Group Channels to a Single FX Send ?

[Busta US]

Is it possible to group several Mix Channels to be mixed in a single FX send in the mixer in order to apply processing to that FX send ?

I found a clear example of what I'm trying to replicate in this video (6:57)

Thank you guys for your help as always

[m.arthur]

why do you need a bunch of 'grouped' mix channels to apply processing to a single fx send, why not just drop a combinator in the send and build your processing chain there? You could also use a line mixer in the combi if you need multiple channels.

but to answer your question specifically, Yes, you can create as many mixer channels as you need then route them all to a Bus, and stick that bus in the 'send' area just like any other send (if you're not sure how to do that, just look at the default routings for Send FX in the 'Empty + FX' template -- those don't have to be FX, they can be Mixer Channels too (a bus group is, after all, just another mixer channel).

[Benedict]

Yes, all doable. Just work out the routing you need on paper and then apply it in Reason.

best to understand signal flow and specifically how the SSL (style) mixer works first but this is one of the great advantages of the Reason Mixer.

[selig]

Wow, that's a complicated way (in the video) to achieve what is possible with a single command in Reason.
Just select the channels you want to include, then right click and select "Route to new output bus". Then put your processing in the insert of the newly created Bus Channel.
No need to use up a send for this simple effect.

[Loque]

I used the technique in the video only if i want to preprocess before sending ot to an fx. In most cases a bus and a parallel channel does what you need. The thing of the video is just a bus with insert fx and the way its done on the video is strange, except the DAW does not support bus channels or i overlooked something.

[Benedict]

Wow, that's a complicated way (in the video) to achieve what is possible with a single command in Reason.
Just select the channels you want to include, then right click and select "Route to new output bus". Then put your processing in the insert of the newly created Bus Channel.
No need to use up a send for this simple effect.

That's what I thought but I wondered if I had missed something to justify it earlier in the vid.

This is why I advise drawing out the logic first on paper as if it seems insane there, it probably is.

[Reasonable man]

Stuff forced me to rethink the whole send effect shabang and now unforunatley in reason i'm left with the realization that 'stem-wise' in reason .. master send effects are almost useless to whoever you send them to for mixing purposes or even for personal purposes if you wnat to go back and tweak effects in your original mix (of audio stems) .

If for eg. if i have a piano track or piano combi (with other keyboard sounds mixed in etc) and i want specific delay for that piano combi i have come up with this..

The first mixer channel is the dry signal and the second mixer channel is the echo with aux 1 turned all the way up. this way dry and wet can be mixed with more control. The echo return can also be put back into a mixer channel instead of the aux return and i can also use an eq device infront of or behing the echo etc.

The problem with this approach is that as it stands is pretty tiresome. If i now want the piano to have a specific reverb etc and i want this represented in the stems as in seperate piano & piano reverb stems ..i have to take a spider splitter to the original direct out (screenshot 2) and then send an output from this spider to a reverb combi specifiaclly designed for that piano track .

The plus side is that the oringinal bus level controls the level for all the level going to the send effect combies and i dont need to bounce the original track ..just the original track's bus plus the effect send combies for that bus will do. Everything is clearly labeled and ordered for a mix engineer or a soundtrack company or whovever this way imo. Can anybody see problems with this approach?

[Loque]

To me it sounds like the perfect use case for parallel channels.

And your wiring with the Direct Out has the drawback of no delay compensation.

[Benedict]

I must say I don't really get what you are trying to do or why.

It seems to me that all too often when I open other people's Mixes, they have tried to complexify rather than make more elegant. Complexity will =never deliver a better mix.

Go back to what you are really trying to achieve (think Story, not technicalities) and there is probably a far simpler way to do that.

Maybe even seeing if I would want to pick up one of your tracks for my Mix Walkthrough video series might help.

[Reasonable man]

To me it sounds like the perfect use case for parallel channels.

And your wiring with the Direct Out has the drawback of no delay compensation.

Ah see i would never have thought of delay compensation!

