How to choose send effects for a dub mix?

[Thousand Ways]

I'm working on a dub mix of a track. I've tried watching various YouChoob things about dub mixes and the relevant effects. Found this more confusing than helpful. I realize that there might not be a "standard" pad for which delays, reverbs, and so on "should" be used. But can anyone advise in general terms on this: if you're permitted a maximum of eight send effects in a Reason mixing desk, which eight patches would you choose if you were mixing dub, and which instruments would you assign them to?

I do not properly understand the differences between spring, plate, faux-tape, and other types of reverb and delay. Nor do I know whether there's a standard for dub in general, eg. "You need two springs of X type, one soandso-kind of plate …" and so on.

If anyone has suggestions for best dub-related patches for TheEcho, the RV7000 MkII, or anything else that comes with Reason, that would be especially helpful. Merci.

Also, is there any means of using more than eight send effects in one Reason track?

[Benedict]

The thing with Dub was that it was rather anarchic. The guys doing it were often making their own devices. So that takes the mindset of "should" right off the table.

I would not be using the Dubby thing on a send but per (relevant) sound in the mix. Again because most of those guys didn't have SSLs or Neves, maybe a Radio Shack mixer or something for a PA.

Mostly Dub relied a lot of Tape Echo so your insta-go to there would be The Echo which has features set up specifically for things you are talking about.
Forget presets as that is not how it was done. It was done from a balance of meddling and experience. presets will deprive you of both.

I see no reason to want more than eight Sends in a (sane) mix. You only have one room so having eight of them seems nuts to me.

[Thousand Ways]

Thanks a lot for this, and for the link.

I see no reason to want more than eight Sends in a (sane) mix. You only have one room so having eight of them seems nuts to me.

But doesn't that depend on the idea that you're trying to make all of the channels sound like they're in the same room? And presumably not all records – here I don't mean dub particularly – are like this. I vaguely remember Eno saying, about Ambient 4: On Land, that he didn't try to create "realistic" audio spaces for this, ie. that different channels could sound like they were in completely different rooms or landscapes.

[Thousand Ways]

There's also a very old, basic tutorial on dub send effects on YouTube, here:

This is with the old 16:2 Reason mixer, and using the DDL-1 Delay. It is not clear to me what role the PEQ-2 is performing in this video, as its settings are not used. I do not understand why the DDL-1 needs to be patched to the PEQ-2 and then to a mixer channel, instead of the DDL-1 going direct to a mixer channel. Maybe I'm missing something very obvious here.

[Benedict]

Thanks a lot for this, and for the link.

I see no reason to want more than eight Sends in a (sane) mix. You only have one room so having eight of them seems nuts to me.

But doesn't that depend on the idea that you're trying to make all of the channels sound like they're in the same room? And presumably not all records – here I don't mean dub particularly – are like this. I vaguely remember Eno saying, about Ambient 4: On Land, that he didn't try to create "realistic" audio spaces for this, ie. that different channels could sound like they were in completely different rooms or landscapes.

No worries. Listen to and read up on early Dub like King Tubby to understand. My Dub mix there is of the 80s variety which was a lot more controlled, esp once they had Fairlight/Synclavier.

What you raise is deffo an artistic choice and one Eno could/did back as "On Land" has some freaky vibes at times but is a fine record (altho generally less commonly talked about then his others in that era which may say something).

However seeing Send/Returns don't (by default) interact*, you have people sending to eg "The Room" on Send 1 as well as an echo on Send 2 which is not part of "The Room" so they then have nothing but trouble trying to make the song feel "as one" which leads to more and more warping weirdness (and I don't mean of the Eno variety). My thinking tho is that our job is to create a Scene (backdrop) for the Story of the Song to play out in, so why make it harder with Producery Shizz that only makes the creator feel clever (and the audience bemused or angry)?

*you can bring Returns back on SSL Channels - allowing you to send Return 2 to Send 1- BUT that adds a block or so of latency. Mostly as echo/reverb are late already so who cares.

[Thousand Ways]

No worries. Listen to and read up on early Dub like King Tubby to understand.

I'd just assumed that producers like him and Lee Perry were mainly using what would be the equivalent of multiple sends, rather than multiple insert effects, when they did their live mixing.

*you can bring Returns back on SSL Channels - allowing you to send Return 2 to Send 1- BUT that adds a block or so of latency.

