I see the entire problem.
You're routing is a bit off.
Try this.
1. Create your Connection audio track.
2. Create your radio FX audio track.
3. On your Connections track, interact with sends A/F.
4. On Send A, VO+Space on the top up, and go down to new track. Be
careful here. Not the track sub menu. It's below that. It will literally
say "New Track". This will force ProTools to create the AUX track for
you, with all routing set correctly.
5. Now, go to your Radio FX track. We're almost going to do the same
thing here, but not quite. You now have already set an AUX track, so
interact again with sends A/F, only this time, again, now, we're on the
radio FX track, not the connectionstrack.
6. On Send A of the Radio FX track, go into the popup for send A. This
time, instead of going to new track, go to the tracks sub menu, then
find the AUX track you created in the previous steps. Now, things should
be routed.
7. Now, go rename the AUX track to something more recognizable: "Group FX"
8. Finally, go to the AUX track, and interact with inserts, not sends,
but inserts, A-F. On insert A, instantiate your reverb. We're doing this
on the AUX track, not your two audio tracks. Beware.
There. Now play it back. You should definitely hear the reverb, if you
did this correctly.
On another note for the list entirely, given that he's naming that 3rd
track, "Group FX" it sounds like he's just trying to group both the
audio tracks into one, so he can instantiate reverb across both at the
same time. I could be wrong, so Danny, let us know if I'm incorrect on
this theory.
If that is the case, would it not be easier for him to create an
edit/mix group, then assign both of those audio tracks to that group,
then just apply the reverb to the group? The only thing I could think
that may not work for that method is the fact, if he does it as an
edit/mix group, wouldn't that mean he'd destructively have to print the
verb directly to the track with something like audiosuite? If so, then,
yeah, definitely not probably what he's looking for. I just thought
however I'd mention.
Chris.
On 11/02/2019 01:14 AM, Dammie Onafeko wrote:
Hi guys:
I did what yo'll told me to do and I can't still hear the reverb. This
is what I have:
a track Connection, another called Radio Effect, and the Aux called Group Verb.
I routed sends oA of Connections and Radio Effect to Group Verb.
Then I go into sends A of Group Verb, VO space on it to open the menu,
and went down to bus 3, 4.
I did same thing for Connections and Radio Effect.
While in the sends menu, I went to the level fader and took it to -15
I don't how to control the dryness and wetness.
When I play the audio back, I couldn't hear the reverb effect. What am
I still doing wrong? Somebody help!
Best,
Dammie
On 11/1/19, TheOreoMonster <[email protected]> wrote:
When you use a send, you ae sending a copy of the audio signal So in essence
you are creating a wet/dry blend. This is useful for things like reverb and
delays or other time based effects. When you put the reverb or delay on the
aux track, you will want to set it to be 100% wet. Then the send level will
act as the wet dry balance. Since the original audio track’s output is still
going to the master fader, and the AUX’s output is also going to the master
fader, the send level will set how much of that dry signal” gets pushed into
the reverb and as a result how much reverb’ed signal shows up in the master
fader.
Chaning the output of the track to the AUX or bus, means you are sending all
the tracks signal to a bus and not a duplicate of it as you would be if you
use a send. A useful example for this use case is lets say you have 5 vocal
tracks. You can set the output of those 5 tracks to a AUX or bus, and now
you can just EQ and compress all your vocals and use that AUX/Bus fader as a
master fader for the vocals. But since the AUX/bus is still being sent to
the master fader you still get the vocals in the mix.
On Nov 1, 2019, at 4:53 PM, Christopher Gilland <[email protected]>
wrote:
So, what is the difference in using a send on an audio track, sending to
an AUX track, then letting PT do the routing, vs. setting your output IO
of an audio track to a bus, then going to an AUX track, and setting the
input to that same bus, and leaving, on the AUX track, your output IO set
to your main out L/R?
IN other words, what I'm asking is, what's the difference in doing this
with a send, vs doing it via your IO paths without a send involved?
I've seen it done both ways. I know there is a key major difference, and a
reason why you'd do the ladder, but I just can't seem to grasp why?
Chris.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Pro Tools Accessibility" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ptaccess/4f5216dd-0016-a2c2-501e-33750b22bcb4%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Pro Tools Accessibility" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ptaccess/4B1161A7-A4A8-4DC8-9C1A-2894D82AF1AA%40gmail.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Pro Tools
Accessibility" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ptaccess/7acabda4-e8ef-7620-6a40-205726360904%40gmail.com.
