A thought about Reaper and using effects while recording...

[FortyEight]

So my drummer has been using effects while recording and not post processing. Which is cool. And then I put some compression and reverb on a vocal track while recording to try it out.

Sounded good. But just a thought.... if the compression is sort of limiting highs and lows while recording, if you take the effect off after the fact, doesn't the track basically still have the same signature? I can't see how it would fall off and revert back to a non compressed signature...

I'm not very digitally smart... So I may be all wet. Same thing goes with the reverb I had on. I actually switched reverbs on that particular track. I sent it to the bus reverb. Sounded better. But I have no clue if the original reverb I had WHILE recording was still present.... it was not a ton of it......

Anyways.... just wanting to sort of wrap my head around that one and wonder if anyone else wondered this and such.... And if anyone knows what the heck I'm talking about and what the answer is.... LOL.

 

[NICQ]

You always want to record the signal dry without effects. Maybe a low cut EQ and limiter/compressor so you don't hit 0db (=digital distortion) but nothing else.

If you record a track with reverb in that channel directly and afterwards you want to remove it - you can't because it is in the recording.
If you send something to a bus while recording though that's ok because you are just sending part of the signal in parallel to that bus with reverb which then goes to the stereo sum so it can be heard but is not actually recorded - just added to the playback which is fine.

All the track specific effects get added after the recording when playing back so you can play around with them until you find a good balance for the final mixdown.
Normally you'd want to save the settings and not apply the effects to the tracks directly (=not render it replacing the dry track) so you can always undo or change them later on.

 

[kiwi blue]

I assume you are talking about using plugins for the effects. Normally if you record with a plugin on the track, the effect is on the monitoring chain but is not recorded. So you hear it on playback but it isn't part of the recording. Which means you can bypass it or replace it later and you won't be stuck with the original effect.

However, if you render (print) that track to a new track with the effects on, then those effects are also printed to the new track and can't be changed (unless you go back to the original track and render it again).

Some people like to use hardware compressors, etc in the recording chain, in which the signal goes into the hardware then to Reaper. In that case, you are recording the effect as well as the original signal and you are committed to it. The effect can't later be bypassed or changed. One advantage of that is you can use a limiter or compressor to catch only the very loudest peaks before the signal hits Reaper, so as to prevent peak distortion on the recording - the nasty digital type.

Maybe there's a way to do the same with plugins? I don't know.

 

[mkdaws32]

There are two effects slots when recording. One for input effects that will be printed with the recorded track, and one for monitoring effects, which will be heard on the track in the monitors, but not actually recorded with the track. The input effects will only be available when the track is armed for recording:

 

[bryansbraun]

Yeah, I’m the drummer being referenced here (the other digi-illiterate band member, lol), allow me to ramble for a couple hrs…, but have no fear, the original tracks are definitely recorded dry w/ no effects going onto the actual main channeled tracks— (& I think this is what mkdaws32 is referencing w/ the monitoring functions that can be routed). I like that method of routing the plug-ins to a designated separate track.

Let it be known, we’ve only been using Reaper for a few months, & it was Audacity before that. But watching an occasional Reaper video, or reading through threads, to figure something out, is the way we learn, & it’s always nice to learn something new.

So w/ these main tracks being recorded dry (or at least they exist w/ the option to always go back to the straight dry sound), if I start w/ some reverb effects in the monitoring, there is always that one extra track created on my end which is used to route the reverb plugin into whatever channels I want them to go onto.

This is where that FX/ Route button comes into play. (This is a bus track, right?, where the reverb is just filtering into this extra track). All I know is that my reverb plug-in is assigned to this extra track that I set up, & if this track is muted or removed, we’re just back to the original clean dry drum tracks.

But yeah, w/ this extra bus track, I can hear the reverb happening/being monitored in real-time through my headphones as I’m playing the drums/recording. Since this reverb doesn’t really go onto the actual clean tracks, I look at it as just an “initial temporary effect” that’s placed in there. Like when I turn my drum tracks over to JJ, he can decided if he wants to use my reverb preset, or he can modify it or eliminate it to what he thinks sounds best. He can just start w/ clean tracks if he wants to.

Yeah, if a copy is rendered with this reverb in there, it’s a permanent element at that point (on that particular saved version), but that reverb track can either be changed or eliminated at anytime. Then the remaining tracks are still just the dry original versions with no reverb on them.

I sorta just like how everything sounds with the reverb in there too, as I’m playing. I’ve been recording the last few of our songs using 10 separate micked tracks (so that’s 10 separate drum tracks, & then the one extra FX track, for a total of 11 tracks then). But it’s super fun hearing the reverb from the headphones while the recording is taking place though. It beats listening to the dull dry sound (& I swear my playing gets pumped a little during the process too, if I like what I’m hearing as it’s happening). But I guess the main thing is, the clean tracks are always there.

Yeah, as long as we can get back to those original dry tracks (if some other direction needs to go with them), they are still workable, as long as we don’t accidentally ruin the original dry copy— which somehow in the past, even w/ being careful when trying to save projects, I’ve accidentally saved things wrong where I’ve lost the original somehow, or saved over it somehow.