I didn't know that; thanks. There are various YouChoob videos that advise using sends as their own mixer channels, but they don't mention the increase of latency.

[selig]

There's also a very old, basic tutorial on dub send effects on YouTube, here:

This is with the old 16:2 Reason mixer, and using the DDL-1 Delay. It is not clear to me what role the PEQ-2 is performing in this video, as its settings are not used. I do not understand why the DDL-1 needs to be patched to the PEQ-2 and then to a mixer channel, instead of the DDL-1 going direct to a mixer channel. Maybe I'm missing something very obvious here.

That’s how I used my old Mackie 1604 and Korg delays. By returning each delay in its own mixer channel you can send back to the delays for feedback. Panning each delay and cross feeding them in the mixer produced great results back then. If you use the mixer channels you don’t have to add the PEQ, commonly to pull back some high and low end so the mids feedback (with saturation to emulate the tape effect).

The best part about that setup is getting a two for one: as you push up the fader you not only increase the level of the delays in the mix but ALSO increase the feedback. By setting the sends for max effect when the fader is at unity, you can pull it down for normal part of the song, then throw some delays on something and push up the fader to unity and there’s your feedback amount (typically just under ‘runaway’ feedback so you can ‘hold’ a sound in the delays).

[Thousand Ways]

Thanks as ever for this.

If you use the mixer channels you don’t have to add the PEQ

In that video the PEQ doesn't seem to be doing anything at all, as the gain and other settings are all at zero. Or is there some other way that it is adding something, even with the settings like this?

The best part about that setup is getting a two for one: as you push up the fader you not only increase the level of the delays in the mix but ALSO increase the feedback.

Isn't this a drawback rather than an advantage? Instead of having two independent controls – dry/wet and feedback level – on the delay or reverb device, they're now chained together, so you can't move one without moving the other.

By setting the sends for max effect when the fader is at unity

By "at unity" do you mean so that it's peaking at -12dB?

[selig]

Thanks as ever for this.

If you use the mixer channels you don’t have to add the PEQ

In that video the PEQ doesn't seem to be doing anything at all, as the gain and other settings are all at zero. Or is there some other way that it is adding something, even with the settings like this?

I imagine the EQ was there in case they wanted to EQ the feedback loop, but didn’t show it in use in the video.

The best part about that setup is getting a two for one: as you push up the fader you not only increase the level of the delays in the mix but ALSO increase the feedback.

Isn't this a drawback rather than an advantage? Instead of having two independent controls – dry/wet and feedback level – on the delay or reverb device, they're now chained together, so you can't move one without moving the other.

Isn’t having a dry/wet control also then a drawback as well since it is two functions “chained together”?
If you don’t want them ‘chained together’ click on PRE fader sends, done! Remember, all post fader sends are “chained” with the fader level, so when you lower the fader you ALSO lower the send. There are many examples of WANTING to do two things with one control, from sends to dry/wet controls, even a pan control is doing two things at once!

By setting the sends for max effect when the fader is at unity

By "at unity" do you mean so that it's peaking at -12dB?

Unity is a position on a control, the point at which NO change happens. Conversely, -12dBFS is a specific measured audio level of an audio signal. They are two very separate and independent things.
In this example I use ‘unity’ as a target position for the fader, AKA “0dB” (which means “zero decibels change”). Most FX returns start at unity, and you adjust the initial send level to taste. IF you want the entire effect louder or softer, you can adjust the return fader level, no matter if it is built into the mixer or if you use channels as returns - same concept.
What I described is a specific workflow where you WANT the two functions (level and feedback) to be tied, so it saves time in this case. When you want to throw something into a long dub delay and keep it repeating, just push up the faders on the delay returns and bobs your uncle.

It’s just one way to work quickly and “play” the console since that’s a large part of what makes a dub mix, it’s certainly not the only way and I have no personal knowledge that any of the original dub masters used this technique. It’s just something I discovered years ago because my Mackie mixer couldn’t assign all sends to be pre fader. But I turned out liked the results this way, and it was great to see someone else embracing the same workflow.

Try it and see if it works for you or not, it’s just one option of thousands to consider adding to YOUR bag of tricks.

