How To Add A Send To Master Channel

Help, Support & Bugs Beginners Questions - Renoise
1

I want to split the master channel - in particular i want to add a delay, but add additional fx to the delayed signal. So the way i normally do this is to use a send track, but on the master i cannot do that.

the workaround is to send everything to a send track first, but that means sticking another send on every track. it seems like there should be an easier way.

thanks!

2

There should, but there isn’t yet.

3

Sends have anti-feedback “protection”… meaning renoise prevents sendtrack configurations that could result in feedback (and some that wouldn’t :( )… putting a send on the master would result in such feedback.

4

the idea would be to send the master channel, and route the send directly to the sound output, not back to master.

5

That pretty much defies the whole point of having master track in the first place.
I mean, the master is supposed to be the be-all-end-all track, the place where everything else is routed… so how can you logically expect send tracks to work there? It would just create an infinite feedback loop.

6

You can just use one send track as your “sub” master (by having all your other tracks being send to that one sendtrack) and add a sendtrack to that one, through that you can still route your complete signal to other outputs.
What is the point of asking for a sendtrack on the master when twisting your point of view a little different to get the same answer?

7

Not what you ask for, but one small ‘trick’ if you wanna bypass a few tracks from the master is to use Asio routing and that way send tracks directly to another Asio output.
Can be useful if you use a lot of master fx’s and just wanna bypass a few tracks from it.

What you really ask for is to have some sort of a send signal internally in each track. So you then have a signal/fx routingscheme inside each track. That is of course possible to implant, and would be very useful for quickly setting up multi-fx presets etc without dealing with external sendtracks.

8

I agree it’s odd to want to route the master. But in my scenario, sending the master is a workaround for not having more complex internal routing. In other words, we all agree that:

  1. certain effects can only be achieved by “branching” the signal - and many effects do this internally e.g. any effect that has a wet/dry mix
  2. where internal effects fall short, we can use send tracks to fake proper signal branching (e.g. putting different effects processing on a dry / wet signal of an effect)
  3. it’s appropriate to be able to add effects to the master track, or nobody would use the master effects chain

Thus, it’s not insane to ask that the master track be branched into sends.

For now I will use a “sub master” send.

I think ideally I would like more flexibility in internal routing - for example, letting effects have multiple outputs, and being able to connect them up similar to directshow’s graphedit. But that might be pushing complexity a bit, so I’m fine with the workaround for now.

thanks for the help / suggestions