Old 12-04-2021, 07:40 AM   #1
Uncle Sixer
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 10
Default Duplicating a track vs using a send???

The way I see it, there are two ways to add parallel FX

1-duplicate the track, adjust the FX chain on 2nd track

2-make a new track with a receive from the other, add FX

Then, adjust parameters, levels, etc... maybe also group the two tracks together under a parent track.

My goal for parallel FX include using it for drum compression, bass saturation, vocal delay, reverb...

So for something like reverb that might be receiving from several sources (guitars, keys, percussion...) it makes sense to me to use sends

For bass saturation or other FX that might only go parallel to ONE track, what difference does it make if I duplicate and and add the FX to a duplicated track or send to a track with the FX on the send? With options like preFX sends, postFX sends, and postFader sends, that seems pretty versatile, depending on whether you want the send track to have a "master" fader or really control each track individually. On the other hand, I have also duplicated tracks, added FX to the duplicates, adjusted faders, then grouped the parallel tracks in a parent/folder track... which also seems pretty versatile

For a vocal echo/delay/throw, I have seen it done by duplicating the item (part of the item) you want delayed into a new track, then adding delay there. Using a send is trickier because it is time-based and you want the tails so you cannot just automate the receiving track. BUT I also have used a send to a track I call "Delay Send" which has nothing except volume automation added... then that track sends to "Vox Delay" (and not to master at all) So the Delay Send controls what the actual Delay track can "hear"...

Sorry, that is all very wordy... easier to just do it than describe it. If you read all that (THANK YOU) what are other pros/cons of the two approaches?

Is either approach going to eat CPU resources significantly more?

Is either approach going to invite more phase problems as a consequence (like if the Vox are sent to parallel comp, saturation, delay and reverb)?

Is either way just dumb because I am thinking about it the wrong way?

Thanks a bunch for any insight!
Uncle Sixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2021, 07:58 AM   #2
Gibson_GM
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 627
Default

It would seem that if you duplicate a track and add FX, then adjust its volume for 'wet/dry', you are also adding in additional level...the audio is ON that track as well as the source track. Couldn't this cause problems with your levels as you adjust, EQ and the like? Now, you may LIKE this effect, so it could well be 'the way to go' in some instance.

If you simply SEND to an FX track, the audio is actually only coming from 1 track, and not doubled. Additionally, you can use this parallel track for other audio (say in the case of reverb).

There certainly might be a use for your idea, sure. There are 1,000,000 ways to skin a cat
Gibson_GM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2021, 09:16 AM   #3
Uncle Sixer
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 10
Default

Yeah, a lot of FX have the wet/dry mix... I have used that, but after learning about using sends for parallel FX, I would always just set the 2nd track for wet only (for the receiving track or a duplicated track).

Yeah, lots of ways to skin a cat... on one hand, if it works, it works... on the other hand, I am still relatively new to all this and realizing the more I learn, the more I have left to learn
Uncle Sixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2021, 10:51 AM   #4
Gibson_GM
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Mar 2021
Posts: 627
Default

Don't we all?
Gibson_GM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2021, 12:43 PM   #5
ashcat_lt
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 7,272
Default

The kind of biggest difference is that you now have two (sets of) items to deal with. If you edit one after the duplication happens, youd usually have to edit the other one to match. Yes, you can group the items, but that’s not always as straightforward and frankly just an extra step.

Note that automating send level can accomplish the delay throw thing you’ve described while retaining tails. Yes that puts the automation on the sending (original, dry) track rather than on the receiving track, which in some situations might be less visually useful and/or less convenient in general, but it certainly does work just fine.
ashcat_lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2021, 07:29 PM   #6
Uncle Sixer
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashcat_lt View Post
The kind of biggest difference is that you now have two (sets of) items to deal with. If you edit one after the duplication happens, youd usually have to edit the other one to match. Yes, you can group the items, but that’s not always as straightforward and frankly just an extra step.

Note that automating send level can accomplish the delay throw thing you’ve described while retaining tails. Yes that puts the automation on the sending (original, dry) track rather than on the receiving track, which in some situations might be less visually useful and/or less convenient in general, but it certainly does work just fine.
OMG... putting automation on the send level... yes, once again reaper blows my mind a little... Is there anything that can't be automated? Maybe that is a dumb question...

And yeah, I was thinking that if I wanted to edit a duplicated track/item, that could get a little tedious depending on the edits and depending on my goals.
Uncle Sixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.