Returning an effect to an input channel

[IraSeigel]

This has probably been covered before. And I'm SURE it's in the manual (:rolleyes:):

I'd like to be able to EQ a reverb return. Instead of patching in an EQ to a return channel, which I think would add a little to the CPU load, I'd like to return the reverb to an input channel and use the EQ there. What is the proper way to patch that?

(I'm sending to the reverb via an Aux send.)

Thanks,
Ira

[Yogi]

Only choice you really have to do that is a hard wire from an output channel to the input channel. I'd bite the bullet on the VERY small CPU load and just patch in an EQ. Bob's EQ and the reaeq-standalone from the reaper project are very low loads.

[Wink0r]

If you are using an external eq I believe that you could use the hardware send/return on the aux channel by assigning hardware outs and ins instead of virtual.

[IraSeigel]

If you are using an external eq I believe that you could use the hardware send/return on the aux channel by assigning hardware outs and ins instead of virtual.

Sorry, no hardware involved. This is completely ITB.

The reverb is the Sonitus FX reverb plug-in. The EQ would be either SAC's built-in (preferred), or the RML (Bob's) plug-in.

[Bud Johnson]

Ira, I'm sure someone will correct if I'm wrong, but the RML plug in is the channel EQ, with a wrapper so you can patch it elsewhere. As such patching it to a return and enabling it on an input produce almost exactly the same load. I know this is so for the levelizer.

[Yogi]

Although this might be a good place to do an ASIO router (exposing inputs and outputs as devices).

[Trackzilla]

Ya...you can't do that currently ;)

Remember the engine processes things in a serial manner...so the stuff going out an aux is at the same point in the processing timeline as the stuff going out the faders of a channel, the stuff coming back in from an aux is the next step...can't go back in time & return it to a channel strip as those have already happened.

At least that's the simplified version of how I understand it

+1 on the CPU hit from an additional native EQ being inconsequential...patch several in a chain & see how many you have to add to see a change in CPU usage as proof. If the additional load of one or two is a problem for your rig, then it's a symptom, not a problem ;)

[DominicPerry]

Just patch the Studio Graphic EQ in the pre or post FX slot of the Return channel which has the Reverb in, making sure it's after the verb.
Low CPU, no problem.

Dominic

[Phil]

route audio with the levelizer send bus. it might take some creativity.

[ffarrell]

Each band of the channel eq adds but patching on it's own does not add. So until you move the +/- of a freq no hit to the CPU.

It is less CPU to use 1 band wide then 2 bands narrow.

fvf




Ya...you can't do that currently ;)

Remember the engine processes things in a serial manner...so the stuff going out an aux is at the same point in the processing timeline as the stuff going out the faders of a channel, the stuff coming back in from an aux is the next step...can't go back in time & return it to a channel strip as those have already happened.

At least that's the simplified version of how I understand it

+1 on the CPU hit from an additional native EQ being inconsequential...patch several in a chain & see how many you have to add to see a change in CPU usage as proof. If the additional load of one or two is a problem for your rig, then it's a symptom, not a problem ;)

[Bob L]

Just patch my eq plugin on the return chan... that is exactly the same algorithm as the chan eq... you gain nothing by attempting to go back to an input chan... patch it where it belongs... simple and straight forward... if you want to eq the return chan... patch my eq plugin there.

Bob L