right now I don’t have any suggestions on implementation (or a clue if it’s possible for that matter), but:
a send track that applies to “everything but” -> you would place the device on the tracks that don’t get routed through the send…
I imagine this might be intuitive - a “receive tracks” panel in the DSP chain for a send channel:
Every track appears in the list, even those without a send metadevice.
Tracks with a send device that is ACTIVE is ticked.
Tracks with a send device that is INACTIVE appear identical to those without a send device at all.
If you tick a “sendless” track, a send-device for this send channel is added to the end of its chain.
If you tick a track, this turns on the send device in the given track.
If you untick a track, this turns off the exists send device in the given track (doesn’t erase it).
If you add a new track, all send channels with “Send new tracks to here” ticked will add their own send-device to the DSP chain of said new track.
Minimisable DSP’s would reduce any “Send Device”-imposed clutter. Or, you could use the Mixer view.
I like the checkboxes, but otherwise I’m confused by both our posts haha. An attempt to make it more clear:
Some kind of supersend tracks that allow you to specificy the tracks (& send tracks) they don’t apply to. I had the idea when I wanted to make a low pass filter sweep on everything but the hi-hats… adding send tracks to everything but the hi-hats wasn’t a big problem, but still it seemed less than ideal 
Isn’t that a function of the send track? You can send multiple tracks to it and apply an effect to all of them, right?
Could be wrong… I’m new here.
Yes, but when you have 20 tracks and want to apply an effect to everything BUT one track, you need to add 19 send devices. Doesn’t happen often (maybe doesn’t warrant a feature), but when it happens it sucks 
Why do you need 19 send devices? I can send two tracks to one send channel. Send 19 tracks to one send track, apply the effect on the one send track.
Or is there something I’m overlooking?
how do you send a track to a send track? by adding a send device… 
19 tracks to one send track = 19 send devices
Right, I got ya. I’m still used to MadTracker where you just have a mixer window and tell it to route a track to a higher track.
Situation could also be easened if drag-copying/moving devices or multiple devices at once would be possible. Easy to do with shortcuts tho, but majority of people don’t bother to learn and set them up I think. In addition more ways is more possibilities and flexibility.
But the receive device is a good idea! Maybe a button after a track name too where you could jump straight to the device editing panel, just like clicking on jump-to-automation buttons work but between tracks.
Another good idea. This can also be annoying when you want to silence EVERYTHING but one track. You have to apply gainers to everything or send them all to one send track to silence them. Either way, you’re applying a dozen or more devices that don’t REALLY need to be there which is cluttering and confusing. The first image would be a pretty decent application of the OP’s idea.
Why not to use automation in volume/pan track device and copy-paste it to every track?
uhm… so you don’t have to automate all those devices (and when you edit them a bit, paste the automation curves too ALL tracks except the one you want to exclude…)
Using automation/pattern commands is still easier than adding a gainer to every track. One can also use noteoffs when appropriate. Big deal? Don’t think so.
The anti-send device sucks, I would use it in very rare cases if at all, and no one have made any assumptions on how it would work in practice, where the receive device is great, and would solve the need for anyone posting in this thread. Let’s say you would place device to every track that don’t get sent. Sent to which send channel? Which send channel would be the one to have all tracks sent into except the ones where anti-send device is? Device for that too? So we would gave two new devices, send send track converter to anti-send track and anti-send sender which would send a track to send-track converted to anti-send track with anti-send track converter?
Too much hassle for me. I’m not bashing the original poster, thanks for bringing this discussion on boards. and btw:
Would this be solved with applying effect to the master track and sending a track wanted to be excluded to a send track which in turn would be routed to physical output instead of master track?
…just a thought
e:This way you can also silence everything but one track.
e2: with addable mastering device one could this way have multiple master tracks which could then be treated like busses and if then we had option to render each track with mastering device as separate .wav file we would have even more ways to post-process renoise songs which in turn could help some people and rise more interest towards this program.
far out?
sorry for the offtopic 
I didn’t read much of this, about to go to bed… sleeeepy
But isn’t this actually “Grouping” which is wished for quite a few times!? Try search the forum, maybe grouping is what you look for?
Yes and no.
My offtopic suggestion could be considered grouping but in production terms it’s more like bussing. Grouping in these forums has been suggested mainly meaning ability to put some tracks in a group and then minimizing/maximizing the group to save space. Of course if independent routing options for those groups would be included it would essentially be the same as what I wrote there with ability to group the tracks and shrink/expand them if every track group had separate output bus-track. So what I wrote was not about track grouping but internal bussing which is separate thing and would make an addition to functionality of track groups if those groups would introduce ability to send one group to specified bus rather than routing every track separately.
The implementation would simply be that when mastering device is added to send track it becomes a subgroup, or sub-bus, whatever suits you best. Of course there could be mistakenly placed mastering devices, so those should be removable as well, except from the master-bus.
e:of course one could just go to master track and push ctrl+t to have a new bus or to bring flexibility maybe ability to right-click and convert send tracks. But i don’t see the point really, except backwards compatibility so one that have been using send tracks as busses could easily adapt.
In the end one could always achieve almost similar behavior by using send tracks as busses, but those don’t have mastering device which brings a bit of functionality to the track and separate bus-tracks would also bring some clarification especially for the n00bs. I don’t know how rendering is related to master track, but having clearly marked and separated busses would also make it easy to render different busses to files.
But as always, just a thought…
Maybe I shall open a thread about this if someone sees this idea is fruitful to discuss and have such attention. Let’s get back on topic then, shall we?
e: some language problems found [fixed]
yes johann i really agree you!! and it s often really hard to see where each track is sent (when you reopen an old song), you have to watch every send device!
But that means that you can’t choose the send chain (1- to S2 keep source 2- to S1 keep source 3- to S3 mute source)