about the problem, when you want to change the audio of a sound, BEFORE you send it to a Send FX.

This can be handy to pre-EQ a sound before you send it to a reverb for example.

This setup can currently be created with some tricks, but can get confusing and cumbersome, especially in bigger setups.

So, the idea is, just similar to a Parallel Track you can create a Send Track. The main difference is, it should contain the final track output of the original track, and it does not send any audio to the Master output.
Now i can add insert fx, EQ, compress, gate, pan, whatever, and than send exactly this to any Send FX.

What do you think?
:reason: 11, Win10 64Bit.

User avatar
orthodox
RE Developer
Posts: 1323
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 29 Jan 2021

I think the problem is that the "SSL" mixer has 8 fixed path send slots. A better approach would be having a send section window on a channel strip, which could list variable number of send controls together with their arbitrary targets you could specify (other channels, buses etc). That way solves many problems, e.g. allows for encapsulating send fx in channel/bus containers.

That's one of the reasons why I moved to another DAW for final mixing. Still using Reason for everything else though.
Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise. -- L.Carroll

User avatar
antic604
Posts: 648
Joined: 02 Apr 2020

Post 03 Feb 2021

Loque wrote:
29 Jan 2021
This setup can currently be created with some tricks...
Why won't you just create a send that goes into EQ that's wired into reverb, that then returns to Master?

Or is this what you mean by "confusing and cumbersome"?
Music tech enthusiast.
DAW, VST & hardware hoarder.
My "music": https://soundcloud.com/antic604

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9045
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 03 Feb 2021

orthodox wrote:
29 Jan 2021
I think the problem is that the "SSL" mixer has 8 fixed path send slots. A better approach would be having a send section window on a channel strip, which could list variable number of send controls together with their arbitrary targets you could specify (other channels, buses etc). That way solves many problems, e.g. allows for encapsulating send fx in channel/bus containers.

That's one of the reasons why I moved to another DAW for final mixing. Still using Reason for everything else though.
Simpler still would be a popup for each send that allows you to assign it to one of 32 busses (defaulting to the first 8 so things work exactly as before). Maybe a command click on the send "number" to select a different bus, with the bus number displayed on the button as is currently done.

But you would also have to be able to create enough returns which CAN be done in the mixer if they would allow us to remove the batch delay in those cases (and add SOLO ISOLATE PLEASE!!!).

As for the idea of a send channel, not sure it would do much more than clutter the interface. I would much rather have ALL processing for each send in ONE place: EQ, Reverb, Saturation, whatever you want as a part of the chain should be in one place rather than scattered around the UI. Just my 2 cents! :)

[just realized I may have misunderstood the OP - could be they are wanting ONE of the source channels on a send to be processed differently than the others, all going to the same FX in the end. I would prefer to use parallel channels for these rare cases where such control is needed. Not much more work to setup, and I only need this exact functionality once every few years in my experience. Really wish direct outs didn't mute the main output - not the way they work on a REAL SSL!!!]
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 3036
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 03 Feb 2021

I mentioned this in response to someone else’s post a couple of weeks ago. it would be awesome to be able to EQ the send output from the outgoing track, going into a reverb, for example. that way, I’m not EQing the track directly, and also not applying the same EQ across the board to every track that gets routed through that send.

this would be an awesome feature, IMO.

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 8634
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

Post 03 Feb 2021

antic604 wrote:
03 Feb 2021
Loque wrote:
29 Jan 2021
This setup can currently be created with some tricks...
Why won't you just create a send that goes into EQ that's wired into reverb, that then returns to Master?

Or is this what you mean by "confusing and cumbersome"?
I want the EQ BEFORE it goes to the send reverb. Just imagine 2 normal channels, both should SEND to a reverb, but i want to change only the signals by EQing the signals that goes into the Send reverb fx, not the output of the Send reverb fx.
:reason: 11, Win10 64Bit.

User avatar
antic604
Posts: 648
Joined: 02 Apr 2020

Post 03 Feb 2021

Loque wrote:
03 Feb 2021
antic604 wrote:
03 Feb 2021


Why won't you just create a send that goes into EQ that's wired into reverb, that then returns to Master?

