A few words on SENDING to Time-based Processors and INSERTING Dynamic Processors

[EthanMorse]

Its come to my attention that a lot of people who've started out mixing in the digital domain with virtual mixers don't know this basic concept, so I thought I might share...

You SEND and RETURN from a Time-based processor(reverbs, delays, etc...)

You INSERT a Dynamic processor.

Meaning, you don't put a reverb in the channel path. You use a SEND, and SEND to and return from an "aux" track with the reverb on it, set the reverb plugin to 100% wet, and control the "wet/dry ratio" with the SEND fader.

I'm sorry to have wasted your time if you already know this, but I was working in a studio with protools where the "engineers" had no idea what i was talking about when i was trying to explain why they shouldn't have their reverbs directly in the channel path.

[Corey Shay]

A good and thoughtful genture, Ethan, but I fear that even if it falls on the ears of someone who needs preaching to, they still won't understand. I try to reinforce this concept to students every day, and they still act like I'm speaking another language even though they hear it in class just as often. Then as soon as they seem to have the concept understood, they start working in ProTools and act like it's suddenly an exception. I'll often find students asking why they have run out of DSP when I go to their stations finding they have 8 instances of D-Verb all with the same settings (all on channel inserts of course).

Believe me your frustration is not felt in a vacuum.

[spookyvoodoo]

Why shouldn't you use an insert for verb? I do both depending on the mood. What's the difference if you have a send set to 0.0dB or the insert set to 100%?

[C SMITH]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<HR>Originally posted by spookyvoodoo:
Why shouldn't you use an insert for verb? I do both depending on the mood. What's the difference if you have a send set to 0.0dB or the insert set to 100%?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh boy. Think about it Spooky. An insert set to 100% contains none of the direct signal. It would be 100% reverb. A send to an aux allows you to blend a small, or large, amount of reverb with the direct signal. That equals a big difference. The other big difference is that you save DSP by using one reverb and several sends rather than pulling up several inserted reverbs.

[Noiz2]

The other reason on outboard gear was noise, you didn't want everything going through the box, But I don't think that is relevent in PT?

[mpayne]

One time I would disagree with Ethan's premise is for Waves Truverb, which was specifically designed as a room simulator to be used as an insert with preset levels of dry and wet. you can alter these levels, and use the plug-in in a traditional send/return context, but to do so reduces the realistism room simulation which is what they were going for.
Also, I'm a little wary of ever setting down hard and fast rules like that, but maybe this is one of those times when the basic concepts should be learned first, after which one can, and indeed should, experiment with breaking them!

regards

Malcolm

[QuikDraw]

But there's still the unescapable fact that there is no good reason NOT to use a send for verb (and other time based processors). There is nothing that can be accomplished on an insert that cannot also be accomplished on a send.

In the example above where the preset wet/dry ratios are desired all one would need to do would be to set the send to pre-fader and drop the channel fader to infinity so that the aux with the verb on it provided the entire wet/dry mix. The difference between this and using it on an insert is that with the send you still have the option of adding some more dry signal if you want that has NOT gone through the plug-in.

There is no reason to justify putting a time based effect on a channel insert! It only limits your options while providing you with no additional benefit over using a send.

Mike

[HearInc]

I agree that putting verb or whatever on a send is the usual, efficent, and preferred way to use it, but I often will slap the same effect directly on the channel for many reasons. My favorite one is that it's not the last plug in the string. Hard compression on a reverb tail is cool, or a spacializer, or chorus, or distortion, or whatever- for me, it's easier to control and simpler to keep track of (for automation, bouncing down to free DSP). And not only that, sometimes I don't feel like going through the extra steps of setting up a send and return for a quick reverb (yeah, lazy).

In my world it's not a real crucial "right way to do it" issue other than for DSP usage.

Later,
Brian

[spookyvoodoo]

Sorry, that didn't come out like I wanted it too. What I meant was, you can control the amount of direct signal with the wet/dry mix, so I sometimes do both. Ex: I usually send 9 channels of drums to a stereo bus to add very subtle verb to the whole kit to make them sound "live" rather than putting a verb on each channel. But i'll insert a gated reverb on the snare channel to make it stand out a little. I think PT gives you more options and you can't think too analog when you use it. It's a whole new ballgame, so to speak. One thing I have learned, is there is no right or wrong way to do anything in music. In 10 years, digital clipped distortion will come in a stompbox. [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[patchboy]

Another, more conceptual reason to use 'verb on an aux return is the idea of putting several instruments into the same aural space. When I am recording/mixing an essentially organic project, (live instruments and performances) unless I am going for something wacky, having a bunch of diferent reverbs starts to tear apart the sense of a whole. What, everybody is alone in different rooms? Having a single, great sounding reverb can do a lot to bring coherency to a mix.

My 2¢