Way to bounce mix channels WITH sends/returns per channel?

[antic604]

I suspect the answer is NO, but I'll ask anyway

So we have this great option to bounce mixer channels, where we can select individual channels to export, including the return tracks and we can also decide if we want inserts or not:

bounce mixer channel.png (317.22 KiB) Viewed 1680 times

However, I don't think we can bounce each channel separately with its own processing via sends/returns, without tediously soloing the channel and bouncing the master, right? It's something that's available in Live, Studio One or Cubase.

For example, the picture above has NN-XT 2 track and Glocks track. Let's assume both go through FX1 which includes wet The Echo processing. By default, if I'd use this option I'll get "dry" NN-XT 2 and "dry" Glocks tracks and the 100% "wet" bounce of FX1 processing both above tracks together.

What I'm looking for instead, is NN-XT 2 + FX1 processing and Glocks + FX1 processing separately.

I understand that in some cases processing of 2+ tracks separately via sends/returns would NOT be equal to the processing of those 2+ tracks together (e.g. compressors, saturation/distortion), but I'd still want it

Any way to do it, other than solo track / bounce master loop?

[selig]

I'm pretty sure Reason can't do this automatically. Lucky for me I would never use this feature, but the world is a big place and somebody somewhere needs to do just this (not just you).

[antic604]

I'm pretty sure Reason can't do this automatically. Lucky for me I would never use this feature, but the world is a big place and somebody somewhere needs to do just this (not just you).

Yup. As I demonstrated, most DAWs have this. Obviously one has to use it consciously, because in most cases the sum won't sound the same as individual bounces.

Just checking. Thanks

[crimsonwarlock]

As I demonstrated, most DAWs have this.

I'm not sure that it is as you perceive this to be. I looked at your link for Live and that dialog doesn't say anywhere that it renders individual FX-returns for each channel. It just says you can include your FX-returns in the export. In Reason you have the same option, under master-section in the export dialog. In the Cubase documentation I also don't see what you describe. There is an option to include INSERT effects or not, again the same in Reason.

The simple fact that a send SHARES the effect over multiple tracks means that to render that effect separately for each track means you cannot render those tracks in parallel, so you need to render them one after the other. This would make the render time pretty long if you have many tracks that share an effect.

Also, there's a video floating around on YT where Tom Holkenborg (JunkieXL) explains, that for cinema all reverbs must be rendered separate for each track and because of that every track that needs reverb, has its own reverb track as well. He works exclusively in Cubase, and if Cubase had the functionality you describe, that setup wouldn't be needed.

[crimsonwarlock]

By the way, I stopped using inserts during my mixing-stage, instead I use parallel channels because that gives me much more control. This does in fact let you export the FX as separate tracks, because... they are separate tracks to begin with (and sends are not)

[mimidancer]

By the way, I stopped using inserts during my mixing-stage, instead I use parallel channels because that gives me much more control. This does in fact let you export the FX as separate tracks, because... they are separate tracks to begin with (and sends are not)

This

[PhillipOrdonez]

By the way, I stopped using inserts during my mixing-stage, instead I use parallel channels because that gives me much more control. This does in fact let you export the FX as separate tracks, because... they are separate tracks to begin with (and sends are not)

You meant sends, right? Right???

[selig]

By the way, I stopped using inserts during my mixing-stage, instead I use parallel channels because that gives me much more control. This does in fact let you export the FX as separate tracks, because... they are separate tracks to begin with (and sends are not)

The negative of using parallel channels is you are not always sending the same signal to the FX as you would when using inserts. This is because the parallel jacks are “pre everything”, and the inserts default to “post everything” (but also COULD be pre everything except gain/polarity).
So if you use channel dynamics or EQ/Filtering, you’re not sending that signal to your parallel FX, which is the #1 reason I never work this way in Reason. The #2 reason is twice the channels in the mixer, and Reason doesn’t have features like show/hide or spill to allow you to focus on only certain channels at a time (more important with bigger mixes, to be fair).

[crimsonwarlock]

By the way, I stopped using inserts during my mixing-stage, instead I use parallel channels because that gives me much more control. This does in fact let you export the FX as separate tracks, because... they are separate tracks to begin with (and sends are not)

You meant sends, right? Right???

Of course

[crimsonwarlock]

The negative of using parallel channels is you are not always sending the same signal to the FX as you would when using inserts.

For me, this is a positive It obviously has to do with how you approach mixing.

This is because the parallel jacks are “pre everything”, and the inserts default to “post everything” (but also COULD be pre everything except gain/polarity).
So if you use channel dynamics or EQ/Filtering, you’re not sending that signal to your parallel FX, which is the #1 reason I never work this way in Reason.