Or is this what you mean by "confusing and cumbersome"?
I want the EQ BEFORE it goes to the send reverb. Just imagine 2 normal channels, both should SEND to a reverb, but i want to change only the signals by EQing the signals that goes into the Send reverb fx, not the output of the Send reverb fx.
Yes, I understood.

I meant something like this:

Image

You can always Combine both devices, to have it a bit more tidy, too.
Music tech enthusiast.
DAW, VST & hardware hoarder.
My "music": https://soundcloud.com/antic604

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9045
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 03 Feb 2021

Loque wrote:
03 Feb 2021
I want the EQ BEFORE it goes to the send reverb. Just imagine 2 normal channels, both should SEND to a reverb, but i want to change only the signals by EQing the signals that goes into the Send reverb fx, not the output of the Send reverb fx.
To clarify, EQ before or after reverb makes absolutely no difference. If you're talking about something different, I apologize!

Maybe this is what you mean? For me, every few years I get a project where I need to send a vocal into the main reverb BUT need to de-ess the vocal send. Putting the de-esser on the main vocal doesn't work, putting it on the reverb itself doesn't work - I just want to de-ess the vocal SEND, but NOT the other sends going to the same reverb.

For how often this is actually needed, I don't want a special feature - it's easy enough to "build" it quickly IMO. I not only don't want to clutter the interface, I also don't want to take dev time on features we can work around, at least not before tackling all the features we cannot work around.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
orthodox
RE Developer
Posts: 1323
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 03 Feb 2021

The question is about EQ (or any other additional fx) before or after implicitly summing multiple sources on the FX SEND outputs of the Master Section.
Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise. -- L.Carroll

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 8634
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

Post 03 Feb 2021

selig wrote:
03 Feb 2021
Loque wrote:
03 Feb 2021
I want the EQ BEFORE it goes to the send reverb. Just imagine 2 normal channels, both should SEND to a reverb, but i want to change only the signals by EQing the signals that goes into the Send reverb fx, not the output of the Send reverb fx.
To clarify, EQ before or after reverb makes absolutely no difference. If you're talking about something different, I apologize!

Maybe this is what you mean? For me, every few years I get a project where I need to send a vocal into the main reverb BUT need to de-ess the vocal send. Putting the de-esser on the main vocal doesn't work, putting it on the reverb itself doesn't work - I just want to de-ess the vocal SEND, but NOT the other sends going to the same reverb.

For how often this is actually needed, I don't want a special feature - it's easy enough to "build" it quickly IMO. I not only don't want to clutter the interface, I also don't want to take dev time on features we can work around, at least not before tackling all the features we cannot work around.
Yea, exactly your example. Don't limit it to EQ. Imaging HPF one track and LPF another before you SEND it to the fx.
:reason: 11, Win10 64Bit.

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 8634
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

Post 03 Feb 2021

antic604 wrote:
03 Feb 2021
Loque wrote:
03 Feb 2021


I want the EQ BEFORE it goes to the send reverb. Just imagine 2 normal channels, both should SEND to a reverb, but i want to change only the signals by EQing the signals that goes into the Send reverb fx, not the output of the Send reverb fx.
Yes, I understood.

I meant something like this:

Image

You can always Combine both devices, to have it a bit more tidy, too.
No, that's easy going. Only the signal of any track before it goes to the send fx.
:reason: 11, Win10 64Bit.

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 1243
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 03 Feb 2021

Loque wrote:
03 Feb 2021
selig wrote:
03 Feb 2021


To clarify, EQ before or after reverb makes absolutely no difference. If you're talking about something different, I apologize!

Maybe this is what you mean? For me, every few years I get a project where I need to send a vocal into the main reverb BUT need to de-ess the vocal send. Putting the de-esser on the main vocal doesn't work, putting it on the reverb itself doesn't work - I just want to de-ess the vocal SEND, but NOT the other sends going to the same reverb.

