Reverbs: Insert or send?

Seanmorse79

Seanmorse79

New member
Generally speaking (there are always exceptions), do you use an array of reverbs on track inserts or dial one in from the bus?

I've always used reverbs on the bus for obvious reasons (less CPU usage, seemingly more cohesive), but a recent article in TapeOp made me do some thinkin.
 
Generally, I drive reverbs or any time based effects from aux sends and recover that from either aux returns or even spare mixer channels. I have used an insert (or a direct out) for this before though and recovered the reverb output in an aux return or a spare channel, not the insert return. I'd only do this if I'm out of aux sends though.
 
I just went through that on my latest mp3 post, Sean - tried individual channels first, Acid ground to a halt. So I rebooted, set up a buss routing, and put reverb on the buss - MUCH better. Also easier to set bus sends levels on the fly than edit reverb settings for each channel.

Jay (see ya Sunday!!!)
 
Me & Alicia will be there, mang :D

I've always used reverbs thru the send bus too, because it is much easier. I'm just curious if anybody has gotten favorable results using different reverbs via inserts - seems like it could really change the grain of the mix. This month's TapeOp had an article about an engineer's use of 4 differnet compressors over the sends to affect tone -sometimes with very little actual compression happening. While I don't completely understand his methods, it sounds like a very groovy idea, so it got me thinkin' about reverbs (it get scary when I think sometimes) :)
 
This applies more to analog boards but the principles are the same.

As a general rule when you want to mix an effect with the raw track you use an Aux send and set the effect unit to 100% wet. Then mix in the amount of the effect you want with the aux send/return. This is the most common way of using reverb. Some aux sends are PreFader so that you are sending the same amount of the track to the effect no matter what the fader level is. Most aux sends are Post Fader so that when you lower the volume of the track it lowers the amount sent through the aux send.

When you want to completely replace a raw track with the effected track you use an insert. This is the most common way of using compression for dynamic control and using outboard EQ.

For delays, flange and chorus you can do it either way and it just depends on what you want to do. If you want to use a compressor to fatten up a sound you can use it on an aux send or a buss insert and have the dry track sent to another buss. This is a cool way to beef up drums, bass and vocals.

For the advanced class when you use a PreFader Aux send and have the fader all the way down that is the same net result as using the effect on an Insert. If you send the track to two seperate busses and have an effect Inserted on one of the busses and mix the two busses together that is the same net result as using the effect on a Post Fader Aux send. Knowing that you can get around the limitations of some mixers when you run out of Auxes or inserts or want a particular sound.
 
Tex,

Nice explanation. I got it, so it's got to be. :)

SeanMorse...what was the article on tape op talking about--why do you question your method? I just got a subscription from them that was free, but, I have only received one magazine so far. I am not even sure I'm guaranteed a magazine every month. I thought I'd try out this free subscription to see if they had articles of interest to me...but, I don't think I have this issue.
-Kirstin
 
I don't have it in front of me, but it's the September/October issue (it's my first issue too). I can't remember the guy's name (he's done some major stuff), but it's about using A,B,C,and D busses (or group sends) as sends for different compressors with nothing going to the stereo bus (like Tex's description of keeping the fader down). Kinda like using inserts for groups of channels instead of a single channel - send the highs to A, send the lows to B, midrange tracks to C, etc....

Being that I've always used compressors strictly as single inserts, it showed me a new way to do things, and that got me thinking (not really along the same lines) about using different reverbs as track inserts instead of strapping one on the bus like usual.

I'm sure that using sends is still the best way to go for most projects most of the time, but I like trying strange things. One of my favorite tricks is to send a track through a keyboard amp, stick the amp in front of a heating duct and record the signal through another duct in the house. I'm weird like that :)

Tex - thanks for the description. I hadn't really looked at the correlation between pre/post aux sends and inserts that way before - makes sense.
 
Feel like a clinic, Tex?

Hey Tex,

You feel like giving a basic lesson on this topic here?

I only have one outboard unit, (RNC,) but it's possible I'll add more sometime. I'm thinking an EQ before a verb or delay, but if there's a better logic to that, someone let me know. ;)

I have a very basic setup. Behringer UB1204FX-"PRO". It says pro right in the name, so I know it kicks major ass. :D

Anyway, I run either to my minidisk recorder,(yamaha md4s), or into my computer that has 4 1/4" unbalanced inputs, 8 of the same outputs.

I'm a bit ignorant when it comes to the terms in this thread. I understand the way that it works, theory wise, based on the explainations I've heard here, (I think.)

Insert means that the fx runs down into the same track as the dry original track and they are together, while bussing the fx means that it takes the fx and seperates it so that you can do things to it alone?

Is that completely off base?

