Routing FX back to Auxes

[jkasko]

On my analog desk and even in my DAW I usually like to send my FX returns back through my aux sends to other processors. For examples, I usually like to route my tap delay or other delays into the reverb send to add a touch more dimension to the delay and other FX. I don't see any aux sends on the FX returns in SAC. How would one do this?

[Brent Evans]

I also like to be able to further process my fx returns. I know I can stack plugs, but most of what I do is EQ, so having eq on the aux returns, or better yet, the ability to return to a channel would be nice.

[DominicPerry]

I also like to be able to further process my fx returns. I know I can stack plugs, but most of what I do is EQ, so having eq on the aux returns, or better yet, the ability to return to a channel would be nice.

Add the free RML 7 band EQ after the Reverb on the Aux. Does that work?

Dominic

[DominicPerry]

On my analog desk and even in my DAW I usually like to send my FX returns back through my aux sends to other processors. For examples, I usually like to route my tap delay or other delays into the reverb send to add a touch more dimension to the delay and other FX. I don't see any aux sends on the FX returns in SAC. How would one do this?

Can't see a way of doing this at the moment. Just trying to visualise a route.....:confused:

Dominic

[gdougherty]

On my analog desk and even in my DAW I usually like to send my FX returns back through my aux sends to other processors. For examples, I usually like to route my tap delay or other delays into the reverb send to add a touch more dimension to the delay and other FX. I don't see any aux sends on the FX returns in SAC. How would one do this?

Route delay to another output 1-8 channel and plug that back into an input. Route that input into the reverb. Either that, or patch another reverb plugin after the delay. At 1-3% CPU load for a reverb on my setup, I'd go with the added plugin myself. I'm usually running 2-3 reverbs and a single delay depending on instrumentation.

[Brent Evans]

Add the free RML 7 band EQ after the Reverb on the Aux. Does that work?



Dominic



It does, and i had already decided on that route, but it does have the host-only limit for now, as well as screen real estate, etc. Having it on the strip one way or another would just be a convenience feature, nothing more.

[dbarrow]

Route delay to another output 1-8 channel and plug that back into an input. Route that input into the reverb. Either that, or patch another reverb plugin after the delay. At 1-3% CPU load for a reverb on my setup, I'd go with the added plugin myself. I'm usually running 2-3 reverbs and a single delay depending on instrumentation.
I guess that is one of the best ways. It sure would be cool to have the Aux Sends avaialble on the Aux Returns or have some software way of patching the Aux Return back into a channel. I used to use croos processing on lots of show: patching the delay out to a reverb send, etc.

[jkasko]

There is a certain sound that happens when you are using a common reverb and bussing the FX into them. It really isn't the same a putting the reverb just after the delay in the plugin scheme. Also, I am using a UAD reverb and that takes some processing power so I don't want to add another one in the chain.

-Joe

[Bob L]

If you think thru and try to understand how things are processed in the mixing loop, you can quickly see why there are no aux sends on or after the returns.

Things have to be processed from left to right... inputs have to be processed, then mixed then passed on to the outputs...

In order for the returns to be processed and passed on, all aux sends have to be processed first, then they feed the returns, which then feed the outs.

By the time the returns are processed, the auxes have already been completed and there is no way to send a signal back to them from the returns, because the returns can not be processed until all the aux sends are done... see the problem?

So... to do so, would cause the return signal to be delayed one buffer, since the send data from the return chan can no longer be processed in this current loop... it has to be passed into the next loop... this, I believe would cause a nasty phasing and flanging problem... not one that would sound very good.

If you route the signal out and back into another input chan, you are delaying multiple buffers and perhaps will not destroy the signal too bad, but still the signal will no longer be in sync and could be causing phase and nulling problems in the overall mix.

Bob L

[Brent Evans]

A very very small price to pay for all the other versatility and power the software offers.

48 hours to go for me.... :D:D:D

[jkasko]

Thanks for the explanation Bob. I can see now why it wouldn't be possible.

-Joe

[RBIngraham]

I don't know if this will work in SAC or not. But it's free so it's worth at least checking it out.

http://www.kvraudio.com/get/1433.html

Maybe I'm missing something but if you are trying to send something back through the mixer just to add some reverb or more delay or any time based effect I would think... then a few more samples of delay introduced shouldn't hurt anything. Your reverb is going to add some delay to the signal already anyway. Or am I missing something in the logic here?

Still I personally would just add some more reverb plug-ins and be done with it and use SAC as it was intended. Or I would host the reverbs on a separate computer with a simple VST effects host and patch them into SAC digitally. But then I don't lug things around every day either, I set them up and leave them there for a month of two at a time. So one more computer isn't all that big of a deal, except once in a while when there are just too many shows all running at once. :)

Richard

[gdougherty]

If you think thru and try to understand how things are processed in the mixing loop, you can quickly see why there are no aux sends on or after the returns.

