Implemented New Effect Loop Block - The EFB2...EFB4 block would contain an Out2...Out4 block and In2..In4 block in a single new EFB block

[IFITYWYBMAD?]

When adding external hardware like an Eventide H3000 or other similar rack mount stereo equipment, currently it requires two blocks an Out block and In block to route to the external device. This makes adding external devices difficult to maintain the existing signal flow of the patch.

 

[unix-guy]

This makes adding external devices difficult to maintain the existing signal flow of the patch.

How? You insert an Output block, you insert the related Input block. Done.

 

[Chad Beattie]

Maybe this ?

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/dual-mono-input-output-blocks.147640/

 

[unix-guy]

Maybe this ?

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/dual-mono-input-output-blocks.147640/

That's a different thing... It is saying to separate the input/output into independent mono loops.

 

[IFITYWYBMAD?]

Right now in all my patches I have to do this which takes up two blocks and can't be saved as an unit.



For a patch with a signal flow like this it would be nice to have a single block that combines both.

 

[Rex]

Separate input and output blocks were implemented at user request. They make the ins and outs more flexible.

 

[Chad Beattie]

That's a different thing... It is saying to separate the input/output into independent mono loops.

oops, I read it too quickly

 

[IFITYWYBMAD?]

Separate input and output blocks were implemented at user request. They make the ins and outs more flexible.

I concur that having separate I/O blocks are flexible for routing. Having two separate blocks cannot accomplish the same signal flow as one single block as illustrated in the screen shots provided in the previous post. I am requesting to have in addition to the current I/O blocks a new single EFB block for additional flexibility.

 

[IronSean]

What if your put the out and in above/below each other? I don't think you need to connect the out to the in like you are in your first image.

 

[Bakerman]

If the main concern is avoiding using two columns, you can put the output & input block in the same column. Place the input block exactly like you'd place this proposed FX Loop block. Connect to the output block from the previous column, but don't continue from output block to anything else.

Bypassing the input block will work the same as if out & in blocks were in series. This also (unlike series) allows bypassing the output block to mute the output, which might be preferable for things like delay or reverb in the loop.

 

[IFITYWYBMAD?]

If the main concern is avoiding using two columns, you can put the output & input block in the same column. Place the input block exactly like you'd place this proposed FX Loop block. Connect to the output block from the previous column, but don't continue from output block to anything else.

Bypassing the input block will work the same as if out & in blocks were in series. This also (unlike series) allows bypassing the output block to mute the output, which might be preferable for things like delay or reverb in the loop.

Thanks for reminding me that the I/O blocks don't need to be connected in series. Just tried your suggested setup and it works like charm! No reason to consider my request further.