I posted this question in the Nuendo 5 forum, because I’m mainly a Nuendo user. But I have copies of Cubase 6+5 too and I think this is equally relevant for Cubase users. So here is my problem:
There is one thing that puzzles me with Nuendo (and Cubase) when using a mono send/stereo return combination for external effects. I would expect the send routing panner to crossfade between the levels of L + R going into the mono send. Instead I always get a dry signal on one channels of the stereo return as if it would come back fro the external FX device. This is not the case - the device is fully set to ‘wet’. I have to pan hard to one side, e.g. to left, to get rid of this. Panning hardly to the opposite side, e.g. right, give no FX send but just a dry thru signal. the left + right levels are not mixed to mono and then send out to the external channel.
I cannot figure out what I’m doing wrong or what would be the culprit here. My Nuendo 5 machine is a MacPro HexaCore with a RME HDSPe MADI card. Any hints what goes wrong or how to circumvent this are highly appreciated.
after one reply I wrote:
Thank you for the answer but I think that is not the last word. In the N5 manual on page 206 about mono FX:
“To use the pan control as a crossfader, determining the balance between the stereo sides when the stereo send signal is mixed to mono, route a send from a stereo channel to a mono FX channel track.”
But that seems not the case when using a mono send/stereo return FX (external, dunno about similar plug in configs).
Why? For example I have some older EMT reverbs with just mono inputs. When I want to use my EMT 246 I need to send a mixed mono signal from my stereo tracks to it and get a stereo return from the EMT. The mono send should have at default a mono mix of the stereo channel. And from there it is up to the operator to decide via panning what weighting between L and R he wants to have for the mono send. But this is obviously not the case with N5, or I have missed something crucial. This is what I want to find out: is there a solution (simple and ergonomic), is this an oversight by me, is this bad design or not a bug, but a feature …?