PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

when i use stm 2448 and a reverb (or every other FX) in the bus, the aux send is treated as a mono source, and you loose all the informations regarding the instrument panning.
in the case of reverb, everything is considered in the middle of the sound scene, or at least this is my impression. so you have the reverb acting on different instruments all "in the center".

usually, i never payed a lot of attention to this, but now i'm trying to mix a sampled string trio (violin, viola, cello) and i find that the mono aux send is very limiting.

do you have any suggestions to solve this problem?
how can i setup a project and maintain the correct image field in the reverb?

i also though about loading three different masterverb pro reverb for each channel and using a different source image for each instrument... but this is really "advanced", and i'm looking for a simpler solution, if it exists... also to apply in other cases.

SpaceF & Wolf's new mixers all have stereo aux sends, so check them out.

Alternatively, If you don't want a new mixer you could try abusing stereo buses as sends, returning them into stereo channels which go straight to main mix. Doing that gives you the option to effect (EQ, gate etc) the returns as well.

Now You're Talking My Language,

I noticed this the first time I opened a project years ago and entered an external hardware reverb via SP/DIF I / O's.

It was my first ear test, and I knew the particular details of the ER's, and duffusion, panning, etc. of my selected preset. I was immediately in need of a custom mixer.

It was part of a larger stage rig then w/ stereo bi-amped stage monitors, and real Leslie's.

But I was already wanting a quality stereo rig, w/ smaller rotary effects, etc., as I was winding down my last gig under management.

If you really want a true stereo image, and rely on certain spaces for instruments, etc. You will even notice the stock Creamware effects to sound better also.

This may not be a big deal to many, but if you record in mono, and mix and master in stereo as I prefer, the final placement of distance and space is crucial to get the desired effect, and stereo AUX's IMHO are the basic building blocks and starting points.

Your idea of 3 different reverbs on 3 AUX's is sound also. If you need a good reverb and find this critical, check out warp69's for a DSP solution. We are all waiting for the Hall version from him, but just from talking w/ him I know he is the reverb King of DSP for us. If you need to become afflicted with hardware, the PCM91 while not cheap, is an incredible piece of kit, especially using the AES / EBU I / O's, they are just so precise in their calculations.

Quality Gear, w/ a Good Ear ='s Happy recordings.

DAS, SpaceF, and Wolf have designed some really excellent mixers, w/ more control than most hardware consoles. I even put the Scope Platform w/ one of these mixers on parr w/ a Gamble digitally controlled analog console.

Having one is never enough. The DSP needed to run 4 to 6 stereo AUX's is a little heavier than a stock 2448, but you will immediately hear the difference.

Of course I always dreamed of owning and mastering on a DCX, maybe sometime before Valhalla, and my Viking Funreal at Chimney Beach, Lake Tahoe.

<~Shroomz~> wrote:SpaceF & Wolf's new mixers all have stereo aux sends, so check them out.

Alternatively, If you don't want a new mixer you could try abusing stereo buses as sends, returning them into stereo channels which go straight to main mix. Doing that gives you the option to effect (EQ, gate etc) the returns as well.

i thought about this, but how could one control the amount of signal send using bus records? they are on/off only...

Is it the Send that is mono or the effect? i seem to remember a conversation a long time ago on the 'z' that MasterVerb mono'ed the input anyway - can't remember now. Don't know if it's true stereo or not - maybe MasterVerb Pro is.

Also couldn't you just use a second mixer? Just trying to think off the top of my head. Maybe send the string quartet to both mixers, set up the same mix then use the stereo out of the second mixer and send that to a reverb (set to wet only) and then the output of that into a stereo input on your master mixer and mix to taste. Not sure if you would introduce some delay that way though - plus it's not very tidy and i'm sure there are neater ways of doing it.

bosone wrote:i thought about this, but how could one control the amount of signal send using bus records? they are on/off only...

One option would be to set your reverb fully wet & if you don't have bus levels just control the overall send level with the reverb's input gain & the return level with the master fader of the stereo channel your abusing as a return.

Can one not use the monitor send return on the 2448 as a stereo send return although that would only allow for one stereo connection, the other sends are mono ?

i've never seen a reason for stereo auxes.
real boards rarely have them, they're not needed to place something in a stereo field and they're likely to make further phase problems....

