| Author
|
FX as Inserts vs Sends/Returns
|
Upavas
Upavas
Started Topics :
150
Posts :
3315
Posted : Sep 21, 2010 10:29
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-09-21 09:48, disco hooligans wrote:
I only have reverbs as sends, typical trance template is 4-5 different reverb algos, from tight to long lush.
Bare in mind that I also use some reverb algo as an insert to sidechain the fuck out of.
Everything else is as inserts, the reason behind this is because I want to EQ and compress every channel individually and that includes the FX that are stacked on each channel.
Other than that there is a substancial amount of automation that I do on flangers, delays, bit crushers, of individual tracks. Doing that kind of automation on buss effects, would affect every channel that was sent through them. And a lot of times the automation is very brutal, and I need to do that on one, (or more, but in different amounts) channel.
Thankfully my quad MacPro can handle such tasks (the logic plugs are very CPU effective as well), so its mainly inserts on my end.
|
|
Exactly my point! Don't you just love those fast computers nowadays? 
  Upavas - Here And Now (Sangoma Rec.) new EP out Oct.29th, get it here:
http://timecode.bandcamp.com
http://upavas.com
http://soundcloud.com/upavas-1/ |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Sep 21, 2010 22:24
|
I no longer use sends at all.
I used to use them all the time.
I much prefer using multiple reverbs say, and tweaking each one to perfection for each sound/circumstance.
I've found this isn't a problem on a decent computer - and I bounce down things pretty much straight away anyway.
Outside of CPU cycles I've heard two arguments for sends (which are positioned against inserts, rather than being for sends). I don't agree with either:
1) "Using lots of reverbs as inserts can lead to a confused sound stage - its easier to make the mix cohesive using a few send verbs."
Well, yes, using lots of reverbs can do this, there is no doubt. But, assuming a modicum of skill the flipside of that is that more believable spaces are achievable by going insert nuts - with more complex verb tails and interactions than are achievable from a few send reverbs. If the engineer is capable of tweaking one reverb right ... surely they can tweak more right as well? So, I use lots of inserts rather than sends because it is both potentially possible and practically achievable to achieve IMO a better sound this way.
2) "Using lots of reverbs can make different parts of the mix sound like they are in different spaces"
A similar argument, but not quite the same.
I'd like to know why this is a bad thing? Again, this common argument assumes incompetence rather than competence on the engineer's part. So to counter it, firstly and foremostly, this affect may be desirable. Secondly, just because things can end up like that doesn't mean they will, assuming competence on the engineer's part. And there are many, many competent engineers out there.
So - in short, I've yet to see an argument for send reverbs at least that actually makes sense. Where as there are arguments for reverbs as inserts - the ability to create complex believable spaces, the ability to really fine tune the verb to a specific instrument, and the ability to create an evolving sense of space.
If someone was to come out and say - 'I like send reverbs because that is just what I'm used to' then that is another thing entirely, and completely fair enough ... but I'd encourage them to reconsider their working methods and employ the - bluntly - technically superior technique of using reverbs as inserts.
.
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
willsanquil
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
93
Posts :
2822
Posted : Sep 21, 2010 22:37
|
Nice post speaka  I actually don't really use the sends for verbs as much as I do for flanger/phaser type stuff - btw did you check out the Ubhik effects pack yet??!! STUFF IS SO FUCKING GOOD
anyways, what I've really been liking about sends and manipulation in ableton is the ability to re-send the sends to themselves, or other sends. In combination with feedback loops I am getting some really cool shit that I never got with inserts....and I'm trying to emulate analog mixing, or my understanding of analog mixing.
For instance, I set up a simple delay in ableton fed to itself. I have another send track that has a phaser in it. From the simple delay send track I also enable the ability to send that send to the phaser send (god damnit, there has to be a more intelligible way to write that)....and then I fuck about with the phaser and it sounds really cool..and doesn't sound the same when I use inserts.
Ableton routing is awesome fun.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch...you must first invent the universe
www.soundcloud.com/tasp
www.soundcloud.com/kinematic-records |
|
|
|
Suloo
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
87
Posts :
2822
Posted : Sep 21, 2010 22:43
|
Its up to one self..if one want to create one whole room for drums for example then one sendreverb chain is perfect..
but with reverb its even possible to place sounds in different depths..
so one reverb with no highs and long pre release and maybe tail for sounds in the backround..
for sound wich should be in your face , no pre delay and almost no tail but a lot of early reflections..and for sounds in the middle a combination of both...this should be suitable for most tasks..for specialadvantures use an additional reverb...
-------......-------...-..-..-..-.-.-.-.- |
|
|
|
TimeTraveller
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
80
Posts :
3207
Posted : Sep 21, 2010 23:06
|
without sends you cannot achieve this kind of coloration of signal when a prefader is on and you want only the effect coming out of your send via your selected line in or instrument channel.
I like it much.Just this colour is so psy ,than I bounce often for more.
I also have the habbit to use many inserts and less sends,but I like both to combine.
https://soundcloud.com/shivagarden |
|
|
|
daark
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
58
Posts :
1397
Posted : Sep 21, 2010 23:10
|
|
willsanquil
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
93
Posts :
2822
Posted : Sep 22, 2010 20:42
|
|
willsanquil
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
93
Posts :
2822
Posted : Sep 29, 2010 13:52
|
OK - I really have no clue how I have been ignoring how ridiculous sends are for so long. The stuff I get out of throwing audio to sends is far and away cleaner and better sounding than what I was doing before.
Cosmosis' answer had me kind of thinking...he said he had a bunch of FX on sends that he uses to mix down to audio relatively quickly, so I tried the same thing with a twist
before, if I wanted to phase or flange something, I would just stick it as an insert onto the track but keep the dry/wet low, maybe 15-30% so that you could actually still HEAR the original sound
now what I do, is put the phaser/flange on 100% and use it as a send, then re-route the phaser/flange back on top of the original audio, but maybe panned a bit or out of phase with the original audio - it adds the effect you are seeking while also fattening your original sound, and make sure to tweak your FX as you're recording for a sound that changes constantly
I have been using this technique on leads, percussion, you name it - it sounds awesome. Thanks Bill!
oh, and big plug for U-He's Ubhik FX suite - far and away the BEST SOUNDING FX ever. They are my default go-to FX these days. seriously, throw the phaser on a send, tweak the spectrum knob and BE HAPPY
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch...you must first invent the universe
www.soundcloud.com/tasp
www.soundcloud.com/kinematic-records |
|
|
|
|