Parralell channels is indeed a better option i think . I think it was Selig who brought up the fact that parralell channels arn't post fader though to the original channel which is 100% correct and that means when having to make volume adjustment to the original channell...it woulld also involve more volume adjustments if extra parralell channels are involved to balance it out.
This method (the one i posted) ..solves that aspect but i never even thought about the delay compensation factor.
I'm still trying to find a sends workflow in Reason that provides nice organised stems when bouncing them out.
When it comes to maybe reverb (as an example) Ideally i would love to have a seperate reverb stems for drums, keyboards, pads, etc etc alongside each of the group channels. so as they're presntable and organised in any situation!
I'll go back to the parralel channels for now.
Thanks

[Reasonable man]

I must say I don't really get what you are trying to do or why.

It seems to me that all too often when I open other people's Mixes, they have tried to complexify rather than make more elegant. Complexity will =never deliver a better mix.

Go back to what you are really trying to achieve (think Story, not technicalities) and there is probably a far simpler way to do that.

Maybe even seeing if I would want to pick up one of your tracks for my Mix Walkthrough video series might help.

I dont know if your talking to me Benidict or the op. But thanks i understand your point exactly. Its more a workflow issue i'm trying to work on .
I can get a mix to sound decent ( i'm obviously still learning and practicing!) Its just i guess i'm still nailing down an overall worklflow that when i bounce into audio stems that said stems make immediate sense to other people as well as myself!

[Benedict]

I must say I don't really get what you are trying to do or why.

It seems to me that all too often when I open other people's Mixes, they have tried to complexify rather than make more elegant. Complexity will =never deliver a better mix.

Go back to what you are really trying to achieve (think Story, not technicalities) and there is probably a far simpler way to do that.

Maybe even seeing if I would want to pick up one of your tracks for my Mix Walkthrough video series might help.

I dont know if your talking to me Benidict or the op. But thanks i understand your point exactly. Its more a workflow issue i'm trying to work on .
I can get a mix to sound decent ( i'm obviously still learning and practicing!) Its just i guess i'm still nailing down an overall worklflow that when i bounce into audio stems that said stems make immediate sense to other people as well as myself!

Both really, but more you.

The offer is open to anyone who wants me to consider a track of theirs for my Mix Walkthrough series.

[mcatalao]

To me it sounds like the perfect use case for parallel channels.

And your wiring with the Direct Out has the drawback of no delay compensation.

Ah see i would never have thought of delay compensation!

Parralell channels is indeed a better option i think . I think it was Selig who brought up the fact that parralell channels arn't post fader though to the original channel which is 100% correct and that means when having to make volume adjustment to the original channell...it woulld also involve more volume adjustments if extra parralell channels are involved to balance it out.
This method (the one i posted) ..solves that aspect but i never even thought about the delay compensation factor.
I'm still trying to find a sends workflow in Reason that provides nice organised stems when bouncing them out.
When it comes to maybe reverb (as an example) Ideally i would love to have a seperate reverb stems for drums, keyboards, pads, etc etc alongside each of the group channels. so as they're presntable and organised in any situation!
I'll go back to the parralel channels for now.
Thanks

You can make the parallel post fader if you put it after a group. All routing is mantained at the Main mixer, so you wont have delay issues.

For example, you want to add a specific reverb for a drumkit, and you're out of sends (never happened to me because 4 or 5 are more than enough imho). You have a drum group with a bunch of inserts, and you not only automated various of the drum elements, and you also automated the group fader.

If you create a parallel over the first group, the parallel is pre-fader and pre inserts (related to that group). You lose the processing and you lose automation.
But, Group routing is post fader.

If you create a second group over the first group then the parallel, you will retain the drum automation, and first group's automation. And the post fader behaviour of the send is working.

With this "technique" you can create the submixes with parallel effects Andrew sheps does.

There are even more exquisite possibilities with groups of groups, parallels of groups and groups of parallels to create the effect of a true send in Reason (so you have a fader for the send knob, over the group). This without leaving the mixer, with no re-cabling.

TBH, i rarely use this. Paralels of groups of instruments are usually enough for my workflow and even those i don't use a lot. Usually the parallel can be fed by the bus, retains base channels's fader and you never have to think about it again. No need to over-complicate stuff... I thought of this last example as a little reason mixer puzzle. Shows how versatile reason mixer can be.

