Using reverb as send or insert

[vaesion]

seems like every where i study about reverb it says to use it as a send effect. i imagine diffusing a sound and bluring it out to make other things seem more forward would be the same as bluring a picture in adobe so that the text on top would seem more forward or 3 d. But in order to do that the backing picture would have to be completely blurred not just blur around the edges. When I add reverb to a sound with the send effect and turn it down in the mix. it still sounds forward but with a tail behind it. If I use it as an insert to control blurring of the whole image it then makes it seem in the back and making other things seem forward. Is using reverb that uncommon as an insert? Or is it just a cpu saver?

things that obviously need to be clear like the vocal I add a lil reverb to the main mix but if I use reverb as an insert on some instruments to create space or clarity for the other ones is that an uncommon practice or should I learn to do it with sends?

Bryan

Thanks

[mixerguy]

send

[siegfried]

I´m using reverbs mostly as insert (and using dry/wet knob)...

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by vaesion

seems like every where i study about reverb it says to use it as a send effect. i imagine diffusing a sound and bluring it out to make other things seem more forward would be the same as bluring a picture in adobe so that the text on top would seem more forward or 3 d. But in order to do that the backing picture would have to be completely blurred not just blur around the edges. When I add reverb to a sound with the send effect and turn it down in the mix. it still sounds forward but with a tail behind it. If I use it as an insert to control blurring of the whole image it then makes it seem in the back and making other things seem forward. Is using reverb that uncommon as an insert? Or is it just a cpu saver?

things that obviously need to be clear like the vocal I add a lil reverb to the main mix but if I use reverb as an insert on some instruments to create space or clarity for the other ones is that an uncommon practice or should I learn to do it with sends?

Bryan

Thanks

Use it with sends and returns.

Why?

Because you can automate it or EQ it either way and make it fit in the mix better.

[cap217]

sends....

you can send more stuff to the same space and save CPU power as well! And the automation works that way! I put 99% of effects on aux channels!

[KrisNY]

Aux channels will save your life when it comes to CPU!

[Kiwiburger]

I think the analogy between reverb and gaussian blur is not a bad one. I see reverb as being similar to shadows. You can make a good shadow by copying an object, convert to gray-scale, blurring it and offsetting it behind the original object. The 3D effect is similar to what reverb does to audio.

If your reverb effect is good enough - you can apply 100% wet reverb as an insert, for a blurry effect. But this tends to expose the reverb quality, and most plugin reverbs don't have the quality required for that.

I use Cubase SX, and if you track a mono vocal (as you do) you end up with a Mono track. If you Insert a stereo reverb into that track, it remains mono. Which may not be a bad thing, but generally you want some stereo width. That's one reason to use a send to a stereo group that renders the reverb in stereo.

If using hardware reverb - you don't want to send you good dry vocal track out through unnecessary D/A and A/D conversions - especially through a noisy reverb unit. It doesn't matter if the reverb tail is degraded slightly - it often helps - but processing your whole vocal as an insert effect is not good.

The other reason is that I find that the amount of reverb I need is often a very small percentage of the total mix. The resolution of the audio for the wet sound might be compromised at these very low levels. I think it's better to keep the reverb on a seperate track - feed the reverb processor with a strong signal, keeping good headroom. Capture the reverb in full resolution, so the tails have good detail and low noise. They will be attentuated in the mix anyway - but at least if you do any further processing on the reverb (compression, distortion, eq, phasing, etc, etc), you aren't working on damaged 8 bit sound.

[joeq]

By sending multiple tracks to the same reverb you are also mimicing the mixing in the air that occurs when multiple musicians perform together in the same room.

If a particular instrument was going to be the only one to get a unique verb, then I suppose it wouldn't matter much if you used a reverb on an insert instead of as a send/return. (you could automate the Mix % control- an awkward but possible way to simulate what you would do by automating a send.)

Maybe it's just me, but I cannot remember ever doing a mix where any instrument seemed to require being 100% wet. Besides, you could still use a prefader send to do that.

[kurt]

Yes, if you use it (reverb) as an insert, the level of control over this particular track/voice is of quite another magnitude.

[Kiwiburger]

Eh? You have much more control if your reverb is on a seperate channel ...

[jamroom]

I teach a few audio classes and the concept of signal flow is hard to communicate to people that don't undersatnd it yet make listenable recordings.Many self taught engineers think that using aux sends and returns and bussing multiple inputs to a stereo aux return are useless skills.If you learn signal flow from a professional or a good teacher you won't have to ask people on gear sluts.You'll be able to figure the most useful routing optionsfor any mixing task.Learning general signal flow and automation concepts will make you able to take a huge step forward with the art of mixing.

[Mike Caffrey]

It's funny, I think of these two options as being about panning.

Printing reverb or putting it on an insert fixes the spacial location and makes it matched to the dry location.

I most cases an aux doesn't not and frequently returns in stereo.

I can't remember the lst time i put reverb on an insert, but I always have a dual mono send and return so that I have control over the spacial relatioship between the dry and wet signals.

[vaesion]

does reverb need compression normally?

[Kiwiburger]

No - although it's going to get compressed if you have compression over the 2 buss, and probably more compressed during mastering.

But for interesting effects on drums you can try compressing and/or gating a reverb.

The panning issue in another excellent reason to use sends. It's an old trick to pan mono reverbs to the opposite side as the mono dry track. Which also brings up stereo width. Sometimes wide reverbs are just too wide, and it's nice to pan the left and right in a bit to narrow the field.

[vaesion]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

No - although it's going to get compressed if you have compression over the 2 buss, and probably more compressed during mastering.

But for interesting effects on drums you can try compressing and/or gating a reverb.

The panning issue in another excellent reason to use sends. It's an old trick to pan mono reverbs to the opposite side as the mono dry track. Which also brings up stereo width. Sometimes wide reverbs are just too wide, and it's nice to pan the left and right in a bit to narrow the field.

what sounds should have true stereo reverb in a rnb or rap song?
and if im gona do true stereo reverb should i always use two plugs to create it by panning 1 left and 1 right