I was thinking it would be quite simple to make a 3 - 6ch aux send panning device for using stereo effects with mono sends. It could even have mixing options, but I guess if you go that far there might already be an aux mixing solution. Spacef?

garyb wrote:i've never seen a reason for stereo auxes.
real boards rarely have them, they're not needed to place something in a stereo field and they're likely to make further phase problems....

most Scope reverbs are stereo, not mono>stereo. There's a difference between sending a mono signal into a mono>stereo specific reverb & sending it into both L & R sides of a stereo one (a difference sonically depending on the reverb).. In fact, 'sonically' doesn't do the potential difference any justice. You're talking about serious spacial differences in reverberation.

the masterverb pro itslef has a mono input (or so it seems to me...): if i move the input signal to left or right i can hardly hear any difference

so the problem doesnt really exists...


the approach i had to the problem is to use the source image and to use (for this particular case) 3 reverbs with the same settings but the "source" position in the source image field....

It's certainly true that mono send, stereo return is the traditional mixing pratice. The pan stages were post fader & the logical (and most common) send was of the mono pre or post fader variety. Stereo channels & sends alter these original concepts though... so check out Spacef & Wolf's new mixers with stereo sends... >>>

http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... 16&start=0

http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... 20&start=0

Just wanted to say that Spacef has done some realy nice things with his mixers. I have the FP104 & 106 and they are absolutely excellent. Stereo sends is just one of many fantastic features & they come in various versions. For example, if you want to save precious screen space, there's knob versions where the channel & master level faders are knobs, but there's also fader versions if you're into faders like me.

Hi,

If you think the reverb effect as a "space" or "room" simulator (it's actually what is a reverb), you don't need to feed it with stereo signal.

99% of hardware mixing desk use mono send (with summing on stereo input channel), the aux sending is "pre" pan (even when the aux is set post-fader)
take a look at this:

http://www.allen-heath.com/UK/dl.asp?file=320

you will see what I mean.
here, only the last aux is stereo on the stereo input channel (followed by a bal pot , so probably it's done more to feed two mono effect rather than a true stereo one

true stereo processing are very rare on reverb (but I never asked me how work the masterverb) , my lexicon as I remember propose only one stereo reverb preset that I never try:

PRESET 117
This preset supplies reverb while preserving stereo
imaging in a live stage setup. Stereo imaging is
preserved with time delay rather than conventional
left/right panning, so a proper channel mix is maintained
in both left and right speakers. To use this program,
observe the following:
• Use the MPX 200 in-line between mixer and house
amps, not as an effect that is mixed
....

- and the manual say that this preset have to be used as insert effect on the final mix, what I've understand is that this preset is adding different delay to right and left channel to give the impression of some stereo field .

but even here the reverb itself is a dual-mono processoring, then the delay is added after - in all other preset it's "dual mono" or "cascade", so that won't help to do left/right localisation.

that make me think that such a config can easily done with scope: two reverbs, two delay, feeded by two aux set external...slurrrrp!!

Rather, use stereo aux send to play with stereo delay, I imagine that some result would be realy interresting - humm, yes that could be nice to play here with the crossfade pot of the delay in real time... !

So, finally, keep in mind that reverb is more used as a powerfull tool to add some front/back localisation (play with the amount of send, more for source that you want to seat back in your mix, less for source you want to ear as if it was in front): the amount of direct sound compared to the amount of reflexions is more important when the source is close to you)

in other word: imagine a closed place with a lot of reflexion (the thing reverb emulate) : the more reflexions, the harder it is to localise the source...logic

I forgot:

you can use the Monitor aux send for your purpose....it's a stereo one.

Thats what I said

oups, i've missed your post ...

no worries

Sorry if I sounded abrupt. Actually my earlier post was more of a question to check if using the monitor aux was an acceptable way to do this. Which I guess it is then

Thanks

that sorta works. the monitor send is prefader, which is really not right for reverb since every time the fader is moved, the reverb mix for that channel will change. trverb most properly is on a post fader send, so that the reverb level remains constant for that channel regardless of fader changes.

Surely you mean that the other way around??