Rack build: How to route the FX send signal?

simon_d

simon_d

Member
I'm putting together a rack, with several delays, reverb, and multi FX units and a 1u mixer to combine the outputs back to the FX loop return.

But how do I split and distrubute the FX loop send to the various units? At the moment I have a little 1 in 4 out 1/4" jack box, but need something better. How do the pros do it?
 
Metaddict said:
Did you consider using something like the Voodoo Lab GCX unit? Basically an Audio Switcher to control each devise.
Click to expand...
No I hadn't. Looks good, but expensive. Is there a passive option, like a patch bay? Or is passive routing a bad idea? That said midi control would be nice.

EDIT: looking at it again, that seems to be a series loop switcher, to take units in and out of the signal, which is one way to do it, whereas I have the rack configured with all units fully wet and in parallel and summed via the mixer, including the dry signal. This may not be ideal, especially if some of the effects can't be turned off (eg with a null patch that has no output). And they will all still be contributing some noise.
 
Last edited:
It´s entirely fine to split a buffered line level signal passively via a cable or jack box, but the pros often did it with a Rane SM26 back in the day, with the individual FX lines muted at the input by the sends on a Rocktron Patchmate. You can see a variation of this in the Patchmate manual:
1699955642313.png
 
Thanks for the info Dave. If I go passive for the time being I'm thinking I can build a patch bay for the rear.

Then again, could I just use an off the shelf patchbay unit like this https://www.neutrik.com/en/product/nys-spp-l1 and daisy chain the channels, or even solder jumpers internally? It'd probably work out the same or less £££ as buying parts for a build. It's only £60.

Active switcher with midi, especially if there was an optional volume boost, would be desirable though.
 
simon_d said:
No I hadn't. Looks good, but expensive. Is there a passive option, like a patch bay? Or is passive routing a bad idea? That said midi control would be nice.

EDIT: looking at it again, that seems to be a series loop switcher, to take units in and out of the signal, which is one way to do it, whereas I have the rack configured with all units fully wet and in parallel and summed via the mixer, including the dry signal. This may not be ideal, especially if some of the effects can't be turned off (eg with a null patch that has no output). And they will all still be contributing some noise.
Click to expand...
What exactly is the gear including Amp that you want to use?
 
Metaddict said:
What exactly is the gear including Amp that you want to use?
Click to expand...
I have a couple of heads, but I'm currently using a JCM800 2203 reissue (but I'm planning to upgrade the loop board in it). FX is mostly vintage stuff, D1500 delay, SPX90, Roland 2500 and a lexicon MPX100. Mixer is Behringer 1602. Thinking about it again, your suggestion of a loop switcher may work better, but then I wouldn't need a mixer, or would I? Nice thing about the mixer is it has a send/return on each channel, so I can patch the lex in as reverb and have each delay go through the verb, and/or have the delay dry.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, having the option to use a unit in the aux loop of the mixer is worth a lot since every classic rig has several mix stages, and it´s a big part of the sound compared to running everything in parallel. Stereo spread being the other big part, though, which I guess you´re not gearing up for here.

Using these vintage units in series is normally no good either, at least not the SPX90. Ancient AD/DA tech that eats up half your sound. I think the Yamaha and Roland units might have analog internal mixing, however.
 
Dave L said:
Yeah, having the option to use a unit in the aux loop of the mixer is worth a lot since every classic rig has several mix stages, and it´s a big part of the sound compared to running everything in parallel. Stereo spread being the other big part, though, which I guess you´re not gearing up for here.

Using these vintage units in series is normally no good either, at least not the SPX90. Ancient AD/DA tech that eats up half your sound. I think the Yamaha and Roland units might have analog internal mixing, however.
Click to expand...
Yes exactly. The Marshall loop isn't the best, but I'm upgrading it with a board from Headfirst. I've actually just set the rig up in stereo using an ISP stealth power amp, far from ideal as it's only driving a 2nd cab with just the other side of the FX on it so its lop-sided sounding, and the phase is flipped! I just wanted to see what it sounded like.

Yeah, there's so much you can do with the mixer. Send the SPX90 delays in stereo to the reverb, they then sound part of the verb rather than delay, then add a regular mono dry delay from another unit. Everything sounds more open and separate than with pedals. IDK why these old units sound so good... vintage charm maybe, lol. The D1500 is analog, I'm pretty sure. It's the best sounding delay I've heard, never gets in the way of the dry sound. The Roland SDE2500 is good but a bit brighter. It'd be great to have more options for aux sends, there's only 1 atm.
 
Found two mixer/splitters. Behringer ULTRALINK PRO MX882 V2, which looks like a clone of LD Systems LDMS828. I think either of these will work.
 
Not sure what the LD Systems is, but that Behringer is very similar in function to the classic Rane SM26 I mentioned above.
 
Dave L said:
Not sure what the LD Systems is, but that Behringer is very similar in function to the classic Rane SM26 I mentioned above.
Click to expand...
Right. They might be both clones of the Rane in that case (though they use xlrs mostly and a mix/split button on each channel). Can't find Rane in the UK. Got the behringer on order, hopefully that'll work and provide some future flexibility.
 
I would agree to use the aux send on the mixer. I used to do this with a Behringer, now I use a Samson SM-10.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top