Just checking .... proper place for vocal plugins ....

[sjs94704]

I have a vocal track that is being sent to a reverb track.
At the moment, I have an EQ and Compressor directly on the vocal track and a reverb plugin only on the reverb track.

I am just double checking, is this how it should be or should it be some other configuration?

[Lokasenna]

There's no "correct" way to do it, but that's a fairly common approach. Just make sure that the reverb plugin is set to 100% wet - with that setup, the vocal track's output is your "dry" signal, so you only want the reverb itself coming out of the reverb track.

[RobertP]

I tend to record two vocal tracks, pan left and right to taste, then put them in a folder track.

All FX go in the folder track unless there are specific things I want to do to one or the other vocal track - eg, I might Reatune one or both vocal tracks individually, or put FX on a split item in one or both vocal tracks.

I have to say, I am no Reaper expert, I am not sure how I arrived at doing it this way and my voice is shite and I have found this the best way (so far) to make the best of it

[poetnprophet]

Originally Posted by sjs94704

I have a vocal track that is being sent to a reverb track.
At the moment, I have an EQ and Compressor directly on the vocal track and a reverb plugin only on the reverb track.

I am just double checking, is this how it should be or should it be some other configuration?

I think the way you have it is fine. It depends on the content and context, but I like to have at least individual EQ on each track...especially when doubling vocals. Comp can be either, but depends on the sound you're going for and how big your project is vs CPU (meaning, if you have 50 tracks can your computer afford to have that many plugins?).

Reverb can be used as an overall send, just like you've already setup. This way you can send other parts of the song (music, backing vocals, etc) to the same reverb and give it all the same 'space'.

[serr]

Originally Posted by sjs94704

I have a vocal track that is being sent to a reverb track.
At the moment, I have an EQ and Compressor directly on the vocal track and a reverb plugin only on the reverb track.

I am just double checking, is this how it should be or should it be some other configuration?

This is a pretty standard way to do such a thing.

You have eq'd the vocal to a balance you want to hear as well as compressed the dynamics how you want to hear it. It often makes sense that THAT would be what you'd want to send to the reverb fx (the post fx vocal) and you've done just that.

If you had something where you wanted to send the pre fx sound to an fx bus like reverb instead... not sure of a good example right now. That would be the more odd case usually.

[sjs94704]

What was in my mind was that I was wondering if I should have my tracks this way:

Track 1. RAW vocal track (sent to track 2)
Track 2. Contains EQ and Compressor (sent to track 3)
Track 3. Contains REVERB

This way the RAW vocal track stays intact and can then I could start over if I want to totally scrub what I did with all three EQ, Compressor and REVERB and start all over.

Does anyone think this strategy is overkill?

[poetnprophet]

You can just insert the eq and compressor fx on track 1 with the raw vocals. You can still keep the raw vocal or edit/etc, remove/change the compressor, add anything to that same track, and still make a post fader send to the reverb, which will be track 2.

This way you have less tracks to sort through, especially on the TCP where you're probably only wanting to see audio items for editing and not empty tracks.

[serr]

Originally Posted by sjs94704

What was in my mind was that I was wondering if I should have my tracks this way:

Track 1. RAW vocal track (sent to track 2)
Track 2. Contains EQ and Compressor (sent to track 3)
Track 3. Contains REVERB

This way the RAW vocal track stays intact and can then I could start over if I want to totally scrub what I did with all three EQ, Compressor and REVERB and start all over.

Does anyone think this strategy is overkill?

This is actually one of my goto parallel processing workflows!
For example, if I decided a track needed more high end content vs the rest. Instead of boosting with an eq, I make a parallel duplicate track and use a high pass to isolate the range I thought was too low. Then mix between the untouched original and the 'boost' track. Note: Using linear phase eq and minding plugin PDC is critical critical critical for parallel processing work!
I also add compression into the mix for any 'layer' I decide needs it.

