Where to go from here?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

Techniques like this are one of the reasons to use sends instead of inline reverb. You could also do the opposite, compress what's sent to the reverb, for a smoother reverb effect. Or you can EQ the reverb send. For guitar, I usually put a de-clicker in the send path, so that the guitar is unaffected, but I don't get a click or squeak being exaggerated by triggering a reverb "ping".

Yes there are no hard fast rules and that de-clicker option is a great idea.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I'm not exactly clear as exactly to what you are saying. But if you are saying there is no difference between putting a reverb (with a wet dry control) directly on the audio track and putting that same reverb on a parallel track and sending the audio to it. I have to respectfully disagree .

There is a distinct difference , with the send method you get a 100% dry sound signal going to the audio track output and you also get the sound of 100% wet reverb effect going to it's output, (reduced by level, not by wet/dry mix percentage) thus you get both going to the master outputs
With the verb on the audio track itself you are not getting a 100% dry signal, going to the output, wuth the wet/dry mix control you are getting the percentage of dry signal reduced by the percentage of wet.--- i.e. 85 %dry 15% wet going to output. And with the verb on the audio track itself and using the the wet/dry control what ever percentage of wet you set will there will be a relative amount that output signal will be drawn backwards into the mix, increasing dramatically with the the increase of wet being applied . Where as with the send method, this tends not to happen as relatively quickly giving you more % of usable blended effect with less reduction in forward presence, particularly with a vocal track.

With digital in the box reverb (at least any I have used) the dry runs straight through unmolested and reverb is processed separately. Naturally the volume of the two is adjusted proportional to the wet dry levels. It comes out the same sound wise as mixing the reverb in from a send. A send does not make a difference or is needed just for a software reverb. Now if you are doing some types of other digital processing and/or you have multiple tracks you want to use the same reverb on, it is a different story.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

With digital in the box reverb (at least any I have used) the dry runs straight through unmolested and reverb is processed separately. Naturally the volume of the two is adjusted proportional to the wet dry levels. It comes out the same sound wise as mixing the reverb in from a send. A send does not make a difference or is needed just for a software reverb. Now if you are doing some types of other digital processing and/or you have multiple tracks you want to use the same reverb on, it is a different story.

The general logic of signal flow would suggest whether or not the percentage of dry set by the wet/dry control, runs separately through the software plugin unprocessed, which I assumed it did , it is however being output "with" not separate, from processed portion at the tracks output an into the main outputs.

So unlike the send method, no 100% unprocessed signal is actually hitting the track or main outputs. With the directly on the track method the signal hitting the track output and the main outputs is a processed signal, with the level of dry to wet ratio within that now processed signal, set by the dry/wet mix ratio. In my experience it does not come out the same sound wise. Granted it is subtle but to my ears there is more presence with the send method.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by KevWind

The general logic of signal flow would suggest whether or not the dry runs through unmolested which I assumed it did , it is however being output "with" not separate from processed portion at the tracks output. So unlike the send method, no 100% unprocessed signal is actually hitting the main outputs. In my experience it does not come out the same sound wise. Granted it is subtle but in my experience there is more presence with the send method.

The main is an optional output where you can combine tracks. It does not have a different inherent sound in and of itself. It's optional as to whether you choose to use it at all. You can keep everything on one set of stereo channels and record the final output right from there (which is what I do for solo guitar recording) or route stuff to some other channel(s).

Now you could get a different sound if you use multiple effects on a channel and switch the order around. Say you do three separate plug-ins in the following order: delay - equalization - reverb. That will sound different than say delay - reverb - equalization. On your reverb send you can post or pre fx - don't know how you would get reverb in the middle. It's also possible I suppose that some plug-ins do not get the proper delay compensation in the DAW, and that could change the sound.

The rare times I have used a send for reverb is where I wanted to alter just the reverb (not the dry signal) with another software add-on (such as cutting some high frequencies with an equalizer). Otherwise I don't hear a difference with it being used in channel or via a send.

I agree to disagree and will leave it at that.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

The main is an optional output where you can combine tracks. It does not have a different inherent sound in and of itself. It's optional as to whether you choose to use it at all. You can keep everything on one set of stereo channels and record the final output right from there (which is what I do for solo guitar recording) or route stuff to some other channel(s).

The rare times I have used a send for reverb is where I wanted to alter just the reverb (not the dry signal) with another software add-on (such as cutting some high frequencies with an equalizer). Otherwise I don't hear a difference with it in used in channel or on a send.

I agree to disagree and will leave it at that.

First, to clarify I did not say the mains had a different or inherent sound. Have no idea where you got that ? I was using the term
"mains" to mean the final stereo output channels. if some DAW has an additional option called 'main" or as in Pro Tools has an optional 'Master Fader" those are not what I was talking about.

Second, I was simply pointing out that there is a difference in the signal flow and what is actually reaching the final outputs.

Third, yes we will just have agree to disagree as to there being a sound difference or not.

[rick-slo]

Kev, just added some other considerations to my prior post. Later.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Kev, just added some other considerations to my prior post. Later.

Yes indeed I can certainly agree with the added considerations , it's all good

[coreyshields]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i84hjrketm...enzin.wav?dl=0

Check out the link, guys! I used the bus and impulse files and re-recorded Sun Never Rises. I think this sounds so much better. Thanks again for all the help!