[ekss]

Usually traditional dub mixing make use of sends (rather than inserts on each device) and a large mixing console of various brands like Soundcraft, Mackie, Allan&Heath etc. Often the FX are routed to a channel instead of to the return, for additional processing and the possibility to send for example the return of a phaser to a delay, and then the delay to a reverb - or any combination you can come up with!
Note that if you're using sends the effect "should" 99% of the time be set to full wet, otherwise some of the original signal comes thru and if there is any form of latency in the effect device there will be unwanted phasing issues. And if you're sending to a delay, keep the feedback on the unit at 0 and use instead send it back to itself from the channel strip, then the send knob is your feedback control (feeding back the signal to the delay) here i'ts also essential to have it set to full wet - otherwise there will be horrible feedback screams.
Feel free to experiment and come up with you own special tricks!

Since I've done a bunch of dub specific Rack Extensions I'll list some of those with some info and also some options if you don't want to buy REs:

1012 HighPass Filter – King Tubbys "Big Knob" - a stepped high pass filter that can be placed in on a send, in a bus or parallel channel.
Any filter could be used! Simulate steps by drawing automation curves if you want to get those characteristic stepped sweeps.

TE TapeEcho - inspired by Roland RE501 and HH Slider Echo (made popular by Jah Shaka)
Reason native TheEcho is a good substitute – a decent tape echo is a must in dub!

DelayLine16 - a digital delay, here the good old DDL-1 Half rack is a simple and straight forward option.

A spring reverb is also a must – I made 3 of my favorite dub-spring-reverbs as REs based on IR samples:
· SpaceXpander - Fisher K10 spring reverb, used by King Tubby & Scientist
· Champion 636 Reverberation Unit - based on the classic Grampian
· FX3180 - based on a Fostex 3180 unit which has a really nice tone!

RV7000 has a spring reverb model that is pretty nice, set it to ~65cm, cut some bass and boost some mids!
For grittier sound try placing a Scream4 before and/or after the RV7000 to color the sound.

A phaser is also a must, I made the Janus 2X Phaser that is somewhat inspired by Mutron Bi-Phase (two phasers in one box) If i remember correctly I think it was used by Lee Scratch Perry and Mad Professor)

All in all - dub is a lot about effects and to experiment, with how you feed them to each other, and how you play the mixer like an instrument – by fading in and out instruments, and sending sudden burst of sounds to an effect. Put emphasis on the bass and drums, let the other sounds come and go more sporadically.
There might be some more popular devices and more common ways to route them - but there is absolutely no right or wrong - feel free to play around, test out ides and find interesting sounds by combining effects in new ways.

Ahhh..! a dub siren could be nice - mine is called Ekssbox MK3 and is inspired by the popular NJD siren, with a kind of "Synare" additional mode.
Sirens can be emulated with simple waveforms in a synth, like Thor - there is also samples to find free online that you could load in Redrum or NN19, NNXT etc.


Feel free to check out my REs here for some inspiration:
https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/brow ... l%20Sounds

[Thousand Ways]

Thanks very much, both, for the explanations and tips.

What I described is a specific workflow where you WANT the two functions (level and feedback) to be tied, so it saves time in this case. When you want to throw something into a long dub delay and keep it repeating, just push up the faders on the delay returns and bobs your uncle.

Thanks; will have a go at this. Am hoping that I’ll be able to set up, say, eight mixer channels for the send effects, and MIDI them to the faders on my Nektar Impact. Maybe then it’d be possible to “play” the mixer in the way you suggest.

Usually traditional dub mixing make use of sends (rather than inserts on each device) and a large mixing console …

This is what I’d thought, on the basis of seeing things about Lee Perry et al, which is why I originally asked whether there’s a means of adding more than 8 send effects to a Reason mixer.

Since I've done a bunch of dub specific Rack Extensions I'll list some of those with some info and also some options if you don't want to buy REs

Many thanks for the links and suggestions. Lordy, that is a lot of rack extensions.

A phaser is also a must, I made the Janus 2X Phaser that is somewhat inspired by Mutron Bi-Phase (two phasers in one box) If i remember correctly I think it was used by Lee Scratch Perry and Mad Professor)

I actually have a real Electro Harmonix Small Stone phase pedal, which I’ve barely used. I’m going to try to find a way to patch this into Reason; perhaps it’s possible to record a performance using the pedal onto an additional sequencer track, then mute or delete the original “dry” sequencer track of the affected instrument.

[ekss]

This is what I’d thought, on the basis of seeing things about Lee Perry et al, which is why I originally asked whether there’s a means of adding more than 8 send effects to a Reason mixer.
...

