So a bit of a conundrum… I have an upcoming gig where i will recieve most of my inputs via Dante from an OB truck. I would like to record and do virtual soundceck. …But, since i’m getting my inputs from my only Dante card, and DLive’s Virtual Sounceck patch is 1:1, when switching to Virtual soundceck i’m just routing back to what already was my “inactive” input!
Getting the recording going is of course doable via Dante Controller (OB Truck Multicasting to both DLive and DAW) but the problem remains when wanting to switch to the recorded tracks.
I Guess I could patch the DAW returns to different Dante inputs, lets say 33>64 to a secondary “B” input using the ABCD feature on DLive and using a surface button/action to toggle between the two inputs. But it seems a bit convoluted?
Am i Missing something in the Virtual soundceck feature on DLive?
Use “TieLines” or “direct out”, if you prefer recording processed channels, for recording and route the DAW channels for VS on not used Dante channels (as you suggested). Do not use “record send” for recording, as this would make a DanteController re-routing necessary.
Tie lines are of course an option (Instead of Multicast)
Was wandering if there was another way to use “Record Send” <> “Virtual Soundcheck” differently. Being patchable only 1:1 is a pretty big limitation 
That’s why I use Tie Lines exclusively. Gives the option to record a mix sum or groups on top. I have never seen the use or practicality of the “record send” feature in my use cases.
Just use ABCD routing and patch to unused Dante inputs for the DAW set. As long as you have enough Dante inputs this is the simplest way without a second Dante card to dedicate to it.
The only limitation with record send is, that you have to define the range of channels on that I/O that will override the tie lines to that I/O in that range. Apart from that you can use tie lines in addition for any direct outs or mix outs.
The big advantage of record sends is that they are bound to the channel not the socket, so if you repatch the channel, the record send adapts to that new socket. Tie lines won’t.
Not clear on you problem. Do you have enough Free Dante inputs for your record returns? If so you just do the mapping in the virtual sound check UI. If you don’t have enough free Dante inputs , then you would need to make an alternate mapping in Dante Controller. You can save that as a Dante preset with selective recall.
I think the easiest solution is to create/save two different patches in Dante Controller and then load the correct one that you need.
“Show” will route the Dante sources from the truck to your Dante card (inputs 1-32 for example) and “VSC” will route the sources from the DAW to your Dante card (inputs 1-32).
Your Dante outputs (going to the DAW and other destinations) could/should stay the same.
That is indeed a advantage, that I have never recognized. Will try that, thanks!
Ok, retested this on my setup.
Actually I don’t feel the “record send” method has any advantages in a more or less fixed band setup. And when you have to send additional feeds to broadcast/recording from time to time, it even gets in the way, because you have to go back to tie lines then anyways, no?
I will stay with tie lines 
I use tie lines vs the “record send” settings in VSC (even though I do use the VSC playback method to play back audio). Mainly because I don’t have to remember to “arm” the system for recording. Using tie lines is a more simple method to get audio out of the system IMHO.
However I also don’t need to utilize tie lines for any other purpose/send. If I did, then perhaps using the “record send” method in VSC would be better because I would effectively have two independent groups of sends this way instead of only one (the tie lines).
Until you repatch a channel an miss to record it. 
Also VSC is just a button away.
Keep in mind, that “record send” is momentarily overwriting any other output patch… So it is not two independent ways to patch.
As I said: very unlikely in a mostly fixed band setup, with always the same hardware on site.
It is overwriting only in the selected area. So like 1 up to 23 for your inputs for example. After that you can tie line whatever you want.
I know. Does not change my assumption for now.
I honestly didn’t even know it did that (again I never use it).
But that’s even more of a reason to never use the “Record Send” option. Using it is more complicated and offers more chances to mess something up that would prevent your recording from getting any signal than just using Tie Lines.
Tie Lines are always sending audio so there is nothing to have to switch on to record like there is with the Record Send functionality.
It does not overwrite any other output patch. It only overwrites the output patch on that single I/O in the targeted range. Any other I/O and all outputs after and before the target range will remain unaffected and can be used for tie lines in addition on the same I/O. Any repatching of the inputs in the target range will be atomatically reflected in contrary to tie lines, that are blind point to point links. Happened quite a few times, that I forgot to repatch tie lines, after repatching inputs. Imho much more likely than to forget to enable record send. 
If you tie line the same way you are record sending, then even when record send is not enabled, you will get the tie line channels. In addition, the VSC is just a click away. I would never go back to tie lines only.
The VSC-function in the console is just a shortcut to achieve a 1:1 routing to replace input signals with recorded signals. It’s designed for simple, fast and reliable use. But it doesn’t fit all possible situations.
As @duplobaustein already pointed out, it makes the standard patching very easy.
But you need a reserved I/O port for all advantages.
Yesterday a wireless mic died. Switched to the spare mic by repatching that mic into the singers channel via ABCD. Recording continued. Without the record send I’d have to repatch the tie line too. During a show this is really great.