Can we please have sends from output channels? Pretty please?
Why would we need them?
To send output signals somewhere else. It’ s a not so unknown concept in the audio world.
Well yes… I am sure there’s easy ways to accomplish the same without that.
Outputs are the final destination, there is nothing behind an output, nowhere to “send” it’s signal to.
That’s a pretty narrow view. Routing an output to ANOTHER output is one useful example. It’s been possible in a Nuendo for a long time…
You’ve got 4 cue sends if it helps.
Thanks Manike. What I use them for (in Nuendo) is sending my main mix bus to another output pair that feeds headphones for foldback. The beauty of using sends instead of cue mixes is that while in “asio direct monitor” mode, live inputs do NOT get “sent” via sends. This gives me a quick way to send a mix to headphones for overdubbing, but doesn’t interfere with the artists monitoring of their live inputs. For headphones, I have zero latency analog monitoring from the console inputs, so if I use Cue sends, instead of “sends” the artists get double monitoring etc.
I realize this is not likely the intention of the design of having sends on outputs in Nuendo, but it a very handy discovery.
I’m not sure what he means by “outputs” in the question.
You can assign a Group channel or FX channel to any Audio, Instrument or Rack Instrument’s output. You can assign group channels to other group channels.
What do you mean by “output channel” in the question?
By output channel, I mean output channel. “Stereo out 1” sending to “stereo out 2” for example.
Group out to Group out.
Ummmm. Yeah, thanks. I’m aware of that option. But then I first have to route All my tracks currently assigned to Stereo out to a group. And any new tracks that I add get default assigned to “stereo out” then I have to go find them and reassign to “fake stereo out group”. This becomes very cumbersome in 200 + track count projects built from scratch, not templates.
You cannot choose new tracks to have default output assignment to “groups”. Only to “outputs”.
With Q Link you can Link all the tracks, then, from the mix con. use the Racks to Route selected tracks to a Group. I’m not sure what you mean by “fake stereo out group.” There’s a final output and at some point you get to the last stop and everyone’s gotta get off the bus.
Anyway, I thought more about your post and what I think you’re asking for I’d call “a splitter” and such a function would be great. However, it would require the hardware to send the “copies” to whatever destinations they needed to go. An internal routing switcher in Cubase to send copies around would be boss. I can think of many instances when I’ve used splitters to send copies of my final outputs to other locations – isolated video recorders, production/comm feeds, IFB feeds, teleprompter operator feeds, simultaneous translation feeds, client viewing rooms, press feeds, etc.
Anyway, the idea is fine, I’d just call it a splitter and not an output send.
External Effects in the “Audio Connections” Box should do the trick.
Thanks Stephen57. It’s a feature that’s been in Nuendo since at least N4. Just wishing we had it on Cubase too…
No. Not that I can see. There’d be no return and the signal wouldn’t make it “through” the external fx insert if that’s what you’re suggesting.
Like I said it’s been in Nuendo forever. And is great for many obvious reasons, including simultaneously processing a stereo mix differently for different destinations. So it’s not just a splitter/router…
I’m pretty sure that you can use direct summing mode and use up to 8 additional destinations…let me know
Sure, I follow that about processing, but if we’re talking about ‘destinations’ then we’re saying the same thing. I’d still call it a split or copy and not a send (even if on a hardware mixing system we were using an Aux Send for sending the copy). Having it somehow, ITB would be good, but it would be an advanced hardware/software combination for a solution to a particular need. So, we’re back to the high end Nuendo, etc. level I guess.
Might Direct Routing and, perhaps, multiple passes let you arrive at the final Project versions you need? Does PT also permit that kind of output routing/splitting? If the competition has it, it might be something development would look at. Anyway, interesting concept. I’d put this into a feature request and see what kind of interest there is.
No matter what you call it, a splitt and a send are two different things.
But not for outputs.