Putting Reverb on an Insert

[Francesco Pirrone]

Hi guys,

this is gonna sound nerdish, it's gonna sound naive......I don't understand the reasoning behind this things, if there's any. Please enlighthen me.

Since dawn of time I was told to put reverbs (flangers, dealys etc...) on a send, similarly I was told to put Eq, Comp, Distortion etc.... on insert.

They told me to put on the channel insert only things that affect dynamics.

Many times they brought a guitar effect chain as an example: if you put your reverb on the amp input the result is gonna be awkward, it's much better to have the reverb on the loop FX (send).

The thing is that putting reverbs on the channel insert in a DAW wouldn't sound as bad as the guitar example. Actually, sometimes the only way for me to get the sound I have in mind is to use the reverb and then compress/eq the whole signal (dry+wet).

With the guitar I guess it would be simply awkward to route a wet sound into the amp saturation, the reverb would be before the distortion........but can you please tell me what happens on a DAW channel? Reverb on the insert would be before what?

Why can't I compress the dry+wet sound just as I would compress the sound of a distant mic? 

Best regards

Francesco

[crusoe]

To the best of my understanding, this rule is simply a rationalization of the common-sense arguments. You could have several guitar tracks, and you probably want to have the same reverb for them (all or some), you could then have this send reverb serve as a whole mix' ambience reverb (easily controllable), this also saves processing power, etc. There's no some "deeply hidden" reason behind this, it's just a clean way of doing things. Well, this is of course desirable.

The situations when you want to compress dry+wet are totally valid, too. For example, you could use a short reverb to add just a bit of air to the otherwise dry input. You don't use it as an "effect" per se in this case, it becomes an integral part of the sound. You [b]want[/b] to have all processing after the reverb in this case. At least, it makes sense to me.

Specifically the distortion thing is all about the details. The length of the reverb, the amount of distiortion, the musical style, the specific arrangement, it all counts. If you envision your mix a certain way, and you get there by doing something without ruining something else, then why not.

@Another User said:

Actually, sometimes the only way for me to get the sound I have in mind is to use the reverb and then compress/eq the whole signal (dry+wet).

Can you give an example? Just out of curiosity.

[Francesco Pirrone]

@Another User said:

Can you give an example? Just out of curiosity.

Any dry sample of classical instruments, if I grab a flute and I do some comp/eq then send some reverb I am not able to achieve the sound I want. I use a reverb on insert instead and get the sound I would expect from recording in a lively room then I compress and eq that sound, just as I would do with the sound of a distant mic. I don't know if it's me but I just find it easier. It is in the end what you said, sometimes you want to make the sound wet and that's a whole new sound, then you process it as a whole.

As I mentioned, for me it applies to sections of the orchestra as well, CPU can handle it easy peasy then why not? If CPU was an issue I would have to use sends for orchestral mixes as well.

[crusoe]

Thanks for the explanation!

@Another User said:

 I don't know if it's me but I just find it easier.

Getting things done faster is already important enough (less ear fatigue).

[Francesco Pirrone]

Thank you, Crusoe 😊