Thanks for clarifying Samuel!

The reverb aux would go right to the main DX bus (ST, 5.0, etc) and not through a re-assign because, as you point out, it would double-up the signal.

I’ve recently been putting sends on both the source tracks as well as the re-assigns, so that if I have a clip that’s requires a lot of processing in the DX chain, I can send the clean signal to the verb via the re-assign versus the noisy source.

As per the article, you would be sending dialog tracks through DX A that are then bussed into the ST DX MIX, but if you had to also send them through a mono reverb aux (let’s say for example, for ADR), would the reverb aux also be sent through DX A, or directly to the ST DX Mix? If sent through DX A wouldn’t this double-gain the signal?

Thanks in advance!

You can definitely work this way, and I’ve seen a few people who do with great success. However, you can very easily end up with a large number of dialog tracks feeding into each processing chain, which on larger mixes that already have high track-counts can be less than ideal.

Also, using the re-assign method, everything is addressable on a control surface, which isn’t the case if you have to move the clips around the timeline.

Hey Randall, you can absolutely do it that way! You can also use wider busses to pan/route into a greater number of re-assigns (i.e. a 5.0 bus to route to 5 mono re-assigns). As a matter of fact, the Plug-In Vector Matrix that Charles Maynes wrote about earlier this year works just this way.

I myself prefer the more discrete routing using busses, as I probably won’t need to fade between two or more processing chains in my normal workflow. Also, if you’re using multi-channel re-assigns, which enables you to pan the dialog at the source tracks, the panner becomes unavailable for routing uses.