Setting up parallel channels and buses is soooo easy in Reason, that it is really easy to set up any FX-structure I need or want. You can run a bus into another bus, together with a parallel channel for that bus, etc. Running several tracks into a bus (e.g., all lead vocals) and then give that bus a parallel channel, then that channel is post what happens on the individual tracks that go into the bus.

The #2 reason is twice the channels in the mixer, and Reason doesn’t have features like show/hide or spill to allow you to focus on only certain channels at a time (more important with bigger mixes, to be fair).

See my previous point here, you don't have to give EVERY channel a parallel channel, combining parallel channels with different buses is uber powerful.

Maybe I should do a write-up on my mix-configuration

[crimsonwarlock]

Maybe I should do a write-up on my mix-configuration

Well, why not right away... I will keep it short. Here's the channel setup for the lead vocals of the song I'm currently mixing:

mixer-vocals-grouping.png (64.93 KiB) Viewed 1583 times

The Lead Verse and Lead Chorus on the right are the actual audio tracks. Any EQ and other coloring processing is done directly on these tracks (inserts). You can see they bus into the Lead Vocal Group. This group bus then has four parallel channels to add Plate, Hall, and Delay (all in place of sends) and the Scheps Vocals channel is a parallel trick to get some very controllable presence. All these run into the main Vocal Bus that gives me simple control of the resulting lead vocal tracks and effects. The Vocals Bus, in turn, has a parallel channel that sends to the RearBus.

This way, I have parallel processes at certain levels that go into a bus, where I can process the result of the combined parallel channels. All this is incredibly flexible and lets me build my mix from single channels to complete processed sub-mixes (in this case lead vocals). Not shown are the channels for the backing vocals, which have a similar setup and also run into the main Vocals Bus.

I do similar things for drums, chords, ARPs, solos, etc. And to keep it on topic, all these parallel tracks and (sub-)buses can be exported directly. By the way, most of this stuff is pre-setup in my mixing template.

[antic604]

As I demonstrated, most DAWs have this.

I'm not sure that it is as you perceive this to be. I looked at your link for Live and that dialog doesn't say anywhere that it renders individual FX-returns for each channel. It just says you can include your FX-returns in the export. In Reason you have the same option, under master-section in the export dialog. In the Cubase documentation I also don't see what you describe. There is an option to include INSERT effects or not, again the same in Reason.

The simple fact that a send SHARES the effect over multiple tracks means that to render that effect separately for each track means you cannot render those tracks in parallel, so you need to render them one after the other. This would make the render time pretty long if you have many tracks that share an effect.

Also, there's a video floating around on YT where Tom Holkenborg (JunkieXL) explains, that for cinema all reverbs must be rendered separate for each track and because of that every track that needs reverb, has its own reverb track as well. He works exclusively in Cubase, and if Cubase had the functionality you describe, that setup wouldn't be needed.

No, it Live, Studio One and Cubase you can bounce each track with its processing happening on FX tracks, even if that FX track is shared by multiple other tracks. It simply automates the sequential process of soloing each track and bouncing the master

I know. I have those DAWs and tested it.

[antic604]

By the way, I stopped using inserts during my mixing-stage, instead I use parallel channels because that gives me much more control. This does in fact let you export the FX as separate tracks, because... they are separate tracks to begin with (and sends are not)

You meant sends, right? Right???

Sends = raw signal sent for processing sent to FX
Returns = the processed signal, that's sent to Master (by default)

If you want to confirm that, patch Master Out in Reason to Control Room and then you'll be able to solo sends & returns separately.

There's no point in bouncing sends.

[PhillipOrdonez]

You meant sends, right? Right???

Sends = raw signal sent for processing sent to FX
Returns = the processed signal, that's sent to Master (by default)

If you want to confirm that, patch Master Out in Reason to Control Room and then you'll be able to solo sends & returns separately.

There's no point in bouncing sends.

If you read the quote, he said he had stopped using inserts and only using parallel channels instead. I just asked to confirm he mistakenly wrote inserts instead of sends (and returns, but we write sends instead of sends and returns cause that's too long and everyone knows what people mean when they write sends in there context of mixers and mixing etc.)

[crimsonwarlock]

It simply automates the sequential process of soloing each track and bouncing the master

I know. I have those DAWs and tested it.

I stand corrected on that point

However, with many tracks, that is going to take serious time. That probably explains why Tom Holkenborg doesn't use that, as his projects have several hundreds of tracks. Rendering those out one by one because of shared FX would take ages

Working with parallel tracks in Reason solves the problem, including the time issue, as parallel tracks don't add any rendering time to the project.