Things have to be processed from left to right... inputs have to be processed, then mixed then passed on to the outputs...

In order for the returns to be processed and passed on, all aux sends have to be processed first, then they feed the returns, which then feed the outs.

By the time the returns are processed, the auxes have already been completed and there is no way to send a signal back to them from the returns, because the returns can not be processed until all the aux sends are done... see the problem?

So... to do so, would cause the return signal to be delayed one buffer, since the send data from the return chan can no longer be processed in this current loop... it has to be passed into the next loop... this, I believe would cause a nasty phasing and flanging problem... not one that would sound very good.

If you route the signal out and back into another input chan, you are delaying multiple buffers and perhaps will not destroy the signal too bad, but still the signal will no longer be in sync and could be causing phase and nulling problems in the overall mix.

Bob L

Bob, you'd talked about being able to key gates and compression off groups, even though they'd be a buffer behind for the triggering. If the idea is to route a full wet delay signal back through a reverb I'd think the same non-issue logic would apply. Would it be possible to use similar logic in the two situations? Obviously this would be a caveat type situation where yes, you can rou
te returns to auxes, but be careful what you route and where it goes. Might be cool to allow traditional routing styles on returns since many boards allow aux routing off the stereo returns. Of course, they're often routing to auxes for monitors. At least that's what I always assumed they were for since I never had the priveledge of dedicated monitor boards and splitter snakes. Never thought about routing delay back into a reverb.

[gdougherty]

I don't know if this will work in SAC or not. But it's free so it's worth at least checking it out.

http://www.kvraudio.com/get/1433.html

Nope, it won't work since SAC doesn't support plugins that require the host to supply the GUI.

[Bob L]

Introducing delay in the low ms range (1 buffer of 64 samples) back into the mix will cause a very nasty flanging effect... not pretty.

So, unless I can figure a way around this issue, aux sends from the returns or output subs introduced back into the processing loop late, is not an option I am excited about. :)

Bob L

[gdougherty]

Introducing delay in the low ms range (1 buffer of 64 samples) back into the mix will cause a very nasty flanging effect... not pretty.

So, unless I can figure a way around this issue, aux sends from the returns or output subs introduced back into the processing loop late, is not an option I am excited about. :)

Bob L

I guess I was thinking that the original delay signal would not be routed to the outputs and instead you'd have only the reverb processed delay signal going to outputs. I may be misunderstanding how the OP routes delay through reverb though. If both the original dry and reverb signal get mixed together, then yeah, not worth it to completely modify the signal flow. Maybe if SAC processed a return at a time and could only pass to subsequent returns? ie, delay goes on R1 followed by the reverb on R2. I'm guessing you process those in parallel though so that wouldn't be realistic either without adding latency or more routing headaches.

[RBIngraham]

Bob, you'd talked about being able to key gates and compression off groups, even though they'd be a buffer behind for the triggering. If the idea is to route a full wet delay signal back through a reverb I'd think the same non-issue logic would apply. Would it be possible to use similar logic in the two situations? Obviously this would be a caveat type situation where yes, you can rou
te returns to auxes, but be careful what you route and where it goes. Might be cool to allow traditional routing styles on returns since many boards allow aux routing off the stereo returns. Of course, they're often routing to auxes for monitors. At least that's what I always assumed they were for since I never had the priveledge of dedicated monitor boards and splitter snakes. Never thought about routing delay back into a reverb.

On the Yamaha desks you can route one effect into another effect. So it's not only for monitor purposes. I think it's less of an issue with SAC since except in some circumstances (silly plug ins with limits on how many you can run at one time, or folks using UAD-1 cards or the like) you could just chain together all the effects you need in a stack and be done with it. And if that means you have 3 instances of the same reverb with the same settings then oh well.. who cares, unless you run out of CPU power of course. :p

But I do think you are correct. The main reason you see it on analog desks is because you might be doing monitors on that desk and you want effects in the monitors.

You actually have to watch it on a Yamaha M7 or LS9. Earlier this summer we accidentally set up a feedback loop in the console because we brought up a reverb that was being routed to the same Mix buss that was feeding it's input. It took off like crazy and soon the whole room was going crazy as all the live mics picked it up and made it get worse and worse... my op had to reach behind the desk and kill the power to the M7 until we figured out where we went wrong. LOL. So after experiencing that... maybe I'm glad this isn't possible in SAC! Not without a lot of missed mistakes anyway! LOL. :p

Richard