Logic (5.3 onward) and Reason both allow chaining of sends and complex signal routing of the returns. Cubase still doesn't as far as I know - hence the need to jump through so many hoops to get a chained send style effect. In my opinion it's appalling that you can't use chained sends without having to use two identical instruments and tracks - or sampling down and doubling up. This really should have been addressed in SX!



Man U don't even get a simple side chain 4 the comp/limiter :( Also somethin similar 2 Freeze track would b nice... Does it work well in Logic??





I may replace the EQ with the Waves standard... I found out that the Renaissance set of plugins was developed as 'virtual vintage' kit, so there's probably far more processor headroom being taken up by it. I'll save that EQ for stuff that's more up-front.



right but it soundz sweet :) why not use that freeze track .. bastar* (jus kiddin m8 ;) )





I'm still getting a little mid-range ringing and a speckly top from this set up, so I often kill a little top end as well. This kinda removes the lushness and separates out the reverb from the rest of the sound... But it's good for adding a little atmosphere without losing clarity.



try BBE maximizer even without much of it (in fact better if almost untouched) .. it does a little linear freq. correction clears and softens yer mid-range .. I don't really know 4 sure why but I have a feeling this will help... let us know





Still trying to find that 'clean' sound. I'll give Timeworks a go.




I never really got much into timeworkz myself ... I guess I could get away with a Rverb by waves or somethin' by TC Works.. I think there is a new lexicon reverb plug in but I haven't tryed it







Surely that depends on which way round you put them in the insert chain?



I feel ya m8 but I was addressing SX, which means insert processors step first in the chain...
Hardware mixer u get pad cut - gain - direct out - insert - phase inverter - Eq/ sends (this depends a bit on the mixer)... this was the way I've seen most mixers but hey there is no absolute rule, I certainly know a lot of brands do they're own magic ...


Besides, on Cubase I could never find a way to 'catch' the return from your send before it goes to the output bus, so you're stuck with that sound.



Uhhmm U r right but I think U could spare a channel with the same sound send it 2 the efx send u want, have it in Pre-fade and in 100% wet mode as not 2 clash/ phase etc... with the original.. then send that 2 a group buss .. now just wack the group with what ever.. it's a messy work a round but should work me thinks :!: :?:




Say you wanted to put a phaser or something on it to add a little movement?


render 2 wave.. new track and do the trick above... damn' u've got my brain in knots mate... ehehhe Luv a tricky subject that makes ya thing



It's a little odd to use a send at 100% - seems to me you'd get no level displayed in the channel mixer. (Is this the case? I haven't tried it).



yes if u don't use anything from the original... (having the send in pre-fade)... but If u've used a eq. as an insert the sound sent 2 efx sound b eq'ed methinks...




It's definitely a good way to use one reverb for several different tracks though... Pity you can't do that with the EQs as well.



U'de send em 2 a group and eq ' em .. maybe even as an insert then a verb if u feel the need for that ... if the verb is 100% wet yer verb level will act as yer "mixing" level as well




I've often wondered what the actual difference is between EQing before or after a reverb... Is there a difference in the frequency distribution, or would the difference simply be in the number and type of phasing/flanging artifacts from the reverb process?



It should b different as all freq interact, moreover on a verb.. still it will probably b very subtil...

Z