Re: AW: Help!!! have I got a problem with Vortex?

[mark <mark@grape.no>]

Thanks Andy,
I think I may be going the way you suggest, with the Vortex after the 
mixer,
unfortunately my mixer doesnt have pre fade sends, but im wondering if I 
can do
something with it that way, that works, maybe using the direct out sockets 
from
each channel, I used to do something like this when I was playing bass for 
the
cranes, using an old old old digital delay from Roland (maybe the sde 
2000, was
that what it was called) I just have to figure out what I used to do!!!
The problem I had that I mentioned in the original post WAS what someone
suggested (that I had inadvertanly cleared a register pair) so thanks for 
that, I
sleep well now.


Mark

Still interested in how others used/configure/patch it, listening to other
peoples stories GIVES me ideas, it doesnt stop me from experimenting
experimenting experimenting, as the guy from finger paint rather 
patronisingly
suggested...


SoundFNR@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 05/11/99 08:47:51 GMT Standard Time, mark@grape.no 
>writes:
>
> > I could also do with some discussion as to the best / most flexible 
>place
> >  to put a Vortex in the signal path,
> it works well anywhere.
> if using in conjunction with a looper then putting the V after lets you
> stereoise the loop,
> but putting it first lets you layer up different vortex sounds.
>
> >I use a split signal from my guitar to
> >  two stereo effect processors and using it how they suggest places it
> >  directly after one of them, making it unusable with the other, but if 
>I
> >  put it on sends on my mixer, it doesnt process the sound 100% which is
> >  required for some of the patches...
> Can you use pre fade aux sends,  or switch off the channel routing to the
> main O/P of the mixer(depends what you r mixer can do.
> otherwise........
> I recommend you try the Vortex after the mixer, and see if you like it.
>
> Andy Butler
> Lexicon Vortex Database
> http://members.aol.com/soundfnr/vortex.htm