maybe a longer shot than my other suggestions, but here’s a use-case:
i have a track I’m working on where I have a group for the drums (kick, couple of hat tracks, and clap/snare). the clap track, however, is sent to several send tracks in parallel, and it would be awesome if these sends could be routed to the group out, or if each group could have their own little “private” sends for their tracks. while I realize I could just route the group itself into a send where I do all the processing, it would be really cool to have some parallel processing facility within the groups themselves.
I’m not sure I understand.
What about using sub groups? Like, Group 1 contains both the clap and Group 2. Group 2, in Group 1, contains kick, couple of hat tracks… Up to 6 nested groups. Sprinkle with sends to taste.
This won’t cut it?
Groups inside groups will meet most needs (and I think they are awesome), but it isn’t as flexible as sends. Sends are fx buses, groups are… groups. I’d prefer not to start a bad habit of using groups mainly as fx buses.
EDIT: Never mind what I said. It’s probably flexible enough as you can always route a “group master” to a send. It’s probably mainly a GUI issue having sends in groups?
Also, having sends in groups would improve or help future track/group xml file import/export. I suppose this is a big step due to internal routing though.
the clap is processed independently of the other elements and is processed in parallel through several sends (i.e. “send (keep) → send (keep) → send (mute)”). you could theoretically do this by nesting a bunch of groups into each other and then treating each group as a separate parallel processing chain, but i can’t find a way to route a channel to several nested groups at the same time.
i.e. if i have:
(g1 (g2 (g3 (clap))) (kick) (hats))
kick → g1
hats → g1
clap → g3 → g2 → g1
how do i do:
kick → g1
hats → g1
clap → g3
clap → g2
clap → g1
?
The signal flows from the nested groups and upwards, until it reaches the topmost group. And you can route a nested to any regular output, or group above it.
So in your example, the groups g3 + g2 + g1 all have their own DSP chain, which are processed in that order.
But you can’t reverse the direction, and have a group include one of it’s subgroups, or sibling groups. Standard track DSPs and send devices function as normal.
There’s one approach that I think is worth mentioning here:
you can collect some drum sounds into a drum group, and then have a signal follower pick up the level much earlier in the signal flow (which means, more modulation targets are available).
its will be cool possible to drag send track to the left side (to the left of master track)
thnx
This gets a big +1 from me!
When doing parallel compression on your drums, routing the drum track back to the drum group instead of the master makes a lot of sense. Like this you can have a submix (including the parallel compression) of all the drums. And the drum group volume would then also level the whole mix, and thus bypass the additional problem of sends being pre post-volume!