[cocoazenith]

What I'm looking for instead, is NN-XT 2 + FX1 processing and Glocks + FX1 processing separately.

THIS!

As a former Live user, I've been needing the feature in Reason for years now. It would be of tremendous help
to me for keeping things tidy when mixing stems. I just find it easier to mix with the Sends baked in each track.

[selig]

What I'm looking for instead, is NN-XT 2 + FX1 processing and Glocks + FX1 processing separately.

THIS!

As a former Live user, I've been needing the feature in Reason for years now. It would be of tremendous help
to me for keeping things tidy when mixing stems. I just find it easier to mix with the Sends baked in each track.

What is the workflow for if/when you want a different amount of FX or need to treat the FX differently?
If for example, you compress the voice you'll also be bringing up the reverb on the vocal stem. Any time I've tried to mix an instrument/vocal with reverb built in I last about 5 seconds before I request a clean track.

[tomusurp]

By the way, I stopped using inserts during my mixing-stage, instead I use parallel channels because that gives me much more control. This does in fact let you export the FX as separate tracks, because... they are separate tracks to begin with (and sends are not)

The negative of using parallel channels is you are not always sending the same signal to the FX as you would when using inserts. This is because the parallel jacks are “pre everything”, and the inserts default to “post everything” (but also COULD be pre everything except gain/polarity).
So if you use channel dynamics or EQ/Filtering, you’re not sending that signal to your parallel FX, which is the #1 reason I never work this way in Reason. The #2 reason is twice the channels in the mixer, and Reason doesn’t have features like show/hide or spill to allow you to focus on only certain channels at a time (more important with bigger mixes, to be fair).

FL Studio has a clever way of dealing with this with the "Fruity Send", basically you place it after whatever chain of inserts on a mixer channel and route it to the parallel mixer channel. But again these things are so minimal and won't alter the sound much especially if it's drowned in reverb or other effect

But as you said, I also don't like parallel channels, much prefer sends (which I use mainly for vocals anyway, sometimes on a percussion or synth bus). A lot easier and more organized, not to mention we can wrap sends in mixer channels, giving us even more customization and also use of SSL mixer on the sends. So if I'm not mistaken this method would export the sends? But I thought bouncing mixer channels always include the sends? Or maybe OP means bouncing sends on their own.

[selig]

The negative of using parallel channels is you are not always sending the same signal to the FX as you would when using inserts. This is because the parallel jacks are “pre everything”, and the inserts default to “post everything” (but also COULD be pre everything except gain/polarity).
So if you use channel dynamics or EQ/Filtering, you’re not sending that signal to your parallel FX, which is the #1 reason I never work this way in Reason. The #2 reason is twice the channels in the mixer, and Reason doesn’t have features like show/hide or spill to allow you to focus on only certain channels at a time (more important with bigger mixes, to be fair).

FL Studio has a clever way of dealing with this with the "Fruity Send", basically you place it after whatever chain of inserts on a mixer channel and route it to the parallel mixer channel. But again these things are so minimal and won't alter the sound much especially if it's drowned in reverb or other effect

But as you said, I also don't like parallel channels, much prefer sends (which I use mainly for vocals anyway, sometimes on a percussion or synth bus). A lot easier and more organized, not to mention we can wrap sends in mixer channels, giving us even more customization and also use of SSL mixer on the sends. So if I'm not mistaken this method would export the sends? But I thought bouncing mixer channels always include the sends? Or maybe OP means bouncing sends on their own.

Bounce Mixer Channels has three places to tap the signal: Pre everything (like the parallel tap), post all channel processing including inserts, and post everything including fader and pan.
When I export multi-tracks for mixing I use the first option, pre everything, because I'm adding all that stuff back in as a part of the mixing stage. IF I wanted the FX, it would either be on separate tracks or two versions of the original track (one with and another without FX).
With Bounce Mixer Channels there isn't an automatic way of including the sends that were used on each channel, as it is not "aware" of which sends were used on each channel. But you can easily include the sends no matter where they are connected to the mixer, by simply selecting either the built in Return or the Mix Channel return (which ever you used) along with the original channel. Tip: Whatever channels are selected on the Mixer will be the channels "checked" in the Bounce Mixer Channels dialog.

[crimsonwarlock]

When I export multi-tracks for mixing I use the first option, pre everything, because I'm adding all that stuff back in as a part of the mixing stage.

I'm still in the process of streamlining my tracking and mixing templates. I'm working towards a setup where I export from the tracking project with insert processing included (the second option), as those FX would/should (for me) be non-mixing FX, aimed at sound sculpting and arrangement optimization. I want to make a clear distinction between tracking FX and mixing FX, which should focus my workflow during these stages (hopefully).

