Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    flying saucers/meditiation/yo/I can do that/get ready/for heavy duty
    come on give it a chance/I got a hole in my throat
    
    Okay. we start with each tape channel connected to its own mixer
    input. There is also one set mono send/stereo return connectors,
    with an Alesis MIDIverb hooked up. For example. Now each channel
    on the mixer obviously has its own main level control, along with
    stereo pan control and possibly some EQ. Each mixer channel also
    has an effects send volume control. The effect return is a mixer-
    wide volume control (not per channel). crap. this is bogging down
    already.
    
    So 2 instruments out of four need reverb, one, say, guitar, needing
    lots, and another, drums, needing little. The guitar channel's
    effects send is turned quite high, and the drum channel's send not 
    quite as high. These effects send volumes also vary according to where
    the channel's main volume is set.. if you wanted the drums to go
    away, having them bleed in via the reverb would be not good..
    
    The reverb is receiving a mono mix of the two signals, guitar and
    drums. It creates its own stereo ambience (discussed elsewhere)
    and its stereo outputs are connected to the stereo returns for the
    mixer. The overall mix of reverb to dry signal is controlled by
    the effects return volume. 

    did I stop making sense ???? - km�

    yes, er , maybe. My turn, my turn! To paraphrase:
    
    Each channel has a 'volume' control to (each) effects send output.
    So all the channels with their send volumes > 0  will get wet.
    (in differing amounts)
    
    "Returns" are different for different boards, but basically,
    Each 'return' has one (stereo, now) 'volume' control that mixes
    the wet signal (L and R) back into the mixer's outputs.

    Ok. Next 25 words-or-less description....
    

    Well, we've left out the matter of pre and post sends.
    
    len.
    

    re 'pre and post sends'
    
    .. it takes a Software Engineer with a >$10K setup to tackle the
    big jobs.
    
    km�

    I think the best way to understand what *can* happen in a mix is
    to get a flow chart of the I/O module of any mixdown board. Look
    where the signal can go, the rest is self explanatory.
    
    -Bj

    I have a few questions about FX processing and mixers. I am starting to
    delve into areas of mixing and effects that I have until now not paid much
    attention to. I hope I am using the correct terminology regarding
    mixer inputs and outputs, etc.

    I own a RAMSA WR8118 18 X 4 X 2 X 1 mixer. It has a MON/EFF L and R output,
    which I currently have going to my DEP-5 stereo ins. I have the stereo outs
    going to 2 of the 18 channel ins. These get mixed in with the other ins,
    and the amount of FX on a synth depends on how much I send to the FX
    L and R outputs.

    Anyway, I want to add another FX processor to the set up, so that I can
    have one dedicated to multiple FX, and the other to reverb. My plan is to
    mix directly to 2 tracks from sequences.

    The FX ins on the mixer are apparently mono (only one jack), so having the
    output from the DEP-5 going to 2 of the 18 channels instead allows me
    to use the stereo FX outs.

    There is a SEND output jack, which I assume is a mono mix of the L + R,
    and also a Cue SEND which I assume is the same thing.
    
    So it looks like the only stereo outs I have for effects are the MON/EFFECT
    output jacks. If I add another FX unit, it looks to me like I will have
    to send it a mono mix for input.

    More questions:

        Could I use the outputs from 2 of the 4 Group outs to go to a second
        FX unit? Will this create a feedback loop?

        Does it even matter if I feed the FX unit a stereo signal, as it will
        sum the signals together for processing anyway, and output its own
        stereo signal after processing - i. e. the incoming stereo signal is
        essentially combined into a mono mix anyway inside the FX unit, so
        why would it matter if it receives a mono-mix or stereo input?

        The Yamaha FX500, for example, only has a mono input - but is this
        really a drawback?

    I assume that any stereo effect coming from a synth is really only saved
    in it's dry signal path through the mixer.

    Thanks for any insight you can offer!

    Bill

    Re: .6
    
    I have a Yamaha SPX-50D, which is an earlier generation of the FX-500
    unit, and it works fine with a mono send.  I do pretty much what you
    do, use 2 channels for the return, since my board has a mono return.
    I return only the effected signal (i.e. 100% "wet") and the stereo
    image is quite wide.  I find that even with the send being mono, adding
    reverb actually widens the stereo soundstage.
    
    The "cue" send is not the same as the effects send.  "Cue" is for
    auditioning input channels separately without having to kill the other
    mixer channels.
    
    If you use the group outs, you will indeed get a feedback loop.
    
    							Brian

    Assumption - the eff/mon send is governed by level and pan controls,
    and each of the 18 input channels is mono.  A stereo source must
    then use *2* input channels, and to get full use of the stereo effect
    input, these two channels would have to have their eff/mon pans
    set at hard opposites.
    
    Since you're routing the stereo effect returns back into the board
    through 2 of the input channels, you don't need to take advantage
    of the effects unit's ability to preserve the stereo balance of
    the dry signal - you can do that directly from the dry input to
    the group busses.  The effect should probably be set up to return
    *no* dry signal, so you can control the balance at the input faders.
    If that's the only real "stereoness" of the effect, you're right,
    you don't really need a stereo send, because the way you've set
    things up you have an alternative way to accomplish the same thing,
    one that doesn't require a stereo send.
    
    You could use two of the group busses for a stereo effect send
    as long as you promise to use them for nothing else, and in particular
    to take care that you never route the returns from the effect to either
    of these busses.  Note that you're already living under a similar
    constraint; there's a possible feedback path from the effect returns
    through the input modules you dedicated to them through the eff/mon sends
    on those modules, back to the effect input.  So as long as the eff/mon
    level on those channels is shut down tight, you're golden.
    
    If you check the block diagram for the mixer, you'll see that the
    group busses and the eff/mon busses are pretty much treated the same
    way, except for the way selection (buss select switch and pan vs.
    pan alone) and level control (slider vs. tiny knob) are done. 
    
    But since it seems you don't really need stereo sends, why not just
    use the left/right sides of the eff/mon sends as two separate mono
    effects sends.  This is a little clumsy to control because of the
    interactions bewween the pan and level controls, but it is workable.
    You'll have to dedicate another input module or two to the return
    for the second effect.  If it's a mono effect, you can just use
    the eff return, unless you want to take advantage of the other
    capabilities the input modules give you (like EQ and routing to
    the group busses)
                                                       
    I hope this helps.
    
    len.