FX Return Routing Options

[DaytonaRik]

Just a quick survey as to how most people route their FX returns?  I know that I can send them pretty much anywhere in Reaper so the how to isn't the question, the question is where do you direct your returns? Is there sonic difference?  Is there a practical reason why one option is preferential to the others?

 

[Dad3353]

If I'm muting, or changing a group, I wouldn't want the Fx of that group to be present. I mute vocals..? OK, no vocal reverbs in my ears. I raise the drums a little..? OK, their Fx come up a bit, too...

If I've any Global Fx, they would go to the main mix, generally.

Edited October 28, 2020 by Dad3353

[TwoTimesBass]

I normally go via dedicated faders/channels, one per effect though, which I guess is 'dedicated FX return buss' in your question. I usually try and group any FX return channels on the right/bottom of my mix setup which is an old-school hangover from analogue days when the stereo channels were generally on the right hand side of the desk

 

[TwoTimesBass]

1 minute ago, TwoTimesBass said:

I normally go via dedicated faders/channels, one per effect though, which I guess is 'dedicated FX return buss' in your question. I usually try and group any FX return channels on the right/bottom of my mix setup which is an old-school hangover from analogue days when the stereo channels were generally on the right hand side of the desk

 

I do use a lot of insert effects too though, even down to individual reverbs for certain instruments, which just sit in the individual channels routed to the mix...

[DaytonaRik]

16 hours ago, TwoTimesBass said:

I normally go via dedicated faders/channels, one per effect though, which I guess is 'dedicated FX return buss' in your question. I usually try and group any FX return channels on the right/bottom of my mix setup which is an old-school hangover from analogue days when the stereo channels were generally on the right hand side of the desk

 

Sort of similar - I know some people who take their individual FX returns and send them to a single "FX Bus" and control the whole FX return gamut from a single fader.  I'm with @Dad3353 - I tend to direct the FX returns that are associated with a given group to that group mix bus otherwise you can end up with unmuted FX returns, or an FX level that sits in correctly in the mix after adjusting the bus level.

Edited October 29, 2020 by DaytonaRik

[TwoTimesBass]

12 hours ago, DaytonaRik said:

Sort of similar - I know some people who take their individual FX returns and send them to a single "FX Bus" and control the whole FX return gamut from a single fader.  I'm with @Dad3353 - I tend to direct the FX returns that are associated with a given group to that group mix bus otherwise you can end up with unmuted FX returns, or an FX level that sits in correctly in the mix after adjusting the bus level.

Yeah, the great thing about DAW's and plugins is that you have the option to set things up as you please. There aren't any rules and you aren't limited in the same way we once were with only one reverb unit on an aux to do everything! I've become joyfully slapdash in the way my sessions are set up these days now that processing power and track counts are less of a limitation.

Horses for courses I guess... Using your situation above, if I had a reverb set up for (as an example) multitracked harmony BV's then I'd do the same and include the FX return as part of the 'BV' mix group.

[paul_5]

Back when I worked on analogue kit with outboard kit I’d bring the FX return back to a spare channel on the desk - reason being  was that I could eq the reverb (for example) to suit the song, also gave options for panning effects.

These days I group the effects in with the source material (brass tracks with brass reverb etc), as it’s just easier to mute or solo the group and not have to find where the extra returns are.

Edited October 30, 2020 by paul_5