williamcopper
Thanks for the info, and I'll check out your video channels.   But what you seem to be saying is that to get a "per-track" reverb I'd need another bus for every track?   That would add up to a lot of buses!  
 

Hi. I would say no, unless you want a specific reverb on each track. 
I have usually one or two reverb buses (Hall, plate etc), and route tracks in question to desired reverb.
All the best.

Zargg71

williamcopper
Thanks for the info, and I'll check out your video channels.   But what you seem to be saying is that to get a "per-track" reverb I'd need another bus for every track?   That would add up to a lot of buses!  
 

Hi. I would say no, unless you want a specific reverb on each track. 
I have usually one or two reverb buses (Hall, plate etc), and route tracks in question to desired reverb.
All the best.

+1    And don't forget to pan those sends too so that each track sits in its desired position.  
 

Again, I headed this way because of how Virtual SoundStage (VSS) works; its logic seemed to suit the kind of big orchestral stuff I often do, where there are many individual instruments, all needing the same 'room' but needing to be placed differently around that room.   So putting an instance of VSS on every track, up to 80-100 of them, seemed to work fine -- VSS somehow combines them all into one unit with 80-100 individual placements.    So my goal was to do that but in addition, since some VST instruments have built-in reverb that does not fit well in VSS, route all sound to one or more specially configured ambiant reverbs.     In a sense, VSS placement substitutes for "panning those sends"? 

That looks pretty cool...  similar to MIR Pro, but completely inside the host.    Nice.
 
I think sends would accomplish a good bit of what VSS does.  I'd probably add a Send pointing to an aux track for the per-track reverb, with level and pan set as needed, and then add a send from that aux track to another aux track (or bus) for the general reverb tail (example used in VSS) that all tracks would get equally, as a single unit.   Of course you could always use multiple aux tracks too if you wanted to break it down by section. 
 

 
It looks to me like VSS only simulates early reflections to provide the positioning information of each instrument.  A more general (and typical) reverb is still needed for the background ambience/reverberation.  So for each instrument there's 1) the instrument itself, 2) its early reflections generated by its own instance of VSS (which you don't want to reverberate further), and 3) its contribution to the background reverberation (its late reflections).
 
So what William needs (as he has pointed out) is to send the raw instrument out to the general reverb before the signal hits the VSS in the instrument's fx bin where the early reflections are produced (and that signal will then continue on its way out of the track as usual, but not to any reverb busses).  So a pre-fx-bin send.  Is that possible ?
 

Beautifully and clearly said, PaulP, thank you.   That's exactly what I wanted to know.  

Apparently the answer is no:
 
https://www.cakewalk.com/Documentation?product=SONAR%20X3&language=3&help=Mixing.07.html
 
 

Well you don't really necessarily want it entirely post-bin I guess, just pre-VSS. Although I'm not entirely sure about the philosophy here. From the listener's perspective, say you are standing somewhere in the middle of the concert hall watching the orchestra. Then the reverberation heard on the back instruments would actually take into account their position on stage. It would be really strange if you take care to carefully position each instrument and then destroy that imaging by putting them all through a reverb as if they're in the same spot.
 
So I don't actually think it's strange to "reverberate a reverb" in this case, especially not since VSS is such a subtle placement effect. You may want to keep early reflections down a little on your coloring reverb though. 

Or simply invest in a reverb plugin that lets you control the Early Reflections and Tail independently of each other.

Bristol_Jonesy, that image you referenced above was the same I was looking at in the Reference Manual, leading to this question.    
 
Here's another troubling feature about that image:   it appears that the ProChannel is an ALTERNATIVE path to the FX bin?    That might explain why I always feel that using anything on the prochannel messes up the sound....