[ardour-users] Re: Effects and latency

Mark Knecht markknecht at gmail.com
Sun May 15 07:26:07 PDT 2005

On 5/15/05, Arnold Krille <arnold.krille at gmail.com> wrote:
> A feature request?
> On 5/14/05, Mark Knecht <markknecht at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/14/05, Joseph Dell'Orfano <fullgo at dellorfano.net> wrote:
> > 5) stop being stupid and record all tracks dry and add the effects later.
> > ...because this is the right way to do it. I think you'll find things
> > work better if you mix everything dry and, in general, add in a global
> > reverb at the end. You'll set up sends on all tracks needing reverb
> > and then set levels on the sends to get your wet/dry mix. Create a bus
> > in your mixer for the reverb return (whether it's a hardware or
> > software reverb) and then get you're overall reverb back into the mix.
> > IMO if you pretend Ardour is nothing but a big SSL hardware deck and
> > you do your setup just like you were sitting at that console you'll
> > most likely come out with some of your best results over time. Don't
> > get crazy - just go old school. It works.
> This would be easier (in my eyes) if one didn`t need to open an extra
> window for the send but had a small slider inside the
> plugin/sends-section. On the big mixers I work there is the effect
> send directly inside the chain of controls, not on an extra console /
> piece of hardware...
> Arnold

Well, my original comment was more about process than hardware or GUI
implementation, and I see you're point, but each environment has it's
limitations. In physical mixing desks the designers of the hardware
choose the send bus structure. The adantage is you have a slider or
knob to turn. The disadvantage is you get a fixed number of sends and
only a few buses. In Ardour's design we have the pain of opening a
sub-window but you get an unlimited number of  buses and they route to

It's a trade off, for sure, but for many I think a reasonable one.

- Mark

More information about the Ardour-Users mailing list