Inserts V. Sends; Sound Quality Question

[hnia6]

I'm one of those amateurs who learned Cubase while only using inserts on my first three songs. I learned, the hard way, that lots of inserts tax the processor. I have a new song with only three tracks. My guitar track is the only one with effects right now. I had the Reverb, Ping-Pong Delay and a VST Amp Rack on my inserts. Sounds fantastic! I decided to replicate the effects on my sends channels and then remove the inserts. After playing around with the settings, it seems that the inserts sound better than the sends... noticably better, even more natural. Is this standard? Shouldn't the quality be dead equal providing my levels and settings match very closely? Are there certain effects that are most recommended as an insert no matter what?

I could really use some educating on this issue.

Thanks!

 

[GazEcc]

Think of them as inserts and Aux sends on your mixer, Which is basically what they are,

Sends are controled by the amount sent and the amount brought back into the mix, inserts effect the whole signal, as long as you're not running 30 fx per session for just like the guitars or something your comp should be able to handle it

 

[hnia6]

I was just playing with it again. I matched the settings on my three effects exactly and then on the sends, I went between -3.41 and the max level. Still I noticed a more full natural sound with inserts. I most noticed it with the reverb. Huge difference. The send never reverbs as much as the insert. Hands down, inserts sound better. Is that the standard or do I have an issue?

I had problems with pops/clicks and static on a prior song when I was sending everything through inserts. I had 13 channels and most of them had about three effects each on the inserts. The processor was working hard.

I'm trying to see if I can make sends work while limiting inserts. But if there's going to be that much of a difference, I'm thinking it's worth spending some money and building a computer with, at minimum, an Intel I7 2600K.

 

[JimmyS1969]

Well, a send is not a direct link to an effect. For Amp Rack, you have to use an insert. For things like delay and reverb, set your FX tracks to 100% wet. Send to them and mix the mount of effect you want.

 

[hnia6]

Got it, but my reverb shows the biggest gap in quality. I just get less reverb even when fully wet. I'm starting to wonder the benefit of sends other than to weaken an effect....?

 

[CrowsofFritz]

LOL!

Dude the is no difference in quality. There is a difference in sound.

Inserts and Sends do different things. You would usually want to use the send for time based effects and blend that track with the dry one.

You get less reverb? How much of the track are you sending?

 

[JimmyS1969]

Amount of effect is what is questioned here. Typically, a reverb at 100% is not desired. Tho, there are some places for it.

Check your PM's. Maybe I can help.

 

[mixsit]

Well, a send is not a direct link to an effect. For Amp Rack, you have to use an insert. For things like delay and reverb, set your FX tracks to 100% wet. Send to them and mix the mount of effect you want.

Yes this, plus this;

... I matched the settings on my three effects exactly and then on the sends, I went between -3.41 and the max level. Still I noticed a more full natural sound with inserts. I most noticed it with the reverb. Huge difference. The send never reverbs as much as the insert.

Some things want the 100% affected series route of the insert (eq's, your Amp Rack..)
Others want a percentage mix of the effect- (verbs..) of a parallel send/return routing.

With verb on an aux send unless you muted the dry sound from track's fader you could not get to 100% verb'for example.

Not sure you're accounting for this in your comparison.

Otherwise I can't see why there would be sound differences (maybe in an analog situation -I swear 'Mix B' sound thinner than the main mix on my Mackie eight bus) -but not in a digi app.

 

[hnia6]

crow... i'm not a dude... dude.

Jimmy/Mix: thanks!

Mix: I'm a novice. Please elaborate on this statement: "With verb on an aux send unless you muted the dry sound from track's fader you could not get to 100% verb'for example."

What I'm trying to describe by "quality" is that I don't get as much reverb as the insert, even when I my mix is all the way (wettest) to the right on the send. the effect settings are exactly the same as the insert.

I get it now with the non-time based effects. I'll try moving the VST Amp back to the insert and keep the reverb and delay on the send and see if that does anything for me.

It is true that the sends use less processer than the inserts, right?

 

[TyphoidHippo]

This thread is all over the place. Has it been mentioned that when you use inserts, the order you use them affects the outcome? If you put reverb in slot 1, then delay in slot 2, then your amprack whatever thingy in slot 3, you're going to get very different results than sending the signal to those things independently. You're going to get delay on the reverb sound because it's inserted after the reverb, and you're going to get both reverb and delay affected by the amp sim. If you send the signal to those things individually, you're going to get the reverb, but no delay on it, and the ampsim won't affect it - the delay will only affect the dry track and have no interaction with the ampsim, and the ampsim will only affect the dry track and not have any modelling effect on the reverb or delay.

It's supposed to sound different - it's a completely different setup.

 

[mixsit]

... mix: I'm a novice. Please elaborate on this statement: "With verb on an aux send unless you muted the dry sound from track's fader you could not get to 100% verb'for example."

What I'm trying to describe by "quality" is that I don't get as much reverb as the insert, even when I my mix is all the way (wettest) to the right on the send. the effect settings are exactly the same as the insert. ..

Series vs. parallel-
You have your dry signal and you insert –this is in series- a verb set 100% wet. All of it goes through the verb, to the main mix out.

Same dry track goes directly to the main mix out, but instead of the insert you take a split off the track (the aux send) to the same verb set 100% wet.
You just made a 2nd path- a parallel.
Now that combines with the dry one at the master out.

If both the dry track and verb are at some normal/similar full strength levels you get about 50% wet at the main mix.
You would have to reduce the dry track (while not reducing the verb) to get past 50% wet.
..that BTW can be done. Most sends have 'pre or post fader position (post' -after the fader)

It is true that the sends use less processer than the inserts, right?

Only in that it lets you send many tracks to the same effect rather than needing one in each track.

BTW, just for.. You might see now where a verb's wet dry mix is its own internal parallel mix path. It's doing (in the inserted' position) the same function as the 'aux mix.

 

[CrowsofFritz]

crow... i'm not a dude... dude.

Why would you take offense to that.... miss...

Sends can use much less. Especially since you can send every track to ONE send as opposed to putting a reverb plug-in on EVERY track.