Let's say for a second that it's correct. Great, so I know what it means, somewhat. My problem is that I don't really understand how to do it, physically. Is this something that Cakewalk can do? (I'm guessing no.) Is it something that my mixer does? (I'm guessing yes.) I know that I've seen some bus options in my yamaha, but I've long since lost the english version of the manual, and I don't speak French, so I'm kind of screwed. ;)

If you don't feel like hosting a clinic here, is there a spot that I could check out that you know of?

Thanks,

-Speedy
 
Re: Feel like a clinic, Tex?

Speedy VonTrapp said:
I'm a bit ignorant when it comes to the terms in this thread. I understand the way that it works, theory wise, based on the explainations I've heard here, (I think.)

Insert means that the fx runs down into the same track as the dry original track and they are together, while bussing the fx means that it takes the fx and seperates it so that you can do things to it alone?

Is that completely off base?
Click to expand...

Actually it's the opposite. The inserts on a mixer take the signal out after the preamp and before the EQ/Fader, process it and then 'insert' it back into the channel at the same point. Any processing done on an insert will completely replace the dry track, not blend it.

Busses are like the master output on your mixer. Some mixers have multiple busses and you could assign a track to busses 1/2 and 3/4. If you put compression on the inserts of busses 3/4 then you could blend the compressed signal on 3/4 with the raw tracks on 1/2.

When you send a track out of an Aux send it is like copying the track. The original track continues on that channel and ultimately to whatever buss you assign it. At the same time that signal is split and sent out the Aux output and onto whatever processor you have hooked up to that output. You then take the output of that processor and 'return' it into the mixer through an Effects Return or any open channel on the mixer. That way you can blend the dry and effected signals together.


Speedy VonTrapp said:
Let's say for a second that it's correct. Great, so I know what it means, somewhat. My problem is that I don't really understand how to do it, physically. Is this something that Cakewalk can do? (I'm guessing no.) Is it something that my mixer does? (I'm guessing yes.) I know that I've seen some bus options in my yamaha, but I've long since lost the english version of the manual, and I don't speak French, so I'm kind of screwed. ;)
Click to expand...

This is the reason that studios have huge mixers with more channels and knobs then would seem like you could ever possibly use. They will have 8-12 Aux sends, a bunch of returns and enough channels to mix all the live tracks, all the recorded tracks and anything else that needs to be monitored or mixed.

Your UB is a little compact mixer and I played with one before and it doesn't really have a lot of those features. I'm not even sure if it has inserts (but it might). The virtual mixers in most DAW programs work on the same principles with Auxes, Inserts and busses so how you go about doing it just depends on the capabilities of your hardware and software.

There are really one two principles to worry about-
Do you want to mix a raw and processed track together?
Do you want to replace a raw track with the processed track?

How you go about doing that just depends on the capabilities of the gear you have. Since I don't know your gear that well I can't really tell you the best way to do it. I'm pretty sure that Cakewalk should have most of those capabilities and probably is a lot more flexible than your mixer.
 
I'm going to ask more questions about how Cakewalk can help me do this, but I'll do that in the Cakewalk forum.

My question for here, is what is the main reason for using effects this way? (That is, having just the fx of the reverb, for example, on it's own track, with nothing of the dry track in it.)

Perhaps this is more of a theory, or personal preference question, I'm not sure. I'm just not sure of what advantages are presented when it's used this way.

I can see that the reverb (in the above sample) would be easy to bring up or push down without affecting, (or should I say Effecting - lol I crack myself up :D ), the dry track. Once on the computer, however, that seems like it's as easy as re-applying the fx or just turning a knob to get more out of the fx that you're using.

Maybe I'm way over simplifying this. I'm going to have to sit down with some tracks, and see if I can make it work, and watch what happens when I do, that's probably the best way.

Thanks for the help, Tex.

-Speedy
 
What I'm having trouble with is the idea that Cakewalk (or Sonar, as the case may be) would, with an fx inserted in the track, actually affect the dry signal overall. I mean, if you record a track with the fx insert on, and then delete the real time effect after recording...aren't you just back to your basic dry track, just as it would have been recorded with no effect at all? Or does it actually change the character of that recording?

I can totally get this from a hardware standpoint...but when people talk about recording with a compressor in the insert, it isn't as good as a hardware compressor because your sound card is already getting the signal before the compressor...so if it clips, it clips, basically, right? I don't really know if there's any connection to these two points, but if the dry track hits the card before the effect, and you're inserting a real time effect, it seems like turning it off would bring you directly back to that dry channel. Am I wrong? If not, I guess people would prefer to use the Aux buss so as to have less instances of an effect that is to be mapped over several tracks. And, not really based parallel to the reasoning for the hardware routing. A different way of thinking, so to speak.

Is there really a difference, I wonder, in the two, other than disk usage and the way you mix the effect in, dry/wet ratio in the insert, and 100% effect in the aux buss.

Interesting. Must get to the bottom of this. Obviously, I'd like to keep the original dry track very true, until absolutely positive about the effect of the effect. Ha ha.

