I want to use the XMX as a tape recorder post fx. Is there any way using the plug ins to use one reverb as a send rather than using multiple instances of verbs and saving processing?
sorry, Im a little confused about what you are trying to doā¦
are you talking about using synthor or trax?
are you thinking of using synthor recorder or LOOP?
LOOP is 4 track in one module, so youād only need multiple if you want to do more than 4 tracks. given xmx has 8 inputs, youād probably only use 2 anyway.
trax does not support send, but as above, youād only need to use 2 reverbs, and often its not a bad thing to have 2 different fx change for different track types.
synthor is much more flexible, you can setup modules as you wish, so implement as chains or send/return.
Id āgive it a goā, as see what works better for your needs, as its quite dependent on what you want to do .
Thanks.
I meant that in Synthor I would have six audio tracks in to the synthor recorder out via a reverb but being able to use just one reverb instead of six while creating stems.
I dont use the recorder much, but iirc, you cannot get the recorder to āliveā play thru fx/modules.
i.e. physical input ā recorder ā patch ā physical output
its primary function is to record patch output (or at least thats how Ive used it).
you can also record physical inputs, as a kind of āsamplerā
ofc, you can save to a file, then load into a SAM, but thats not āliveā
putting that to one side.
synthor ( like physical modular) does not have a concept of tracks so you can always patch either as āsendsā or inline fx - thats up to you.
hint: unlike physical modules, you can attach multiple outputs to a single input to perform āsummingā without extra modules/mixers (and each output can have its own attenuation)
another way to think of this isā¦
the recorder records what going in / out of the physical IO.
and its output is always going to the physical output.
to work as you would like , the output of the recorder would have to go to the INP module, so you patch would use that ā¦ i.e. physical input were replaced with the recorders output.
and whilst, useful, thats unfortunately, not how it works currently.
Apologies for the endless qubit Iām feeling a bit thick. The physical output is post effect though?
I envisaged it as
physical input - input recorder - modules- output recorder- physical output.
That way I can plug in my drum synths/oscillators, run them through fx, record the patch as a multitrack to export to DAW at a later date then monitor through the headphone out.
yeah, thats the āissueāā¦
the āinput recorderā does not feed into the modulesā¦
INP (the only input modules in a patch) always reads the physical/usb inputs.
theres no way to get the āinput recorderās outputā to be directed into the patch.
its a feature that has previously been requested, as it would be useful to work as you mention.
if you want to ārecordā the live input, e.g. for looping, then you can use either LOOP or GRA.
other approach (non-live) is to record the input, save as a file.
then use SAM to playback that file to run it through the patch,
which you can then use recorder to record the output.
I seeā¦I think I just made assumptions about the signal flow. Thank you for sorting that out. I guess I can use it as a dumb tape recorder and forget about the fx without having to change my workflow. Essentially I just want to record patches on the move without my laptop nearby.
1 Like
I have been able to record processed audio on the SSP, in one way at least. The SSP will record its output, post effects, to the card when you input the audio digitally through the USB. I just went down to my studio to check my memory on this. My live setup is an iPad playing through the SSP using the SSP for filtering (SVF) and VCAās for panning on 8 channels of audio (4 stereo pairs) through the USB input. I use the 16 analog inputs for CV control of the internal modules.
When setting the SSP to record the output of the SSP, it does record that digital audio being processed through the unit. It uses the standard Input module, but in my case it is using channels 17-24 for audio, and not the 1-16 analog inputs which are routed as control signals. It records the processing too (I moved controls around and the results get recorded). I havenāt tried to record analog inputs being manipulated yet, as in my setup, I would have to re-patch everything (I have a show in a week so donāt want to do that). I can attest that using digital inputs, the SSP will record the internal processing of external digital signals for sure.
I donāt know if it can record the analog inputs post processing, but since it can do the digital inputs, and still āseeā the analog inputs to run the internal modules, I donāt see why it shouldnāt be possible.
1 Like
Yes, you can record the IO , thatās what I said.
The limitation is playback of the recorder.
Imagine, you record your incoming audio into the recorder. Stop the incoming audio source.
Now you want to playback that audio recording THRU the patch.
You canāt from the recorder, playback will simply āmonitorā that recording to the output, not thru the patch.
Soā¦ you have to save the recording, and then load it into (eg) SAM , then playback from SAM.
so you cannot āsimplyā record input, then loop the audio back via the recorder.
Ofc, depending on your needs that may be fine.
It does what itās name says ārecordsā IO 
You can kind of get around this using GRA which has live audio recording , or using LOOP, but these are done in memory, so have limited recording lengths.
1 Like
That makes total sense. The playback engine is post processing. I imagine a creative patch could possibly get by that, though I have never tried it. Something like patching some output channels back into different input channels (through the front panel jacks, not internally), so one would record on one set of channels, then playing them back into a another set of channels with effects on them, then outputting that on yet another set of channels. Even if that would work, it would not be a very practical solution for sure.