 

[chris m.]

I may be missing something here, but I think as long as you keep the original tracks you are fine. When you render something to .wav or .mp3 then the effects you include are there for good. But as long as something is a working track in Reaper-- .rpp, I think-- then you can toggle effects on and off at will.

 

[suthol]

There are two effects slots when recording. One for input effects that will be printed with the recorded track, and one for monitoring effects, which will be heard on the track in the monitors, but not actually recorded with the track. The input effects will only be available when the track is armed for recording:

View attachment 897852

This, there are two slots available.

I usually have a bit of comp to smooth things out, EQ and for the vox I add a light touch of Waves Tune because old voices sometimes need help.

Also where I put amp sims.

What the track then hears is what gets printed and depending on how the monitoring is set the singer hears too, I generally set the headphones to monitor on the way to get rid of any possible latency, also makes the singer try a bit harder because there's no camouflage

Should add I often arm two tracks and have the 2nd one completely dry

 

[FortyEight]

OK, So I probably confused the issue. I didn't state that you, @bryansbraun were using a bus / send when tracking. Duh, I shouldn't have left that out.

But what I did, since we talked about it, was just use an effect on the track. For that one back up vocal. But then I didn't like how it sounded so I took them off and then sent it to the bus track. Then it gel'd so much better. Which is obvious as to why but I was experimenting. I have used two different types of reverb before and felt like it was fine... But not on vocals...

Now it sounds like if I'm not using the 2nd FX button it's reversible. I don't ever see 2 FX buttons. I gotta look into this. My brain is sort of wowed about how any effect could fall off the track if you using them WHILE recording. Cuz it seems like the initial digital imprint would be permanent.... But I don't understand the digital world very well. LOL.

 

[FortyEight]

This, there are two slots available.

I usually have a bit of comp to smooth things out, EQ and for the vox I add a light touch of Waves Tune because old voices sometimes need help.

Also where I put amp sims.

What the track then hears is what gets printed and depending on how the monitoring is set the singer hears too, I generally set the headphones to monitor on the way to get rid of any possible latency, also makes the singer try a bit harder because there's no camouflage

Should add I often arm two tracks and have the 2nd one completely dry

Yeah, this is what piqued my interest cuz since the beginning I've been doubling my vocals with singing them twice. But if you double them and not change something, just a bit. I mean like one time I tried to double the input, with the same mic and singing and everything and it sounded not too good. But when I sing it at a different time, even if I use the same mic it works. I was doing two different times, different mic. But now I've been using my better mic twice, but trying to do it just a hair different. Like one a little closer one a little further away. The input dials changed just a bit. Etc.

So this way I could actually sing it once, do one dry and one with some Effects just doubled, and wallah... A blend without any discrepancies in singing....

 

[soundchaser59]

My brain is sort of wowed about how any effect could fall off the track if you using them WHILE recording. Cuz it seems like the initial digital imprint would be permanent....

Like @mkdaws32 said, there are two fx slots, one for input fx, one for output fx. The input fx slot is only available while the track is armed to record.

The input fx are applied to the sound coming in, BEFORE it gets recorded. Hence, the input fx will be recorded and cannot be removed later.

The output fx are applied to the clean sound going out, AFTER it has been recorded. In other words, the clean sound with no fx gets recorded first, then when it is played back (or monitored during recording) the output fx are added to the clean sound. This is why you can remove or change the fx later, and you can always revert back to the clean sound and start over.

 

[soundchaser59]

There are two effects slots when recording. One for input effects that will be printed with the recorded track, and one for monitoring effects, which will be heard on the track in the monitors, but not actually recorded with the track. The input effects will only be available when the track is armed for recording

I would like to use input fx, usually just a comp and a gate, but I have never been able to do so without introducing latency that makes the track unplayable. I'm guessing my duo core processor can't quite keep up.

 

[soundchaser59]

This, there are two slots available.

I usually have a bit of comp to smooth things out, EQ and for the vox I add a light touch of Waves Tune because old voices sometimes need help.

Also where I put amp sims.

What the track then hears is what gets printed and depending on how the monitoring is set the singer hears too, I generally set the headphones to monitor on the way to get rid of any possible latency, also makes the singer try a bit harder because there's no camouflage

Should add I often arm two tracks and have the 2nd one completely dry

What kind of computer specs are you guys using that allows you to add these kinds of fx on the input without getting latency that makes it impossible to play? I add a simple gate on my input and that adds just enough latency that I cannot possibly record with it. I've googled and experimented but I've concluded that my old duo core computer with 800mhz ram just isn't quite fast enough to keep up.

 

[hnryclay]

800 mhz? Thats a speed measurement for cycles. Your memory should be in bytes. In any case, you need a least 16 gigs, and more would be better. A solid state hard drive helps as well. It might help to make sure your system is not doing anything in the background. I turn off my wifi, and use the windows task manager to close all processes that are not essential to the recording process. I can record 12 tracks in at a time, and I always throw them in raw. I put effects in after the fact.