But, then again, if they actually affect the track the same, just with different parameters, why would we have both? Because it won't automatically come before EQ, or faders or anything else. We are allowed to choose the order of our inserts, are we not? Maybe we should post a reference to this thread in the Cakewalk forum, and invite those guys to come over here.

-Kirstin
 
Kirstin,

Your assumptions don't seem far off at all.

When you record in Cakewalk, having an effects insert on doesn't affect the signal being recorded (i.e. non-destructive). It does not change the character of the recorded signal because it's a "realtime", or non-destructive effect. I don't remember Cakewalk's terminology, but you'd have to "apply" the effect to the actual track for it to become permanent (destructive). This would be like "printing the effect to the track".

The flipside is that yes, you can clip your recorded signal if you're using a compressor plugin. That's why many of us software folks use hardware limiters to record with - you can maximize the level of the recorded track. For me, I record with a hardware limiter to make sure I don't clip, then I use a compressor plugin when mixing.

And yes, most people prefer to use an Aux bus for applying effects that can be used this way (ironically, like reverb).

I have always assumed (Tex, correct me if I'm wrong here) that if you apply an insert effect, setting the effect's wet/dry at 50%, it's the same thing as turning the aux send knob up half way (assuming it's the same effect on the insert and the send, with the send's effect set at 100% wet).

And, yes, we can choose the order of the effects a bit more easily when using them as inserts, but like Tex said, certain effects work better as inserts (like compressors and eq), and certain ones work better and more efficiently as sends (like reverb & delay).
 
Seanmorse79 said:
I have always assumed (Tex, correct me if I'm wrong here) that if you apply an insert effect, setting the effect's wet/dry at 50%, it's the same thing as turning the aux send knob up half way (assuming it's the same effect on the insert and the send, with the send's effect set at 100% wet).
Click to expand...

Yep, for the most part it's the same thing.

Mixing in software really doesn't teach people the proper way of using mixers (if there is such a thing) because you can break all the rules. You also do things for different reasons. In software you use buss or aux effects to save processing power where with hardware you do it because you only have so many processors. In hardware you also have to figure out different ways to get the same results if you run out of physical busses or aux sends. In software you are only limited by your CPU power.
 
What's funny, though, Tex, is I think I like thinking about it from the hardware standpoint, and then know that I can break all those rules, if I needed to, in the software. Certainly it wouldn't hurt us to get used to using just those techniques in the software, so we can all have a common language still, you know?

It's almost unnerving for me, who doesn't know much about actually using the hardware, to think that I can process the same sound in so many different ways in the software. And, I'm trying to figure if I really am getting the same sound, or something different if I do things in a different way, even while attempting to make them exactly the same by applying different parameters via aux or inserts.

Now, in the Cakewalk forum, we're trying to determine if there's a way to use an aux and then transfer only that sound to a different track. Which to me, seems the same as copying the original track, setting an insert as all wet, and then blending the two tracks.

Oh, God, please let me not sound like a freaking fool! :D
-Kirstin
 
kgirl72 said:
Now, in the Cakewalk forum, we're trying to determine if there's a way to use an aux and then transfer only that sound to a different track. Which to me, seems the same as copying the original track, setting an insert as all wet, and then blending the two tracks.

Oh, God, please let me not sound like a freaking fool! :D
-Kirstin
Click to expand...

lol, you got it right. You could also assign the track to a buss, put reverb on the buss insert and record that buss. That would probably be the best way to actually record a wet track.
 
TEX!

That is funny...you should go check out what I've been experimenting with publicly...on this thread...

We were having a hard time figuring out how to record an auxiliary buss by itself. I didn't even think of this, until just a second ago, which is kind of what I did, except that I routed the auxiliary to a seperate buss than the original. Then, I bounced the track down, and used the seperate buss as the mixdown source material. This seemed to result in the wet track too, but keeping them both on the same buss just recorded the dry signal with the amount of send I specified. The reverb was gone.

Not exactly the same way, but pretty damn close. I may have figured this one out next.

There is the thought that the only way to have just the wet from the aux in Sonar is to get Sonar 3. But, I didn't think it could be possible that there wasn't SOME way to do it already. I think in Sonar 3 they may have addressed it specifically to make it easy to do, which right now, it doesn't appear to be, UNLESS you know something about hardware mixers, and software mixers and combining the two...like a wet and dry track. Ha ha.


I know I'm insatiably insane about little details!
Kirstin
 
Kristin, busses are no laughing matter ;)

You should be able to put a reverb on the track insert and set it to 100% wet. Mute everything else. Record the mixdown and use that track as your wet track.
 
The simplest method yet. Good work man.

I know those busses are no laughing matter. I'm sorry. Don't put it on my record...I can take no more demerits before I'm booted from this joint.

;)
see ya,
Kirstin
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top