This is like working with layers. You keep the reference 'layer' static (the raw track) and work the addition to the sound. The pros is this gives you that static reference for mix elements when that makes sense to you. The cons are extra screwing around.

If this kind of 'layers' thinking workflow speaks to you, you can do a lot with it and keep your sanity with your 'reference layers'. It can feel like cheating! I would not recommend this approach for beginners though! Get basic eq and compression moves under control first. Dealing with phase issues or chasing PDC for parallel workflow could sink you if it got away from you.

[sjs94704]

OK, I'm glad my mind is on the right track.

I would like to further clarify the configuration of the sends from one track to the next.

Of the three tracks for the vocal being discussed here, which ones should be a MASTER send and which ones should NOT be?

[poetnprophet]

Originally Posted by sjs94704

OK, I'm glad my mind is on the right track.

I would like to further clarify the configuration of the sends from one track to the next.

Of the three tracks for the vocal being discussed here, which ones should be a MASTER send and which ones should NOT be?

If you've no other folders or busses AND you want to have parallel processing:

Track 1 RAW send to track 2, and master
Track 2 FX send to track 3, and master
Track 3 VERB to master

Now you have to decide how to blend the reverb for both the raw and for the FX tracks.

[sjs94704]

I think that the way humans communicate can be kind of unclear at times.

What I am interpreting you to say is that the RAW and FX tracks should have the MASTER send checkbox checked and the Reverb one is NOT. Is that right?

[serr]

You understand that the checkbox for 'master send' is functionally the same as if you made a send to the master right? It's just a shortcut of sorts with Reaper. If this were consistent, there would be no 'master send' checkbox and you would make a send to the master the same as making a send to another track.

For the parallel tracks thing you read about, you want all the parallel tracks going to your master.

I get the sense that you are more in beginner territory. My advice would be to get more comfortable with the basics with eq and compression with normal track routing on the board before getting too complex.

Try parallel tricks though and get the feel for it if you want. My analogy for working that way is like thinking of audio elements as layers (like the term is used in photoshop). Instead of just having individual tracks on the board for each instrument, you are additionally splitting a single instrument or vocal up into multiple elements (layers) to work with.

Now if that turns out to be more complex than what you were after, then maybe skip parallel stuff and stick with conventional routing for now.

[poetnprophet]

Originally Posted by sjs94704

I think that the way humans communicate can be kind of unclear at times.

What I am interpreting you to say is that the RAW and FX tracks should have the MASTER send checkbox checked and the Reverb one is NOT. Is that right?

All will have a master send in this scenario

Track 1 = raw vocal to master track AND send to FX AND send to reverb
Track 2 = fx send to master AND send to reverb
Track 3 = reverb to master (default master send should be checked already)

You will blend (to your taste) track 1 and track 2.
You will also blend the sends to track 3/reverb, to your taste

[sjs94704]

OK, I appreciate everyones help ........

My only goal as I stated in a previous post is to leave the RAW recording intact 'as recorded' so that if something I did got messed up I could simply start over, or, if I got another idea I could adjust as needed.

[poetnprophet]

Personally, I think its overkill how you have it now and may lead to confusion as you mix and if/when the project grows/changes.

track 1 = Raw vocal. Here you can add processing as you need to in the FX, such as EQ and compression. the raw waveform/media item is still intact, can be split, faded, modified, punch-in new takes, deleted etc. you can always edit/change the item. If you don't like your performance, re-record on the same track. If you don't like the EQ, change it, delete it, or make changes to the setting and retain the original raw vocal still.

track 2 = Reverb. Make a send from track 1 to the reverb track just like you have already done.

now you only have 2 tracks: your vocal with fx processing, and your reverb. two tracks to monitor and mix.

Parallel processing is more advanced (where you have 2 of the same track/signal with different processing and blend them together), I would suggest not to do that yet until you get the hang of the way tracks work, are familiar with how you sound/how you want to sound, and have better understanding of basic mixing techniques.

[sjs94704]

Thank You .......