Logically the routing flows from send tracks to the master track, as the final track. Unfortunately, Renoise routing seems to rely on the position of the track, the numeric index. Then the master should be placed right next to the send tracks.
Currently it is not possible to use a sidechain send device on a send track to target the master track. But it should be possible.
But all send tracks go to the master anyway. There’s no need to target the master.
Can you describe a use case that would need something that specifically references the master track?
For example you have a drum bus / send, and now what the drums to trigger a mastert compressor via sidechain. I guess there are various other scenarios…
You want to control a device on the master track from something on a send track?
Yes, I think its a design flaw in Renoise, in processing, send tracks must be processed before master anyway…. Would be cool, if that targeting by numerical index could be broken up. I understand that it was decided like this, because the amount of sends is flexible. but the availability can’t take the rae index simply, some mapping needs to be applied. I guess then the api doesnt break either.
You can only send signals from left to right.
Yes… which is not logical at all. Other daws have the master very right, too, and also in Renoise, the processing is: first sends, then master.
I assume you might run into a problem that by sidechaining a compressor on the master with something also being summed at the master either negates itself or has a sort of feedback-esque issue. You could send everything to a Send Track before it goes to the master, then sidechain that?
Send track is send track, master track is master track. Master track is the very last thing in a signal chain/signal flow. That’s why it’s called Master. The outputs of the sends go directly to the master. If you now try to sidechain a thing on the master by a send as trigger source, you quickly can run into feedback loops, which will definitely will sound awful, screechy and very loud. The feedback loop can be so loud, that they can damage/destroy your speakers/phones/ears.
This surely is wanted by the developers, and that’s a good thing. This always will prevent unwanted feedback loops when trying to do such things with the sends.
This is from the Renoise manual. Here you can see the signal flow of the sends.
And you see, the instruments go into the send, the sends go directly to the master as they should like in any other DAW.
And since the sends are directly routed to the master, it even wouldn’t matter if they are placed before or after the Master, because the signal flow/routing always will stay the same.
…or a group track…
This is a good approach. Put every single track in a master group, which would, I would think, effectively behave as the actual master track (absent the headroom setting). But sends by default go to the master track so they would have to be routed through that ersatz master group.
Something to play with.
Gsus…
Guys, I know how to circumvent this, simply using a group or whatever, but my points are:
It is not the end of the world, the current limitation, of course. In Bitwig, I can of course use a send as a sidechain source, and also the master track in the mixer view is on the very right, reflecting the internal signal flow logic, which is the same in Renoise.
But it seems to me that the numeric index only introduces a lot of problems. Maybe there could be an OO-style API v7.