Reverb ducking…compressor on FX return

[AndyParticipant]

How can I put a compressor behind the FX return for the use of vocal effects ducking? I have an SQ5 board.

[ioTonParticipant]

You can use an aux and insert the FX in the aux-bus. But then you have to use a matrix as main out, because auxes couldn’t be send to LR.
gg

[MarkPAmanParticipant]

Would routing the effects return through a group get you what you need?

[SteffenRParticipant]

simply use an input channel as return?

[AndyParticipant]

how do I set up using an input channel as a FX return?

[SteffenRParticipant]

Is this not possible on SQ? Could be dLive only… wasn’t thinking about that…

[AndyParticipant]

So…can you route the effects return to a channel?

[Andre SParticipant]

No, sadly you can´t. Input channels can “only” be sourced from Local, SLink, USB Port, I/O Port and the Signal Generator.

Cheers,
André

[nutsusaParticipant]

I also agree with the ability to route effects to channels.
That’s because there are times when you want to narrow the PAN width of the effect return or make it MONO.
You just need to be able to narrow the width of the PAN for the effect return.

[Mfk0815Participant]

These routing limitations (no routing of aux busses to main LR and no routing of FX returns to input channels) is really one of those hidden disadvantages not obviously mentioned in marketing documents. I am aware that A&H has some really special ideas of what to allow users and what not, no matter what is the standard in this market. I hope that A&H will rethink their strategies soon and add these routing possibilities to the SQ series.

[ioTonParticipant]

+1

but i can understand A&H – there must be a difference between dlive and SQ… sadly…

[AndyParticipant]

Yes please

[Andre SParticipant]

Well, there might be some limiting factors, that have nothing to do with marketing (or add to it)

1.) The SQ has a less capable XCVI core than the Avantis or DLive. That means it can´t process as many audiopath and the processing that comes with it.

2.) That core needs to be programmed. The more complex the algorithms, the more programmers (or more workhours) you need. I think that adds a lot to the costs.

But of course I would also love to see many more routing options, more busses, more matrices, more effects, a USB interface that records 48 outputs,…

Cheers,
André

[Mfk0815Participant]

Hmm, for routing aux busses to main, what is there the essential difference to subgroups? Especially how much more processing is required to send the aux master signal to main in opposite to sending the subgroup to main?
And how much extra processing is required to pass the fx return to a input channel?
I would say nothing or very less, because imho there is no extra signal processing required. It only differs in the signal source and signal sink.
I even do not think that there is a real problem with latency or phase coherence for sending aux masters to main.
Imho this limitations are by organisational design and not caused by technical limitations. A& H simply do not want to allow such routings.

[Andre SParticipant]

A& H simply do not want to allow such routings.

How do come to that assumption?

[Author]

Posts