nowaysj wrote:Okay, I've been full time in flstudio the last 6 months, or more. And it is becoming ever more apparent that for me, sends is where my shit gets muddy, but that sends are an incredibly powerful tool. In the day, I'd have half or more of my sounds just going out to master, hehe, no mixer at all.
But now:
I have a sound. It goes to a mixer track, I process it, I send it out to three other audio tracks. Each of those I fx and process. Bring those three audio tracks into one audio track, that I fx and process, and then blend that track with the original track in a final track that represents that sound.
For starters. There are all kinds of other things that can come and plug in to or out of that signal chain.
Hmm, I've been doing some experiments and I have had no problems doing what you guys are describing. In fact there seem to be several ways including arming several audio tracks at once, duplicating tracks and then sending those to a buss or using an instrument rack. I'm using the one-to-many example here. The many-to-one is of course quite simple by selecting your tracks and hitting ctrl-g.SunkLo wrote: I'd just like to be able to route tracks between each other easily without having to resort to sends and reconfiguring my inputs and outputs when I decide I want a one-to-many or many-to-one relationship. The agnostic "track is a track" approach is just so intuitive and simple. There's no need to continue with the old hardware paradigm when you have the option for such flexibility in digital.
Yes, it is for all of the sends associated with that particular return track but I believe it can be overcome by choosing to route audio to sends only in the routing dialog box on the individual track, if I'm understanding what you wish to accomplish correctly. You could also duplicate your return (which I just found out that Ableton does not support by the way), so you would have to create another return track and load your fx set to the same settings with one set to pre-fader and one set to post-fader. But I think that there is probably a better solution to that.SunkLo wrote:Although wait, that looks like a universal setting, not a track by track basis?
Though perhaps one thing that can be learned from all of this is that certain techniques may be easier on different DAW's than others but I think it can all be achieved by thinking your signal path through a bit.