For how often this is actually needed, I don't want a special feature - it's easy enough to "build" it quickly IMO. I not only don't want to clutter the interface, I also don't want to take dev time on features we can work around, at least not before tackling all the features we cannot work around.
Yea, exactly your example. Don't limit it to EQ. Imaging HPF one track and LPF another before you SEND it to the fx.
For this it's easy enough to simply use a parallel channel (EQ and inserts) for any pre-send processing imho.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace. ... Pool's closed due to corona.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9045
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 03 Feb 2021

Loque wrote:
03 Feb 2021
Yea, exactly your example. Don't limit it to EQ. Imaging HPF one track and LPF another before you SEND it to the fx.
Or even de-essing! ;)
But seriously, this is so uncommon for me and so easy to wire up in Reason I can't see this needing to have dev time spent on it.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 8634
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

Post 03 Feb 2021

jam-s wrote:
03 Feb 2021
Loque wrote:
03 Feb 2021


Yea, exactly your example. Don't limit it to EQ. Imaging HPF one track and LPF another before you SEND it to the fx.
For this it's easy enough to simply use a parallel channel (EQ and inserts) for any pre-send processing imho.
Yea, works. But you need to make parallel channel quier and every fx pre fader. Id rather would have the gain meter and normal fade control. Or how do you do this?
:reason: 11, Win10 64Bit.

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 8634
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

Post 03 Feb 2021

selig wrote:
03 Feb 2021
Loque wrote:
03 Feb 2021
Yea, exactly your example. Don't limit it to EQ. Imaging HPF one track and LPF another before you SEND it to the fx.
Or even de-essing! ;)
But seriously, this is so uncommon for me and so easy to wire up in Reason I can't see this needing to have dev time spent on it.
I get your point. You do not need it that often.
Well, i need it here and there and if i need it, i just think how cumbersome it is to setup.
:reason: 11, Win10 64Bit.

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 3036
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 04 Feb 2021

selig wrote:
03 Feb 2021
Loque wrote:
03 Feb 2021
Yea, exactly your example. Don't limit it to EQ. Imaging HPF one track and LPF another before you SEND it to the fx.
Or even de-essing! ;)
But seriously, this is so uncommon for me and so easy to wire up in Reason I can't see this needing to have dev time spent on it.
but I wonder if it’s uncommon because it requires extra steps, rather than because it’s not useful.

I bet if this were implemented in a smart way, it would get a lot of use. it’d be arguably more useful than the current best practice of just slapping an EQ/effect before your reverb/effect. not sure why I’d opt for an EQ meant to remove muddiness from the vocals going into that proverbial reverb to also pre-process drums, synths, guitars, etc. that don’t need that EQ, given the option.

User avatar
mcatalao
Posts: 1398
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 04 Feb 2021

You can already do that. Just create a parallel, eq it and do whatever you want to it, then put it on send with pre fader. Get the fader down to 0. Now you have the initial sound going to master, and processed sound going to the send then to master without the sound of the parallel in the master.
Last edited by mcatalao on 04 Feb 2021, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 3036
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 04 Feb 2021

the idea that this can be done with a parallel channel misses two things:

1–the point. it would be a handy feature to have built into Reason (or any DAW, really)
2–parallel channels don’t pass the audio with all the same effects as the original channel. so if you’re running a track through a distortion, a delay, and a chorus, you would have to create the parallel channel and duplicate all your effects before adding the effect you want to single out for your send—this doubles the amount of CPU needed (no to mention the additional steps)

User avatar
Loque
Moderator
Posts: 8634
Joined: 28 Dec 2015

Post 04 Feb 2021

guitfnky wrote:
04 Feb 2021
the idea that this can be done with a parallel channel misses two things:

1–the point. it would be a handy feature to have built into Reason (or any DAW, really)
2–parallel channels don’t pass the audio with all the same effects as the original channel. so if you’re running a track through a distortion, a delay, and a chorus, you would have to create the parallel channel and duplicate all your effects before adding the effect you want to single out for your send—this doubles the amount of CPU needed (no to mention the additional steps)
Point 2, yes, good point. You could also do it with a Bus, which than gets another parallel channel. This works, as long as you don't want to "send" individual parallel channels.
:reason: 11, Win10 64Bit.

