post-effects Mix Channel parallel switch

Have any feature requests? No promise they'll get to Reason Studios, but you can still discuss them here.
jmf1928
Posts: 1
Joined: 24 May 2021

Post 24 May 2021

The parallel output of the mixer channel is quite useful, but ideally I would use it for running a parallel ITB/OTB workflow, which unfortunately doesn't work without adding another layer of channels. Either allowing us to switch the parallel out to post-effects/post-fader or allowing the channel to remain connected to the mixed when using the direct out would solve this. I absolutely love being able to route visually directly to the hardware and into my board, but it would be much cleaner to do so via one single set of output buses.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9214
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 24 May 2021

jmf1928 wrote:
24 May 2021
The parallel output of the mixer channel is quite useful, but ideally I would use it for running a parallel ITB/OTB workflow, which unfortunately doesn't work without adding another layer of channels. Either allowing us to switch the parallel out to post-effects/post-fader or allowing the channel to remain connected to the mixed when using the direct out would solve this. I absolutely love being able to route visually directly to the hardware and into my board, but it would be much cleaner to do so via one single set of output buses.
I second this, and have been harping on it since day one of the SSL mixer in Reason. Main reason I suggested it was because that's how you would work on the "real" SSL. There is a Direct button on each channel that assigns the post fader output of the channel to the associated output in the patch bay, but does NOT mute the channel feeding the mix bus.
In Reason, connecting the Direct Outs MUTES the channel feed to the mix bus, making it an "either/or" choice rather than an "and/or" choice.
Bottom line, it's been out for well over 10 years now, and they MUST have heard this suggestion by now…not holding my breath for this one. :(

Maybe they would listen to your suggestion for the switch for the parallel outputs, although I must say I'd love to have BOTH jacks available at once…
Selig Audio, LLC

dspasic
Posts: 3
Joined: 03 Jun 2021

Post 03 Jun 2021

i've created account here just to support this request. Currently how 'create parallel track' works is not right. If you have any processor on the initial track, it would just create parallel track without the effects.. i mean if it is created by 1 click - make it work right :). Cheers!
bitovi.rs
soundcloud.com/senseiprod

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 3466
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 03 Jun 2021

couldn’t agree more. I rarely bother with parallel tracks for this exact reason.

User avatar
orthodox
RE Developer
Posts: 1536
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 03 Jun 2021

I'd rather have Direct Outs for the send slots 1-8 on the Mix Channel, working in the same either/or manner, i.e. muting the route to the Master Section send output. That would solve the post-FX parallel problem as well and add a lot of flexibility.
Active Reason+ subscriber with (hopefully) early R12 access
Reason 11 Suite gathering dust on the shelf

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9214
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 03 Jun 2021

dspasic wrote:
03 Jun 2021
i've created account here just to support this request. Currently how 'create parallel track' works is not right. If you have any processor on the initial track, it would just create parallel track without the effects.. i mean if it is created by 1 click - make it work right :). Cheers!
guitfnky wrote:
03 Jun 2021
couldn’t agree more. I rarely bother with parallel tracks for this exact reason.
We may be talking about two different things here…

Reason's approach to parallel channels is actually exactly "right" for how to create a parallel track in my experience, and incidentally exactly how it works on a physical console. On a console you would "mult" the output of the tape track into two "parallel" channels, each with it's own settings (that's the idea, the "use case" for this routing).

Sounds like what you want is a pre fader and post FX signal, which is easy in Reason: use a Spider Splitter in the insert to patch to a new mix channel

The suggestion by the OP and "seconded" by me is for the direct outs to not mute the signal to the mix bus when connected (thus the "parallel" part), which is a very different use case from parallel channels.
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9214
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 03 Jun 2021

orthodox wrote:
03 Jun 2021
I'd rather have Direct Outs for the send slots 1-8 on the Mix Channel, working in the same either/or manner, i.e. muting the route to the Master Section send output. That would solve the post-FX parallel problem as well and add a lot of flexibility.
Genius! That WOULD work, and add a lot of flexibility as well - excellent idea. Maybe add a button next to each output to choose muting the route to the Master Section for even MORE flexibility...

But if for any reason the Props don't want to invest in that idea (and figure out where to put 16 more jacks on mix/audio channels), AT LEAST fix the direct outs to work like a real SSL… ;)

Or (seriously) why not both? :)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 3466
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 03 Jun 2021

selig wrote:
03 Jun 2021
dspasic wrote:
03 Jun 2021
i've created account here just to support this request. Currently how 'create parallel track' works is not right. If you have any processor on the initial track, it would just create parallel track without the effects.. i mean if it is created by 1 click - make it work right :). Cheers!
guitfnky wrote:
03 Jun 2021
couldn’t agree more. I rarely bother with parallel tracks for this exact reason.
We may be talking about two different things here…

Reason's approach to parallel channels is actually exactly "right" for how to create a parallel track in my experience, and incidentally exactly how it works on a physical console. On a console you would "mult" the output of the tape track into two "parallel" channels, each with it's own settings (that's the idea, the "use case" for this routing).

