[Rwp] sendsand receives and routing fx things and stuff

[Scott Chesworth]

Hey Chris,

So far as I can tell, there's no difference between sends and receives
other than the terminology, IE the point of view or track you're
examining that routing from.

When it comes to folders vs manually setting up a track as a bus, I
use both approaches here. If I've got a huge group of backup vox
tracks that are similar enough that on a real board I'd assign them to
a group to EQ and compress all in one shot for instance, that'd be a
folder job, because why bother manually creating all those sends when
you can just drop them into a folder? But, say there's a reverb I'm
using to place some guitar stuff together in a given space, and I only
want to send specific guitar parts to it, I'd sooner use a track as a
bus and create sends to it than break up the organization and naming
of my track list, because it'd only take a minute to create those
sends and my usual ReaConsole commands will still work without me
needing to rethink what I've called stuff, what number tracks things
are etc.

Basically, I aim for the least amount of button pushing and thought
possible. It's part laziness, part belief that working on gut instinct
gets the good stuff. Mostly the former though lol.

Hth a bit

Scott

On 9/6/15, Chris Belle via RWP <rwp at bluegrasspals.com> wrote:
> I just did it with a delay, and worked beautifully, and was able to turn
> the send up and down from an edit box.
> on the sending tracks i/o.
>
> Now when I get a butt load of fx going on, and telling which is which,
> that might be the kicker, but I see lots of possibilities here, since we
> can string tracks together any way we like, we can have series or
> paralel processing going on.
>
> And since reaper so handily gives you a wet dry mix for every fx
> processor, and a by-pass, you could do combinations  of series and
> paralel processing.
> using one or several tracks as your bus returns.
>
> Since all tracks default to sending to the master bus by default,
> this is really functionally no different than having a bus in the master
> section right?
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9/6/2015 4:43 PM, Chris Belle via RWP wrote:
>> Hey guys?
>>
>> I know many of you handle fx via trackfolders and such, to have global
>> things going on but since we can make sends and assign them anywhere,
>> what is wrong with putting an effect on a track and then using it as a
>> bus and making sends to it?
>>
>> Wouldn't having descrete sends to everything allow you more control
>> than track folders?
>> Also, I'm curious, about the functional difference between sends and
>> receives as far as reaper goes,
>> I know they can accomplish some of the same things, because you can
>> make a send to anywhere and receives from anywhere,
>> so maybe there's not a ton of difference, I'll have to go back and
>> check but it seems i remember when I made sends, corresponding delete
>> buttons turned up on the tracks I made sends to that looked like
>> receives,
>> or maybe I dreamed it,
>> I've used the receives thing pretty often to quickly assign midi
>> receives for all tracks to a soft synth,
>> so malybe it's just the perspective of whether you're looking at
>> getting input from everything or sending out-put specifically to
>> everything or specific tracks and fxand such.
>>
>> I just wondered if there was any functional routing differences I
>> should know about,
>> like maybe you can adjust send levels or route them places receives
>> won't go or some such.
>>
>> I thought I saw edit boxes to adjust sends levels and such so using a
>> track as a return for your reverb or what ever would be maybe a good
>> way to go to globally use fx since if I have it right, it's hard for
>> us to deal with the bus area right now.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> RWP mailing list
>> RWP at bluegrasspals.com
>> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RWP mailing list
> RWP at bluegrasspals.com
> http://bluegrasspals.com/mailman/listinfo/rwp
>