User avatar
mcatalao
Posts: 1398
Joined: 17 Jan 2015

Post 04 Feb 2021

Loque wrote:
04 Feb 2021
guitfnky wrote:
04 Feb 2021
the idea that this can be done with a parallel channel misses two things:

1–the point. it would be a handy feature to have built into Reason (or any DAW, really)
2–parallel channels don’t pass the audio with all the same effects as the original channel. so if you’re running a track through a distortion, a delay, and a chorus, you would have to create the parallel channel and duplicate all your effects before adding the effect you want to single out for your send—this doubles the amount of CPU needed (no to mention the additional steps)
Point 2, yes, good point. You could also do it with a Bus, which than gets another parallel channel. This works, as long as you don't want to "send" individual parallel channels.
Yes, that's what i was going to say, you can use what i call a "printing" bus. The printing bus is also useful when you want to parallel process groups of instruments, like a drum bus or create additional sends if really needed (mimicking the full behavior of a send - stupidly fiddling but works without breaking latency compensation as long as you do all the rougint with the SSL).

I think it was already discussed that it would be useful to have some sort of button to make a post insert parallel.

User avatar
orthodox
RE Developer
Posts: 1323
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 04 Feb 2021

mcatalao wrote:
04 Feb 2021
I think it was already discussed that it would be useful to have some sort of button to make a post insert parallel.
For me, it would be cleaner to allow specifying send targets as other buses and channels.
Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise. -- L.Carroll

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9045
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 04 Feb 2021

mcatalao wrote:
04 Feb 2021
I think it was already discussed that it would be useful to have some sort of button to make a post insert parallel.
I've done this - just create a parallel channel then swap it's input from the parallel output to the insert output. Then lower the fader and use pre fader sends.

Of course the missing ingredient of ALL these suggestions is the sends are no longer post fader. A point that would be easily remedied by making the direct outputs switchable and not automatically muting the main output when connected. Adding a switch to keep the main channel audio would solve backwards compatibility. Did I mention the real SSL also has a button to allow using the direct outputs with the channel output?!? Sorry for going on about this, it would solve SO many things if they would do this… ;(
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
orthodox
RE Developer
Posts: 1323
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 04 Feb 2021

selig wrote:
04 Feb 2021
Of course the missing ingredient of ALL these suggestions is the sends are no longer post fader. A point that would be easily remedied by making the direct outputs switchable and not automatically muting the main output when connected. Adding a switch to keep the main channel audio would solve backwards compatibility. Did I mention the real SSL also has a button to allow using the direct outputs with the channel output?!? Sorry for going on about this, it would solve SO many things if they would do this… ;(
There is a problem, Direct Outs depend on the channel fader/pan and that would make mixing a complex task. The send point is a much better place to branch out from, there is a Pre switch there.
Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise. -- L.Carroll

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9045
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 04 Feb 2021

orthodox wrote:
04 Feb 2021
selig wrote:
04 Feb 2021
Of course the missing ingredient of ALL these suggestions is the sends are no longer post fader. A point that would be easily remedied by making the direct outputs switchable and not automatically muting the main output when connected. Adding a switch to keep the main channel audio would solve backwards compatibility. Did I mention the real SSL also has a button to allow using the direct outputs with the channel output?!? Sorry for going on about this, it would solve SO many things if they would do this… ;(
There is a problem, Direct Outs depend on the channel fader/pan and that would make mixing a complex task. The send point is a much better place to branch out from, there is a Pre switch there.
I don't get it - ALL sends already depend on the channel fader/pan (except pre-fader sends, which only copy the pan, not the fader) - how is it any more complex? AFACT It's the same exact thing, or am I missing something?
[EDIT - 99% of the time I don't want pre fader sends - but there are 8 of them if you need 'em.]
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9045
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 04 Feb 2021

Post fader sends (the default setting for all sends) take the signal from after the fader/mute/pan. That's the same place that the Direct Out takes it's signal from, so using a direct out gives you the same signal you would get if using a Post Fader Send. You would still need a spider to merge this signal with the main send bus, simple enough!

Image
Selig Audio, LLC

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], freddykr and 0 guests