Sounds like what you want is a pre fader and post FX signal, which is easy in Reason: use a Spider Splitter in the insert to patch to a new mix channel

The suggestion by the OP and "seconded" by me is for the direct outs to not mute the signal to the mix bus when connected (thus the "parallel" part), which is a very different use case from parallel channels.
I’m not sure I follow what you’re trying to do, but it’s just because I’m a visual learner when it comes to these sorts of things, and since I’m not familiar enough with the use case/need, I’m having trouble picturing it.

but past that, you’re right, what I want is the ability to choose to tap the parallel track either pre or post fader, depending on what I’m looking to do.

I have no doubt that’s how it’s meant to work, but to me, how it’s meant to work isn’t nearly as relevant as how it should work. certainly wouldn’t want to get rid of existing functionality, but augmenting it with an option toggle would be incredibly useful.

dspasic
Posts: 3
Joined: 03 Jun 2021

Post 03 Jun 2021

selig,
i'm very aware of spider audio splitter. I use it all the time, i do not really use 'create parallel track' due to this.
let me phrase it this way:
you have 1 track with 10 fx devices. You click 'create parallel track', now you've got parallel track without those 10fx and you've got phasing issues. This implies that you have to either copy FXs and channel settings as well - or just use spider audio splitter (which i use all the time).. So, the parallel track isn't really parallel.. it's the parallel of the dry audio source.. :)

i meant to say that - the function of 'create parallel track' is not really practical, unless you do not process your initial track..
and yes - pre/post fader setting for parallel tracks would be sufficient, but at this point i'm not bothered by using the audio splitter at all.. :)

about the suggestion for direct outs, so you could mute master send (and listen only wet signal going to send/FX track) i suggest that you check Mixbus 32c mixer view. I think that is the desired state
bitovi.rs
soundcloud.com/senseiprod

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 3466
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 03 Jun 2021

yeah, that’s my scenario as well. I never go into a mix with a preconceived notion that I want to use a parallel track. usually, I work on mixing until I get to a point where I decide it could benefit from some kind of parallel processing. this means I’ve usually added a bunch of processing already, and I want to maybe try some parallel compression or something at that point.

definitely aware of the ability to route things in parallel in the Rack, and that’s one of the options I use—but that’s obviously not ideal, since it’s a lot of additional steps to set up, hence the request to have a pre/post fader tap option.

User avatar
orthodox
RE Developer
Posts: 1536
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 03 Jun 2021

dspasic wrote:
03 Jun 2021
selig,
i'm very aware of spider audio splitter. I use it all the time, i do not really use 'create parallel track' due to this.
let me phrase it this way:
you have 1 track with 10 fx devices. You click 'create parallel track', now you've got parallel track without those 10fx and you've got phasing issues. This implies that you have to either copy FXs and channel settings as well - or just use spider audio splitter (which i use all the time).. So, the parallel track isn't really parallel.. it's the parallel of the dry audio source.. :)
Yes, that's what it is meant for, having 10 other FXs in the parallel route. The proper way to do what you want is to route the channel output to a new bus and then adding parallel channels to that bus.
Active Reason+ subscriber with (hopefully) early R12 access
Reason 11 Suite gathering dust on the shelf

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 3466
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 03 Jun 2021

orthodox wrote:
03 Jun 2021
dspasic wrote:
03 Jun 2021
selig,
i'm very aware of spider audio splitter. I use it all the time, i do not really use 'create parallel track' due to this.
let me phrase it this way:
you have 1 track with 10 fx devices. You click 'create parallel track', now you've got parallel track without those 10fx and you've got phasing issues. This implies that you have to either copy FXs and channel settings as well - or just use spider audio splitter (which i use all the time).. So, the parallel track isn't really parallel.. it's the parallel of the dry audio source.. :)
Yes, that's what it is meant for, having 10 other FXs in the parallel route. The proper way to do what you want is to route the channel output to a new bus and then adding parallel channels to that bus.
which is the better option—it’s easier than wiring up a splitter, but still, then you’ve got more channels than you should really need. the original track, a buss track, then a parallel of the buss track. instead of just the original track and a parallel track (which you can tap either pre or post fader).

it might be less of a pain to manage if RS gave us track folders, but I digress...

