Nopes and they never will be:
Sends were possible in 3.0 during the alpha stage, I had a stereo inverter made using sends and two send tracks but stumbled upon the fact that the actual send-channels and send-devices could not be stored with the Doofer its setup and it would require relinking the send-device every time i would load the doofer template.
Also other special opportunities would loose links when the templates would be reloaded. This cannot not be solved without confusing procedures/routines, whether the links were kept broken or involved tracks, their positions and DSP effects would be stored along with them as well.
Development cut the discussion short on this idea and has decided that doofers should be fully self-sufficient black boxes without controlling any external stuff.
So the send-devices are actively blocked from insertion.
Hm, wouldn’t it be better, if you could link to a send device target beside the doofer knobs, so the doofer (with a send device inside) would show the knob and also the target that needs to be set after loading? If you load a device chain, you also have to fix various targets… I don’t see the problem here. Just my two cents.
The purpose of the doofer and its templates are to work out of the box without the annoyances that you exactly have with the DSP chains.
The DSP rack has a special scope that should not be stuffed into a doofer device of which you initially cannot even see what it does unless you expand it to figure it out.
If it was possible to use a send and receiver device within a doofer it wouldn’t have to control something external. Let’s say i put a send device inside a doofer, then if it only can send to receiver devices within the doofer it would work like intended.
I currently converting lots of old cubase projects 1. From cubase windows to cubase Mac (6.5) and 2. From cubase Mac to Renoise Mac
Well, I have to rebuild the whole fx structure then in Renoise… I am I importing using midi files (any better way to do this?). But I did notice that Renoise is structured a lot better and more precise. The awful cubase mixer, these annoying channel properties, the separation of midi and audio track. bah…
Only the sequencer overview is a lot more clear in cubase than in Renoise since they use visual blocks etc. and no excel table…
I understand that receiver devices would complicate the fx structure. But I don’t see a reason, why the send device isn’t allowed within instrument fx or inside a doofer. If you want a perfect consistent instrument/doofer for saving, then just don’t use a send device. But if you prefer multitrack instruments or complex routing devices, then it should be allowed to use send devices inside.
Only a status after loading that shows “2 send devices are not connected” or even just a dialog where you can directly do setup the send targets. If there was a simple dialog, everybody would get it, that in this instr/doofer some connections need to be setup.
You have senderella and similar fx plugins that are capable of doing this. Hell you can even cheat and use them to send to send-tracks anyway (if you add a senderella receiver in the send-track.) if you desperately really need to work “outside the box”.
The only downside about Senderella is that the plugin is 32-bit and thus doesn’t work bridged in the 64-bit edition, so for 64-bit you would need another plugin that allows sending and receiving audio channels that are 64-bit (any good proposals?).
Perhaps using such send-plugins in instruments effect chains, you might even be able to achieve more boldly creativity (sending effect chains to designated tracks in Renoise as currently is not possible natively)
It is old plugin and not supported by Mac OS or Linux.
Btw. look at Tracktion. There is Send device and Reciever device. You can create and save a fx rack with Send and an info that there is a send that should be sent to to some reciever. This is enough. You do the rest if you want.
If Renoise would work this way (i dont say it is easy or even possible right now), it would be incredible and make paraller processing much eaiser.