I actually have a real Electro Harmonix Small Stone phase pedal, which I’ve barely used. I’m going to try to find a way to patch this into Reason; perhaps it’s possible to record a performance using the pedal onto an additional sequencer track, then mute or delete the original “dry” sequencer track of the affected instrument.

8 is more then most dub wizards back in the day had, you could have a setup of your "signature" effects on the 8 sends and replace any for specific projects, or if needed use inserts on specific instruments/tracks/channels.

If you're latency is low enough the Small Stone could also be used as a send, using the hardware interface patchbay-connections!
Otherwise recording a phased track is a nice idea!
While on the subject, there is a phaser in the SADIST Rack Extension heavily inspired by the Small Stone, in the fx-slot, named "Space Station Phase Shifter". Just some more shameless self-promotion

[Thousand Ways]

If you're latency is low enough the Small Stone could also be used as a send, using the hardware interface patchbay-connections!
Otherwise recording a phased track is a nice idea!

It's partly just a "Can I figure out how to connect this together? thing, and guilt for not having used the pedal much.

While on the subject, there is a phaser in the SADIST Rack Extension heavily inspired by the Small Stone, in the fx-slot, named "Space Station Phase Shifter". Just some more shameless self-promotion

Thanks. Entirely valid self-promotion, and I'm keeping that option in mind in case I can't get the Small Stone to talk to Reason.

[Thousand Ways]

There's also a very old, basic tutorial on dub send effects on YouTube, here:

That’s how I used my old Mackie 1604 and Korg delays. By returning each delay in its own mixer channel you can send back to the delays for feedback.

Can this only be done in the old 16:2 Mixer? I can't find a means of doing it via the Main Mixer.

[ekss]

That’s how I used my old Mackie 1604 and Korg delays. By returning each delay in its own mixer channel you can send back to the delays for feedback.

Can this only be done in the old 16:2 Mixer? I can't find a means of doing it via the Main Mixer.

Sure! Use any mixer, 16:2 or the main SSL style. Just route the signal back to a mix channel!

[dvdrtldg]

Can this only be done in the old 16:2 Mixer? I can't find a means of doing it via the Main Mixer.

Sure! Use any mixer, 16:2 or the main SSL style. Just route the signal back to a mix channel!

Speaking of dub mixing, is there any update for Dub Preamp on the horizon? I absolutely love the sound of this thing but really wish it had stereo in/out for the send FX

[Thousand Ways]

Can this only be done in the old 16:2 Mixer? I can't find a means of doing it via the Main Mixer.

Just route the signal back to a mix channel!

Do you mean as shown in this video? (NB: skip to 9:30 onwards.)

I did this, routed all of the sends in this manner, to their own channels, and still could not understand what the advantage was. So the increase/decrease of the effect being sent is now controlled by a fader on a separate channel instead of the knob on each channel's Send strip in the mixer. But how does that improve anything? Apologies for not being able to see something that is probably obvious to others. The advantages mentioned near the end of the video don't seem useful to me.

[ekss]

Sure! Use any mixer, 16:2 or the main SSL style. Just route the signal back to a mix channel!

Speaking of dub mixing, is there any update for Dub Preamp on the horizon? I absolutely love the sound of this thing but really wish it had stereo in/out for the send FX

Not in the close future, but probably sometime next year!
It was constructed that way since I had the belief that it was only allowed to have 8 ins/outs on REs built with GE – but it turned out that there is only the input that is limited to 8, so it is actually possible to fix!

[ekss]

Do you mean as shown in this video? (NB: skip to 9:30 onwards.)

I did this, routed all of the sends in this manner, to their own channels, and still could not understand what the advantage was.

Not really - he connects the send directly to a mix channel and then add the effect as an insert on that channel. My suggestion is to connect the send directly to the effect, then take the output of that effect and route it to a mix channel instead of a return. Not much of a difference in practice - but perhaps a bit more clear what is happening.
The advantage is that you can add additional processing to the effects in the insert slot of the mix channel, and apply eq/dynamis etc using the SSL channel strip. However the more important advantage is that you can use sends on that channel, and for example send the delay return channel to a reverb, send the reverb to a phaser or any combination. In other words, you can send effects to other effects!

So the increase/decrease of the effect being sent is now controlled by a fader on a separate channel instead of the knob on each channel's Send strip in the mixer. But how does that improve anything? Apologies for not being able to see something that is probably obvious to others. The advantages mentioned near the end of the video don't seem useful to me.