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9214
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 03 Jun 2021

dspasic wrote:
03 Jun 2021
selig,
i'm very aware of spider audio splitter. I use it all the time, i do not really use 'create parallel track' due to this.
let me phrase it this way:
you have 1 track with 10 fx devices. You click 'create parallel track', now you've got parallel track without those 10fx and you've got phasing issues. This implies that you have to either copy FXs and channel settings as well - or just use spider audio splitter (which i use all the time).. So, the parallel track isn't really parallel.. it's the parallel of the dry audio source.. :)

i meant to say that - the function of 'create parallel track' is not really practical, unless you do not process your initial track..
and yes - pre/post fader setting for parallel tracks would be sufficient, but at this point i'm not bothered by using the audio splitter at all.. :)

about the suggestion for direct outs, so you could mute master send (and listen only wet signal going to send/FX track) i suggest that you check Mixbus 32c mixer view. I think that is the desired state
Actually, to your first comment all you have to do is turn on delay compensation…

What I described is indeed a parallel of the dry source, which is exactly how folks have done it in hardware for years - I'm guessing that's why they did it that way here too, because it's such a common application. So I'd have to push back a little and say that the function of the parallel tracks in reason is really practical!

Not sure about your last comment - my suggestion was about direct outputs of the channel, nothing to do with sends/FX. I just want it to work like the SSL I'm familiar with…
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9214
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 03 Jun 2021

guitfnky wrote:
03 Jun 2021
it might be less of a pain to manage if RS gave us track folders, but I digress...
Yes for track folders, AND yes for better routing options - just because you can hide every other channel in a mixer doesn't necessarily make the workflow any more elegant… ;)

I can think of times you'd want both a parallel out and a direct out, so a switch isn't necessarily the best answer either IMO.
In fact, the simplest solution would have been to NOT mute the main channel automatically when connecting direct outs, just like it's not muted when you connect a parallel out. Then you just mute the channel if you want it muted, simples!

However, that can't happen because it would break backwards compatibility, so there would have to be some button or global setting for this I would imagine.
Selig Audio, LLC

dspasic
Posts: 3
Joined: 03 Jun 2021

Post 03 Jun 2021

selig,
latency compensation cannot compensate for difference between one empty track (fx-wise) and parallel with scream device. There is more to it than just a time difference..
i'm off from this debate. I should spend more time making music :P

i suggest to watch this video if you have hard time understanding me.

Thanks
bitovi.rs
soundcloud.com/senseiprod

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 9214
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

Post 04 Jun 2021

dspasic wrote:
03 Jun 2021
selig,
latency compensation cannot compensate for difference between one empty track (fx-wise) and parallel with scream device. There is more to it than just a time difference..
i'm off from this debate. I should spend more time making music :P

i suggest to watch this video if you have hard time understanding me.

Thanks
Yes, we are definitely speaking about two different things, no worries. :)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
orthodox
RE Developer
Posts: 1536
Joined: 22 Jan 2015

Post 04 Jun 2021

dspasic wrote:
03 Jun 2021
latency compensation cannot compensate for difference between one empty track (fx-wise) and parallel with scream device. There is more to it than just a time difference..
Why? It depends on the fx you are using. Compressors, linear phase EQs, FFT stuff synchronize well without phasing issues.
And how is that a problem with parallel channels? There is nothing you couldn't do with how they are now, you just add another bus layer and start adding parallels at that point.
dspasic wrote:
03 Jun 2021
i suggest to watch this video if you have hard time understanding me.
A common problem, a common technique. What do you suggest for the Reason mixer environment in that respect?
Active Reason+ subscriber with (hopefully) early R12 access
Reason 11 Suite gathering dust on the shelf

User avatar
ProfessaKaos
Posts: 373
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post 07 Jun 2021

jmf1928 wrote:
24 May 2021
The parallel output of the mixer channel is quite useful, but ideally I would use it for running a parallel ITB/OTB workflow, which unfortunately doesn't work without adding another layer of channels. Either allowing us to switch the parallel out to post-effects/post-fader or allowing the channel to remain connected to the mixed when using the direct out would solve this. I absolutely love being able to route visually directly to the hardware and into my board, but it would be much cleaner to do so via one single set of output buses.
Yeah can be quite annoying adding another layer of channels to achieve this.
Reason 11.3 Suite PC- Windows 10, AMD Ryzen 9 5900x, Asus ROG CROSSHAIR Dark Hero VIII, 64GB G.Skill 3600C16 RAM, 980 Pro Samsung M.2, RTX3060.

https://soundcloud.com/juo-jual
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwNLcE ... DjhSI16TqQ

  • Information
  • Who is online

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