Configurable routing for post-fader FX

Suggestions
, , ,
1

Votes on the top left please. :blush:

djay supports post-fader FX, which is great. However, in hardware mixer mode this functionality becomes far less useful when the FX are always routed back into the same channel they originate from.

That routing limitation breaks one of the most common real-world use cases for post-fader effects: letting reverb or echo tails continue after the channel fader is closed.

If djay introduced a dedicated FX bus, which could be routed in the settings to a separate output pair, this problem would largely be solved.

A concrete example:

  • The Allen & Heath Xone:24C provides a USB Aux input (channels 5+6).

  • That input could be used perfectly as an FX return.

  • Post-fader FX (reverb, echo, delay) could be sent to the FX bus instead of back into the source channel.

  • Result: you close the fader, but the FX tail remains audible ā€” exactly how DJs expect this to behave on hardware setups.

This would immediately cover one of the most common and musically important FX workflows.

For mixers that donā€™t have an extra USB return ā€” or for users who donā€™t want to sacrifice a physical input ā€” a simpler alternative would already work in many cases:

  • Allow post-fader FX to be routed to the other deckā€™s channel

  • In typical DJ usage, when fader 1 is closed, fader 2 is usually fully open

  • The FX tail remains audible without needing a dedicated return channel

This wouldnā€™t be as clean as a true FX bus, and it would take a little bit extra engineering effort, but it would still solve the core problem in a very practical way.

djay already has the FX engine. Giving it a bus-based routing option would unlock workflows that many hardware DJs rely on.

Xone 24c post fader FX
3

Thanks for the suggestion @Mister_Tuur. Interesting idea! Iā€™ll share this with our dev team for consideration. Thanks again.

1 Like
6

Hi again @Mister_Tuur, I discussed your suggestion with our engineering team.

  1. Routing reverb tails through another channel: this would be extremely fragile and difficult to make consistent across setups, so itā€™s not something we can ship as a supported workflow.
  2. Routing only the tails to an extra output: this is less extreme, but it still requires major ā€œspecial-caseā€ behavior in the software to compensate for hardware that wasnā€™t designed for this routing.

In Summary: while the concepts can make sense in theory, these mixers simply donā€™t expose the routing points needed for a proper implementation, and we donā€™t want to add complex, hardware-specific workarounds that would be unreliable in real-world use.

We really appreciate you thinking creatively about routing options thoughā€”if youā€™re aiming for true post-fader per-channel FX integration, the most dependable path is hardware that includes dedicated post-fader sends/inserts (or a mixer/interface setup designed for that kind of routing). Thanks!

1 Like
7

First of all, I appreciate the time you guys take to even consider this. :folded_hands:t3:

I donā€™t mean to come across as pedantic, but that was the intention of the request. Or maybe Iā€™m misreading it, with English being my second language and all that. :slightly_smiling_face:

While I obviously donā€™t have insight into djayā€™s internal engine, from a software engineering perspective I would be surprised if this required a lot more than combining and exposing the (already existing) internal post-FX busses when a user opts to route them to an external output.

That said, if this is estimated to benefit only a very small part of the user base and therefore isnā€™t considered worth the effort, I can understand that decision completely.

8

Youā€™re welcome @Mister_Tuur. I have shared your additional comments with the engineering team.

1 Like