ASG
Max Output Level: -86 dBFS
- Total Posts : 209
- Joined: 2010/10/26 00:40:44
- Status: offline
Inserts vs. FX Sends?
Im having trouble understanding the difference, and why one would use one over the other. If im understanding this correctly, then an insert is an effect that is processed on the signal at the source, whereas with a send, its as if you duplicated the signal and sent the copy of the signal through a bus? Whats the signifigance of choose one over the other?
|
M@ B
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1128
- Joined: 2010/01/05 20:54:54
- Status: offline
Re:Inserts vs. FX Sends?
2011/09/21 01:05:18
(permalink)
An insert is an output/input point in a channel, commonly used to patch compressors into the signal path. They are located right after the preamp at the top of the channel. They use a particular cable, an insert cable, which is a Y-cable (Tip/Ring/Sleeve to 2 Tip/Sleeve). The 3 conductor end plugs into the insert jack on the board, the other 2 plug into the in and out of the compressor. A send-return is similar, though different. A mixer may have 1 or 2 or 4 or 8 sends per channel. If you connect Send 1 to the input of a reverb unit and connect the output of the reverb unit to return 1 on the mixer, any and every channel on the mixer can now send it's signal to that one reverb by simply turning the "send 1" knob that is located on every channel. That scenario is repeated for however many sends your mixer has. Hope that helps.
|
Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16775
- Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Status: offline
Re:Inserts vs. FX Sends?
2011/09/21 06:00:18
(permalink)
Funny how this is in the software section yet M@ B's reply is totally hardware related!
Ah well.
In software/DAW land, it's fairly common requirement to want to "share" an Fx plug across several channels - reverb being the obvious example. you've already worked out that the signal is in fact duplicated via the sends on each channel and each copy, or a portion thereof is fed to the input of a bus that yo set up and insert a Reverb plug into it's Fx bin. This is an extremely efficient way to manage system resources effectively. you could if you wanted to, have a reverb plug on your source trans as an insert effect, but your system will soon start to complain, especially if you insert ram hungry/cpu cycle hungry plugs like Perfect Space (a convolution verb)
Delay/Reverb plugs come with a wet/dry control and when used on a bus in this way should always be set to 100% wet. You control the amount of the effect via each tracks Send level control
Track Inserts on the other hand are generally used for specific track treatments, like compression, gating etc. Plugs like the Sonitus suite are extremely light on your system and you'll find you can insert many instances before you run into system problems.
If you feel the need to insert an effect like reverb/delay as an insert effect, you control the amount by varying the wet/dry levels.
CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughoutCustom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
|
Guitarhacker
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 24398
- Joined: 2007/12/07 12:51:18
- Location: NC
- Status: offline
Re:Inserts vs. FX Sends?
2011/09/21 08:34:47
(permalink)
Maybe I'm still old school or just used to the way it worked in Music Creator.
I insert plugs into the FX bin of a track if I want that effect on just that track.
If I want it shared across several tracks, I create a buss and pop it in there and then route the track I want it to share to the buss. These also tend to be "like kind" things...such as several guitars or vocal tracks.... which all benefit from the same reverb.
One day I may explore the reasons and how to use the sends properly now that I have X1.
My website & music: www.herbhartley.com MC4/5/6/X1e.c, on a Custom DAW Focusrite Firewire Saffire Interface BMI/NSAI "Just as the blade chooses the warrior, so too, the song chooses the writer "
|
Bristol_Jonesey
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 16775
- Joined: 2007/10/08 15:41:17
- Location: Bristol, UK
- Status: offline
Re:Inserts vs. FX Sends?
2011/09/21 12:16:06
(permalink)
Herb, by routing the output of your tracks to an Fx bus, you lose the dry element of the track which then has to be compensated for by adjusting the Fx plugs own wet/dry control.
You're then limited to having exactly the same amount of reverb/delay/whatever for every track feeding the bus
Using the method I outlined above, you run it 100% wet and control the amount of 'verb via the Send control on each track.
Try it - a whole new world of Fx processing awaits.
CbB, Platinum, 64 bit throughoutCustom built i7 3930, 32Gb RAM, 2 x 1Tb Internal HDD, 1 x 1TB system SSD (Win 7), 1 x 500Gb system SSD (Win 10), 2 x 1Tb External HDD's, Dual boot Win 7 & Win 10 64 Bit, Saffire Pro 26, ISA One, Adam P11A,
|
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10654
- Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
- Location: TeXaS
- Status: offline
Re:Inserts vs. FX Sends?
2011/09/21 12:35:32
(permalink)
A bus allows you to add an imprint across several individual tracks, too. As Bristol says, you loose the wet/dry aspect of a send (esp. good for reverbs, allowing you to slather it on BVs etc.), but for guitars or drums you can apply bus compression and eq to get it to sound like one kit. This is, of course, in addition to the above advice, not the only way to do it. More tools, more toys more means of doing similiar things. Tho, to add to the hardware analogy, we didn't use to have an unlimited number of anything to use and buses were one way to stretch your hardware.
@
https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome
http://www.bnoir-film.com/ there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
|
M@ B
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1128
- Joined: 2010/01/05 20:54:54
- Status: offline
Re:Inserts vs. FX Sends?
2011/09/21 13:13:48
(permalink)
The principles are the same aren't they?
|
bitflipper
01100010 01101001 01110100 01100110 01101100 01101
- Total Posts : 26036
- Joined: 2006/09/17 11:23:23
- Location: Everett, WA USA
- Status: offline
Re:Inserts vs. FX Sends?
2011/09/21 13:38:51
(permalink)
The principles are the same aren't they? Pretty much. There are only 3 differences between hardware and software inserts/sends that I can think of off the top of my head: a) software has unlimited busses, hardware you have to choose which effects are important enough to take up a bus b) CPU efficiency considerations. A bus can save CPU cycles by sharing one effect between many tracks. An insert effect can save CPU cycles because a track can be frozen while a bus cannot. With hardware this is not a consideration. c) S/N ratios. Every patch cable and outboard device adds some noise. Sharing a common effect minimizes this. In software, there is no penalty for stacking multiple effects on each track. There are creative reasons for using one over the other, such as having a common reverb to glue multiple instruments and make them sound like they were played together in the same space. These are pretty much the same for hardware and software.
 All else is in doubt, so this is the truth I cling to. My Stuff
|
M@ B
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1128
- Joined: 2010/01/05 20:54:54
- Status: offline
Re:Inserts vs. FX Sends?
2011/09/21 13:49:45
(permalink)
Nice elaboration, thanks Bit.
|