The principle is the same, the details are not.

 

Sure you can, just insert a filter/EQ before the parallel compressor.

 

what he mean with scoop out mids . downward compression on mid's?

 

Not the end of the world unless you have issues with OCD perhaps. Personally try to adjust to different ways of doing things as not to feed the beast.

 

That.

 

this "just" means in some cases to crouch behind racks or to move the complete rack to reach the backsize. or free patching of everything, which is also not very funny if you have dozens of machines.

in a mixer channel there is an eq already built-in... ;)

in DAWs you can not route send effects into send effects at all. at least you shouldnt, even where possible. or maybe you should. well i dont care, i dont use DAWs for this reason.

 

You still don't have Bluetooth EQs?

Ok, I know what you mean.

That's not what I meant. Typo?

 

no typo. i probably misunderstood you?

wht i was saying is: while splitting a signal and sending it to a "send effect", which/where is a compressor, fullfills the fact of "parallel processing", you can not "insert an EQ" to the signals path with the compressor that way. the "send" knob is already bound to the send effect by definition.

 

oh man, analog gear without cables, that would be my wet dream.

 

Sure you can. You send the signal to another channel, insert first an EQ and then a compressor. Where's the problem?
If your hardware is completely patched you can do this too. If the send channel has an insert, which it probably has, insert send -> EQ in, EQ out -> compressor in, compressor out -> send return, done. 3 patch cables for mono.

 

You can set up a group track (even call it 'receive) and add however many FX you like and run the from the desired track send to that, if that's similar to what you mean? I know it works. It also gives you complete control and each FX insert can be side-chained as well if so desired - which can then be sent to another....so on and so forth.... not that you'd want to...that's a lot of spaghetti....these days in modern DAW's you can almost send from one source to another in everything ad infinitum. If it was an analog patchbay representation, it would be a nightmare just to look at.

 

No, that's exactly what I'm talking about. TBH, I'm a bit surprised that this seems so difficult to understand since a very simple and basic routing (BTW, for hardware and software).

 

yes, if you change the routing competely you can do it. that i what i am saying: with the routing in question you can not do it.

 

the crap is that it is different in every DAW.

for complex routing you are still better with programming enviroments or stuff like bidule, audiomulch and those, because there you have visual feedback about whet goes where.

or eventually even these vst host plug-ins - they newer ones seems to work better than in ancient times (spark modular and vbox? haha), but then again, using more than 2 inputs is difficult with those, too.

on my analog mixer i can assign channel 17 to groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 at the same time. powered, that is - it is not even passive splitting. that should be in every virtual mixer!

 

You mean...

 

If it works, don't repair it.

 

Precisely, simple as that.