Also you can do this with 14:2 mixers and spider audio splitters. Maybe its a bit more tidy for the mixer but you trade a remote controlled mixer mess (that you can throw to the end of the mixer and color code it, program it and forget it) with a less controllable thing. It's doable and part of the beauty and versatility of reason is this completely free audio and CV routing that you have and allow you to surpass a lot of difficulties, that in other daws, would depend mostly of the developers to implement.

[selig]

To me it sounds like the perfect use case for parallel channels.

And your wiring with the Direct Out has the drawback of no delay compensation.

The OP's example shows the direct sound/channels muted, and several channels sent to the same destination. Parallel channels wouldn't be necessary for the former, and impossible to setup for the latter.

[selig]

Stuff forced me to rethink the whole send effect shabang and now unforunatley in reason i'm left with the realization that 'stem-wise' in reason .. master send effects are almost useless to whoever you send them to for mixing purposes or even for personal purposes if you wnat to go back and tweak effects in your original mix (of audio stems) .

If for eg. if i have a piano track or piano combi (with other keyboard sounds mixed in etc) and i want specific delay for that piano combi i have come up with this..

First - I would never send stems to be mixed, I would always send the original individual tracks. Second - always include important effects, such as a specific delay effect, on their own channel/track.
I have an old Tom Lord Alge PDF from years ago where he specifies the format to send tracks for mixing, and he mentions all these sorts of things. If you're direct guitar needs an amp sim, include it on a separate channel (or don't include the DI). If your vocal needs autotune, print it or send the un-tuned vocal on a separate channel. OTOH, if your vocal has reverb on your rough mix, no need to send it - just send the rough mix as a stereo file and make a note to reference it. Same for EQ and compression, don't include it but if there's something specific include it in the notes. All basic stuff, but obviously it had to be said because at some point someone didn't understand the format!

[Reasonable man]

Ah see i would never have thought of delay compensation!

Parralell channels is indeed a better option i think . I think it was Selig who brought up the fact that parralell channels arn't post fader though to the original channel which is 100% correct and that means when having to make volume adjustment to the original channell...it woulld also involve more volume adjustments if extra parralell channels are involved to balance it out.
This method (the one i posted) ..solves that aspect but i never even thought about the delay compensation factor.
I'm still trying to find a sends workflow in Reason that provides nice organised stems when bouncing them out.
When it comes to maybe reverb (as an example) Ideally i would love to have a seperate reverb stems for drums, keyboards, pads, etc etc alongside each of the group channels. so as they're presntable and organised in any situation!
I'll go back to the parralel channels for now.
Thanks

If you create a second group over the first group then the parallel, you will retain the drum automation, and first group's automation. And the post fader behaviour of the send is working.

With this "technique" you can create the submixes with parallel effects Andrew sheps does.

Ok Thank you Selig . I think that this is what i was missing to connect it all together.
I think this solves all the issues . It's what i needed to create tidy organised audio stems (for mastering or for general 'submission' purposes etc etc) as well . This sort of thing isn't going to be problem for most people.... but the presentation of work (be it music or any other artform') has been a massive thorn in my side over the years as what i have often tried to show people... in the past (strangers if you will)... has often got totally lost in translation! Its like when a writer or whatever submits work but is spacing is out ,columns lined incorrectly ,bilbliography missing vital info........... there are alot of people who simlpy wont read it on that bassis alone.

Anyway.
Bus the Bus to a new Bus....Create a parralel channel of the second (new) bus . Use the second bus as more or less a 'send level' to the parralel channel...use the first bus as an overall level control for all. I think this is right.
This way when bouncing out the channels you dont have to bounce the 2nd bus at all as it is more or less just used as send level for the parrallel channel .. (Reverb for eg).
Now you have a 'drum bus' and 'drum bus reverb' next to each other in the stem line up and this can be used for all the different intrument groups in the same way. Excellent.

[Busta US]

Wow, that's a complicated way (in the video) to achieve what is possible with a single command in Reason.
Just select the channels you want to include, then right click and select "Route to new output bus". Then put your processing in the insert of the newly created Bus Channel.
No need to use up a send for this simple effect.

Amazing! Thank you