you split the streams (wet/dry) before the (VST) effect and mix them both after the (VST) effect. durr. this actually has been discussed before, and considered anything but "nonsense". when I said "how send tracks work" I assumed a bit more imagination on your part.
So your way of using sends seems to be the only one.
I can use a send to route dry signals, wet signals, to mix dry of one and wet of another device, I can split frequency bands on a dry send and combine them with other bands of a wet send. I can use sends to double signals, to send a carrier, to send a modulator, to send a trigger and and and... Only some random examples. And nowhere is written a wet signal has to be joined with the origin send again. Which is btw. against the meaning of send effects in general, because they are normally used to separate signals, for example to share an FX device between several send-devices.
While I keep smiling about your limited routing horizon I hope you keep spliting your signal before you've send anything and keep on routing the only way you know.
I suggest a dry/wet interface for all fx, and you reply with "And for the VST a dry/wet plug in is just nonsense, because this would require a standard dry/wet interface". There is nothing to understand there. just
Yeah. I didn't really expect you would understand this, because you didn't get it after several tries to explain and it was already obvious you've got no clue about VST architecture. And I was right. While you laugh VSTs still have no dry/wet standard-switches. No matter how hard you try. So, how do you suppose Renoise to switch between dry/wet on VSTs? Renoise doesn't know and can't know, how to switch between dry/wet on VSTs. Do you get this? Or is it still too hard?
It's easy to play an idiot, if you're intelligent. The contrary is way harder.
Your pathetic LOL is mine, Mr. Wanna-Be-Expert.
Edited by BitArts, 28 June 2010 - 04:37.