I would still use the send knob to dynamically control how much that is sent to the effect - in dub you actively "play" the mixer and sends, like momentary send some drums to the echo or reverb (record/automate the send knob). You can of course combine it by adjusting the return levels on the channel faders. And if you have a delay (full wet, no feedback) you can send it to itself, controlling the feedback by balancing the channel fader/send knob.
The improvement is a much more flexible way to process effects, and as i mentioned above, to send effects to other effects.

See this video about cross-feeding send effects:

Also check out the other videos in the Dubkasm Dub Tips-series, all good info!

The beauty of Reason being "hardware-metaphoric", that you can easily translate a lot of techniques from the hardware world. <3

[selig]

Just route the signal back to a mix channel!

Do you mean as shown in this video? (NB: skip to 9:30 onwards.)


I did this, routed all of the sends in this manner, to their own channels, and still could not understand what the advantage was. So the increase/decrease of the effect being sent is now controlled by a fader on a separate channel instead of the knob on each channel's Send strip in the mixer. But how does that improve anything? Apologies for not being able to see something that is probably obvious to others. The advantages mentioned near the end of the video don't seem useful to me.

First, need to clean up some of what was said in that video…
At 6:00 he describes a "pre fader send" as sending to the effect "pre speaker". OK, but EVERYTHING in a mixer is technically "pre speaker", so that definition is meaningless. It's simply tapping the signal BEFORE it hits the fader, nothing more nothing less.
Next up is a completely incorrect statement at around 7 min mark he says pan is ignored when using pre fader sends. The fact is BOTH pre and post sends are POST PAN, so pan DOES indeed affect both conditions. His "mistake" was not using a true stereo reverb for the comparison making it seem like the issue was caused by the PRE button and not the mono in/stereo out RV7000 patch.
At 12:56 (and once before) he refers to the "non standard routing detected" label in the combinator but neglects to note the LED that actually indicates non standard routing is NOT lit/active. There is no "non-standard routing" indicated on any devices in this video!!!

And I haven't even gotten to the 9:30 part… But first, you asked why use returns on faders instead of the knobs built into the mixer. Before that, remember that if you use one send for one instrument only, then the send knob and the return knob do essentially the same thing (assuming no non-linear FX in the chain). BUT if you had TWO channels both feeding one reverb, the sends control the individual levels and the return controls the overall level.
This is the same thing as channel faders vs master fader - if there's only one channel and no non-linear processing, you can adjust the level at the channel fader OR the master fader to the same end. BUT if you have TWO channels in the mixer, each fader controls the individual channel level and the master fader controls the entire signal. Make sense so far?

There are pros and cons to using Mix Channels in place of the built in Return Channels in the SSL Mixer. There are two primary cons to this approach, one is the automatic delay of 64 samples (one "batch" in Reason Talk) when using Mix Channels in a Send/Return loop. This means little if you use a delay or reverb on the send/return since you'll never notice 64 additional samples of delay. But if you instead put something like saturation or distortion on this channel, you'd hear the comb delay/filtering effect right away. The second issue has to do with soloing channels with FX Sends, which works when using the built in Return channels but does not work when using Mix Channels. A "real" SSL can work around this with its "solo isolate" feature so you'll hear all the FX associated with the sound when soloing. What does this mean? If you want to hear the channel soloed along with all it's FX, you will have to click on solo for each (or you could use a bus for all the returns so you only have to solo in one place).

The possible pros are up to you to decide if you use them. One reason to do this is because you can use physical faders to control return levels (not a common thing, honestly).

In the video they list three reasons:
1-Faster EQ/Compression
Technically true, but you can almost as easily just add the EQ/Compression in the rack, which would be less clicks overall since you don't have to create the mix channel in the first place and then reroute stuff etc.
I'd say this one is a wash.
2-send FX returns to other FX
This one is actually SUPER useful in some/many cases, at least to me. One use case for me is on vocals with reverb and delays, where the delays sound "dry" so I like to add a bit of the vocal reverb to the delays to make them blend in better.
3-I guess it's CV control of level and pan, which could also have been done on the build in Return Channels by adding REs but not as quickly.

He mentioned "one drawback" at the end, but it's not something that was possible using the built in Returns either, which is to solo just the return. You can use the Control Room Outs to do this, but I don't find it needed that often. If you need to do this, you just put the send into "PRE" mode and pull the fader down while soloing the return.

