Wet Dry Mix Ch Compressor?

[Carl G.]

Bob,
I heard mention of Wet - Dry mix being added somewhere....

Sure would be nice on the Channel Compressor. It would add a convenient whole new realms of creativity (like the wonderful "floor" does to the channel gate)!

(and same wet-dry mix to Levelizer?)

[Cary B. Cornett]

I would LOVE to see both. What you are referring to, BTW, is technically called either parallel compression or upward compression. I use this a lot, although I have to do sneaky tricks with output channels to get it. What would be even more useful to me is a SAW native version of a VST plugin called Chainer.

I frequently set up a parallel path with an EQ feeding a comp/limiter. Just having a wet/dry control added to a compressor would not be enough for when I am adding the EQ, and it is a combination I more and more often use on vocals as a way to improve intelligibility without getting excessive sibilance.

The simplest thing that would give me the functionality I really want would be a sort of "shell" plugin that would itself have an FX insert that would work exactly the way the channel FX inserts to now, except that it would also sum, at unity, the dry input signal with the output from the FX that are inserted to it.

Is such a thing possible using the Native FX API, or would there have to be a change to SAW/SAC itself to do this?

[Dave Labrecque]

The simplest thing that would give me the functionality I really want would be a sort of "shell" plugin that would itself have an FX insert that would work exactly the way the channel FX inserts to now, except that it would also sum, at unity, the dry input signal with the output from the FX that are inserted to it.

Is such a thing possible using the Native FX API, or would there have to be a change to SAW/SAC itself to do this?

Bob's echo native plug does this. Seems like if you took out the echo algo and put in a patch point instead, that would do it.

Or you could just use an aux as the parallel path to the track, no? Or two output channels, one effected, one not. Maybe that's what you're doing now?

[Cary B. Cornett]

Bob's echo native plug does this. Seems like if you took out the echo algo and put in a patch point instead, that would do it. Well, that's my point: I don't know whether the code for the insert point could be used recursively.


Or you could just use an aux as the parallel path to the track, no? Or two output channels, one effected, one not. Maybe that's what you're doing now?
Something like that, yes. Thing is, it either limits the number of parallel processing chains I can implement, or eliminates some sub-group capabilities, or both, and this affects both SAW and SAC. Getting the plugin structure I wish for would open up a lot of possibilities for both programs.

[Dave Labrecque]

Well, that's my point: I don't know whether the code for the insert point could be used recursively.

I don't think that would be a problem. Of course, I have no idea what I'm talking about. :p

[Carl G.]

I would LOVE to see both. What you are referring to, BTW, is technically called either parallel compression or upward compression. I use this a lot, although I have to do sneaky tricks with output channels to get it. What would be even more useful to me is a SAW native version of a VST plugin called Chainer.

I frequently set up a parallel path with an EQ feeding a comp/limiter. Just having a wet/dry control added to a compressor would not be enough for when I am adding the EQ, and it is a combination I more and more often use on vocals as a way to improve intelligibility without getting excessive sibilance.

The simplest thing that would give me the functionality I really want would be a sort of "shell" plugin that would itself have an FX insert that would work exactly the way the channel FX inserts to now, except that it would also sum, at unity, the dry input signal with the output from the FX that are inserted to it.

Is such a thing possible using the Native FX API, or would there have to be a change to SAW/SAC itself to do this?
Cary, I think there might be problems doing it universally with the FX patch simply because we often combine latency and no latency plugins in the same channel chain. Wet/Dry mixing a combination of those may produce obvious undesirable affects. But done within each plugin... would seem to be a safer procedure.

[Cary B. Cornett]

Cary, I think there might be problems doing it universally with the FX patch simply because we often combine latency and no latency plugins in the same channel chain. Wet/Dry mixing a combination of those may produce obvious undesirable affects. But done within each plugin... would seem to be a safer procedure. Yes, parallel processing involving latency-causing plugins would require an equal delay to be applied on the "dry" side. I would like to have the option of such a delay available, but I could still do a lot even without it, since I often use plugins without latency. Then again, I do like being able to use Levelizer's limiter for these things, so yeah, the inclusion of "dry delay" would be desirable.

So, a little more complex, but it could still be done, and for some few of us it would be well worth it. If I was a programmer myself, I would be looking into the idea, if only for my own use.

[Arnie]

I use parallel compression fairly often, so +1 from me!