Of course, I could put sculpting FX below an instrument, instead of the mixer insert point, but I like to use the insert-bypass button while trying out things.

[tomusurp]

FL Studio has a clever way of dealing with this with the "Fruity Send", basically you place it after whatever chain of inserts on a mixer channel and route it to the parallel mixer channel. But again these things are so minimal and won't alter the sound much especially if it's drowned in reverb or other effect

But as you said, I also don't like parallel channels, much prefer sends (which I use mainly for vocals anyway, sometimes on a percussion or synth bus). A lot easier and more organized, not to mention we can wrap sends in mixer channels, giving us even more customization and also use of SSL mixer on the sends. So if I'm not mistaken this method would export the sends? But I thought bouncing mixer channels always include the sends? Or maybe OP means bouncing sends on their own.

Bounce Mixer Channels has three places to tap the signal: Pre everything (like the parallel tap), post all channel processing including inserts, and post everything including fader and pan.
When I export multi-tracks for mixing I use the first option, pre everything, because I'm adding all that stuff back in as a part of the mixing stage. IF I wanted the FX, it would either be on separate tracks or two versions of the original track (one with and another without FX).
With Bounce Mixer Channels there isn't an automatic way of including the sends that were used on each channel, as it is not "aware" of which sends were used on each channel. But you can easily include the sends no matter where they are connected to the mixer, by simply selecting either the built in Return or the Mix Channel return (which ever you used) along with the original channel. Tip: Whatever channels are selected on the Mixer will be the channels "checked" in the Bounce Mixer Channels dialog.

ok now I'm confused, can you show a picture of what you mean in that last part of "built in return etc"

i always select the send FX in the bounce options, but yeah it exports the sends separetely, but when you line the stems back up, it sounds as it should so it's normal for me

but i see now the OP wants the sends to be included in whichever mixer channels have the send enabled. in that case, good question, although i've never sent stems like that, usually send FX on it's own but insert FX on a mixer channel I usually export as is

but as a user above stated, I guess they could make a parallel channel to act as the reverb or whatever, then group the dry and wet channels into a bus?

[antic604]

THIS!

As a former Live user, I've been needing the feature in Reason for years now. It would be of tremendous help
to me for keeping things tidy when mixing stems. I just find it easier to mix with the Sends baked in each track.

What is the workflow for if/when you want a different amount of FX or need to treat the FX differently?
If for example, you compress the voice you'll also be bringing up the reverb on the vocal stem. Any time I've tried to mix an instrument/vocal with reverb built in I last about 5 seconds before I request a clean track.

Current alternative is to have ALL reverb processing - vocals, synths, drums, etc. - in one file, so I don't see that it's better in any way

All approaches have trade offs. It's a matter of understanding them and being able to CHOOS the one you want/need. If there's only one available, there's no choosing

[mcatalao]

I'm pretty sure Reason can't do this automatically. Lucky for me I would never use this feature, but the world is a big place and somebody somewhere needs to do just this (not just you).

This use case really appals me too.
If you're exporting inserts and sends per channel that means you're exporting the mix you did in reason right? At least inserts and sends. If so, what is the reason (no pun) to export the returns, instead of just sticking to this mix?

Anyway, the way reason bounces mixer channels is tapping into the mixer points as it was a real mixer, i think you're quite right and at the moment this isn't feaseable.

[antic604]

If you're exporting inserts and sends per channel that means you're exporting the mix you did in reason right? At least inserts and sends. If so, what is the reason (no pun) to export the returns, instead of just sticking to this mix?

Because, after couple of days and "fresh ears", you might want to lower the volume of one track say by -6dB. You can easily do that with relevant stem, but if that track uses 1 or more send FX, then its "heightened" level is now backed-in in the FX stem, so suddenly e.g. the reverb will be much louder compared to "dry" signal. If you lower the volume of the FX stem you'll fix this, but at the same time change the relationship of dry vs. wet for all the other tracks using that FX.

Obviously, you can open the project, make the adjustments & bounce again, etc.

But if you only have the stems to work with, you can't do that anymore.

[selig]

All approaches have trade offs. It's a matter of understanding them and being able to CHOOS the one you want/need. If there's only one available, there's no choosing

Luckily all ARE available - some DAWs are quicker than others, but all options remain available. Not sure what limitation you may be referring to?
One approach has no trade offs, which is to use the original mix!
That is, IF it is available – but the same caveat applies to stems, or even multitracks (which are more likely to be available than stems w/FX etc).