That said, he fails to note the other two drawbacks I mentioned earlier, the 64 sample delay and the inability to solo.

In the end I don't think it's "the right way" to use sends/returns, but it's good to know. FWIW, I still just use the built in returns 90% of the time, unless doing something like dub delays etc.

[Thousand Ways]

Really appreciate the replies above; thanks both. Admittedly much of it is beyond my amateur comprehension. Several of the ideas for connecting effects and mixers seem to derive from having a pre-DAW background and experience with real mixing desks, and I don't have any. Pre-Reason, I used a Fostex or other four-track tape recorder. These had no send effects, that I recall. Want delay on your guitar? Then hook your guitar up to a delay pedal, play that, and record the result using a mic in front of an amp. Change your mind and want the guitar with less or no delay? Then you’ll have to play the guitar part again. That was as complex as things got, bar basic overdubbing and bouncing down.

My suggestion is to connect the send directly to the effect, then take the output of that effect and route it to a mix channel instead of a return.

Sorry, I don’t follow, and don’t know where this connection takes place. I thought that the send was the effect, and not that the “send [effect]” and the “effect” were two distinct things.

If the process is: take cables from Audio Output on the back of, say, an RV7000 that’s being used as a send effect, and connect those cables to a mix channel, then isn’t this just what the Stock Music Musician video showed?

If the cable/s on the back of the effect being sent are not leading from “Audio Output” to “FX Return”, what are they patched to instead?

However the more important advantage is that you can use sends on that channel, and for example send the delay return channel to a reverb, send the reverb to a phaser or any combination. In other words, you can send effects to other effects!

But is this audibly different from having an instrument channel with, say, sends 1, 3, and 7 switched on, ie. three effects applied at once? Isn’t the result the same as that?

Thanks for the Dubkasm links. Watched most of these; the tape recorder one is especially interesting.

First, need to clean up some of what was said in that video…

Again, many thanks. I’m sure you’re completely right about the errors you identify in that video. The recurring issue – presumably for any non-expert seeking answers about DAW processes – is that if something isn’t covered in the manual (searching for this in the online version directs you to information about the 16:2 Mixer, but says nothing about how to do it with the Main Mixer) you have to search online. I’ve probably picked up bad habits and misapprehensions as a result, but so it goes.

(…) remember that if you use one send for one instrument only, then the send knob and the return knob do essentially the same thing (assuming no non-linear FX in the chain). BUT if you had TWO channels both feeding one reverb, the sends control the individual levels and the return controls the overall level.

Thanks; I didn't know this. If by the "send knob" you mean the green knobs that I've beautifully circled in this image, I've never touched these in any track I've ever made. I've just used the blue knobs (again, one is artistically circled).

[ekss]

Sorry, I don’t follow, and don’t know where this connection takes place. I thought that the send was the effect, and not that the “send [effect]” and the “effect” were two distinct things.

Hi!
Just a quick answer; with send I refer to the send output function, the jacks located on the hardware interface, controlled by the send knob. With 'send effect' I refer to the effect hooked up to the send jack. The guy in the video hooked up the send directly to a mix channel and then added the effect as an insert on the channel. I hook the send out jack directly to the effect, then effect out jack to a mix channel. It's not a big difference but I think it makes more sense.

.. is this audibly different from having an instrument channel with, say, sends 1, 3, and 7 switched on, ie. three effects applied at once? Isn’t the result the same as that?

Yes, it's audibly different and way more flexible!

I think I'll record a video next week, showing how I set up a basic traditional dub setup, it's probably easier than trying to explain in text.

[Thousand Ways]

I think I'll record a video next week, showing how I set up a basic traditional dub setup, it's probably easier than trying to explain in text.

That'd be amazing.

[ekss]

That'd be amazing.

I made a stream earlier today, in the beginning I show how I set up send returns -> mix channels. You can see it here:
https://www.youtube.com/live/9QS2cqMahy ... OKOL-SUCB7

[Thousand Ways]

I made a stream earlier today, in the beginning I show how I set up send returns -> mix channels.

Thanks so much for uploading this, and explaining the routing. I've used it on just one channel of the track I'm working on, but it's already making a difference.

So the routing is:

From FX Send port on Master Section
to Input port of first effect, then
from Output port of first effect
to Input port of second effect (and so on), then
from Output port of last effect in chain
to Input port of new Mix Channel, instead of going to FX Return port on Main Mixer

What a lief.