 

[mkdaws32]

I would like to use input fx, usually just a comp and a gate, but I have never been able to do so without introducing latency that makes the track unplayable. I'm guessing my duo core processor can't quite keep up.

You need to balance things. Don’t have plugins enabled on any track you are playing along with, because that will eat CPU and cause you to have to use larger buffers. I can play guitar and bass accurately with 10ms total latency or less. For vocals, it’s gotta be lower or I hear a slapback effect in my head that is incredibly distracting.

I’m on an older generation core i7, and before that I was able to do it on a core i5 - I don’t think I would go less than that. 16 gb of ram is good, but I was able to get by with 8 gb for a long while if I froze tracks and minimized effects on the playing tracks while recording. The more plugins you have on, the higher your ASIO buffers will have to be to cope with it and the higher the latency will be.

 

[suthol]

What kind of computer specs are you guys using that allows you to add these kinds of fx on the input without getting latency that makes it impossible to play? I add a simple gate on my input and that adds just enough latency that I cannot possibly record with it. I've googled and experimented but I've concluded that my old duo core computer with 800mhz ram just isn't quite fast enough to keep up.

I use the monitor/headphones on the way in.

I use a Focusrite Solo or a Behringer Xenyx 502 and typically only record one voice or instrument at a time and I have them set up so the DAW playback is through the interface and the voice/guitar/bass/keyboard is monitored there.

The armed track monitor is turned off.

I hope this helps to explain how I set up

 

[suthol]

To add to the previous post.

When I record pedal steel Wes wants to hear his normal live sound which is a different setup again.

DAW playback goes to the monitors, the steel plugs direct into the Solo/502 and the monitor out goes to a boss delay pedal and then his Musicman amp.

I tried micing the amp but find recording him dry gets the same end product without extraneous artifacts that can be difficult to remove without affecting the tone

 

[TomBrokaw]

This, there are two slots available.

I usually have a bit of comp to smooth things out, EQ and for the vox I add a light touch of Waves Tune because old voices sometimes need help.

Also where I put amp sims.

What the track then hears is what gets printed and depending on how the monitoring is set the singer hears too, I generally set the headphones to monitor on the way to get rid of any possible latency, also makes the singer try a bit harder because there's no camouflage

Should add I often arm two tracks and have the 2nd one completely dry

I don't currently have, and have never seen, the Input FX button - is that a setting you have to enable? I've only ever used monitor (output) fx because I can change them after the fact, and they print when I render the song, so that works for me.

Yeah, this is what piqued my interest cuz since the beginning I've been doubling my vocals with singing them twice. But if you double them and not change something, just a bit. I mean like one time I tried to double the input, with the same mic and singing and everything and it sounded not too good. But when I sing it at a different time, even if I use the same mic it works. I was doing two different times, different mic. But now I've been using my better mic twice, but trying to do it just a hair different. Like one a little closer one a little further away. The input dials changed just a bit. Etc.

So this way I could actually sing it once, do one dry and one with some Effects just doubled, and wallah... A blend without any discrepancies in singing....

It sounds like you're talking about duplicating the track and putting effects on only one of them, which would allow you to blend the dry and wet signals. That would work, but might get a little funky with levels since you're effectively doubling the level of your vocal track. Conventional wisdom is also that manual doubling of tracks, whether guitar or vocals, tends to sound better than duplication + effects. But at the end of the day, if it sounds good, it is good.

800 mhz? Thats a speed measurement for cycles. Your memory should be in bytes. In any case, you need a least 16 gigs, and more would be better. A solid state hard drive helps as well. It might help to make sure your system is not doing anything in the background. I turn off my wifi, and use the windows task manager to close all processes that are not essential to the recording process. I can record 12 tracks in at a time, and I always throw them in raw. I put effects in after the fact.

RAM has cycle speeds as well as CPUs, and "800 Mhz" plus "Core Duo" makes me think soundchaser59's PC is quite old, technologically speaking. An SSD will help load samples faster, so if you're using a drum or other sample-heavy plugin, then it could help with those, but won't help much with "processing" type plugins. That said, it makes your whole computing experience a lot faster so it's worth getting one.

 

[bryansbraun]

… good luck recording everyone, lol….

 

[FortyEight]

i think im just using an i3 desktop w: 3.4 ghz processor and 8 ram. we have not had latency issues yet. i started to have latency issues with my laptop which was slower. only audacity on that one.

 

[suthol]

I don't currently have, and have never seen, the Input FX button - is that a setting you have to enable? I've only ever used monitor (output) fx because I can change them after the fact, and they print when I render the song, so that works for me.

I use the default Reaper layout where the track controls appear both beside and below the actual recording panel.

When a track is armed its appearance to the side has a drop down where you select the input from the mixer L/R or 1/2 etc, on the left hand end of this drop down bar is another tab for fx in, in version 5 of Reaper it was located on the control appearance below the project panel.

Note: this item is only visible once the track is armed