REVERBs - Insert vs. Send - is it possible to get the same sound?

[Caine123]

in all those years i didnt really care much about inserts vs sends, i mostly use inserts but it is just sucking when you copy paste the same reverb setting 10 times, not only time consuming, especially ressource consuming BUT i still dunno why it NEVER? sounds the same with inserts and sends?

e.g.
i got my 5 instruments with REVERB - LARGE CHURCH HALL all 5 routed to seperate mixer channels and a wet value at 37%.

sounding well, now i try to replace them with SENDS, ok i tale the REVERB - LARGE CHURCH HALL on a BUS MIXER CHANNEL and put the wet at 100% and THEN route all 5 instruments to it with a value of 37%.

it doesnt sound the same. something i never really dive deeper, now i wanna learn . hope you guys can explain me why it is like that and if you can match the sound like the insert sounds?

appreciate it !

[fese]

When using sends, the signals from the instruments are summed first and then processed by the reverb, whereas with the verb on tracks, the signals get summed afterwards.
Imagine you have five identical rooms, put some musicians in them and record them separately. It will sound different than putting those players in one room and recording it, because there will be interferences from the signals, build ups, phase cancellation and so on, which will trigger a different response from the reverb algorithms.
At least that’s how I imagine it

As how to work around it: just accept that it will not be identical and make it work for you. Don’t send the same amount from all tracks to the reverb. Change the reverb a bit, or equalize it afterwards to remove resonances or highlight frequencies. Maybe just upping the level of the reverb is enough.

And if nothing works, you just have to keep putting the verbs on the tracks, if that’s what makes it sound good to you!
Although I personally would approach it differently: use sends for tracks that should be “in the same room” (or sonic space), and use inserts where a track should have its own distinct reverb (although for the latter I more often actually use dedicated sends, too, because I find level balancing easier with it)

[_leras]

e.g.
i got my 5 instruments with REVERB - LARGE CHURCH HALL all 5 routed to seperate mixer channels and a wet value at 37%.

sounding well, now i try to replace them with SENDS, ok i tale the REVERB - LARGE CHURCH HALL on a BUS MIXER CHANNEL and put the wet at 100% and THEN route all 5 instruments to it with a value of 37%.

Is it just a leveling issue? You might just need to change the levels and send more to the reverb

Unless you missed that you change the volume of the reverb bus channel:

INSERTS level = 1 then you get 0.63 track and 0.37 reverb about 2 to 1 ratio
SENDS you get track 1.0 + 0.37 reverb, so more like 3 to 1 ratio - so less reverb

[imrae]

When using sends, the signals from the instruments are summed first and then processed by the reverb, whereas with the verb on tracks, the signals get summed afterwards.
Imagine you have five identical rooms, put some musicians in them and record them separately. It will sound different than putting those players in one room and recording it, because there will be interferences from the signals, build ups, phase cancellation and so on, which will trigger a different response from the reverb algorithms.
At least that’s how I imagine it

This is only correct for non-linear processing. Reverb is generally linear or very close to linear, which gives it the distributive property f(a+b) = f(a) + f(b). Real world spaces are very linear unless you have rattling paper or something; this is why convolution reverb works so well. Some recent "vintage studio" plugins like the IK Sunset Sound one have a bit of nonlinear preamp modelling.

So to answer OP: yes, mathematically if you are using a "clean" reverb it must give the same sound. You may need to double check your send levels and make sure the send is from the same pre/post FX position as the insert was.

I'm not sure the 37% wet on the reverb and 37% DAW send are defined on the same scale. It's easier to work in dB once you understand how they work.

[jamcat]

You could try routing everything you want reverb on to a group bus destination, instead of aux sending it in parallel, and keep your reverb level at 37% in the plugin. This will act the way you're used to working, and should sound the same.

[Tj Shredder]

Does it matter if its different at all? Using sends is the way to go and simply adjust with your ears. Its not only better as you give all sources the same space, it also doesn’t need all that cpu. I have no idea why you started with reverbs in inserts at all, it rarely makes sense…

[Trancit]

...

INSERTS level = 1 then you get 0.63 track and 0.37 reverb about 2 to 1 ratio
SENDS you get track 1.0 + 0.37 reverb, so more like 3 to 1 ratio - so less reverb

This is the most important part...

Most plugins don´t have the possibility to "recreate" a send/receive relation ship where the dry part stays at 100% and the wet part get mixed on top of it... they just have a simple mix knob...

If you carefully match these volumes by trial and error you get 100% the same sound no matter which way you go...there is no other magic behind sends...

[ramseysounds]

Who actually cares? Forget the maths and use your ears. Adjust your send levels. Use 1 reverb on a send instead of 5 as inserts and watch your cpu reduce dramatically. Stop overthinking and just make some music.

[jamcat]

I’ll use a reverb on an insert if I’m creating a room mic track. For example, I will have a SWAM solo string quartet with Virtual Sound Stage 2 placing each player in a spot on the stage. Then I route each player’s destination to a single group channel that has a reverb on an insert. I match the reverb room to the room in Virtual Sound Stage 2 and get the right mix of room to ER/direct on the reverb wet/dry mix. Doing it this way doesn’t have a parallel dry signal that doesn’t get sent to the reverb. All of it goes into the reverb.

If I’m using a reverb like an FX processor, I’ll put it on an aux send for patrolled reverb and dry signals.

The one thing DAWs are really missing when it comes to sending to reverb is the sends should have built-in pre-delay, so you can create depth from front to back with the reverb. When everything in a reverb has the same pre-delay, there is no depth. Virtual Sound Stage 2 creates unique panning/pre-delay/ER to create a 3 dimensional sound stage.

[imrae]

Who actually cares? Forget the maths and use your ears. Adjust your send levels. Use 1 reverb on a send instead of 5 as inserts and watch your cpu reduce dramatically. Stop overthinking and just make some music.

I don't think it's foolish to ask the question and learn more about how one's tools should work. These are building blocks for more complex processing.

[plexuss]

Audio is not just about using your ears. Using your ears is an important concept for sure. But there is science involved as well. Engineering. Audio Engineer. Audio is a nice combination of subjective an objective. Being able to work with both is an important foundation for achieving the results you want. Use your ears. And use your brain too.

[No_Use]

...

INSERTS level = 1 then you get 0.63 track and 0.37 reverb about 2 to 1 ratio
SENDS you get track 1.0 + 0.37 reverb, so more like 3 to 1 ratio - so less reverb

I thought it may be nice if DAWs had an option to automatically lower the dry signal on the sending track the same amount sends are turned up because of this (so dry/wet and send behaviour would be similar), would it make sense?

[bmanic]

...

INSERTS level = 1 then you get 0.63 track and 0.37 reverb about 2 to 1 ratio
SENDS you get track 1.0 + 0.37 reverb, so more like 3 to 1 ratio - so less reverb

I thought it may be nice if DAWs had an option to automatically lower the dry signal on the sending track the same amount sends are turned up because of this (so dry/wet and send behaviour would be similar), would it make sense?

Well if your send is a 'post' send, it will remain relative to the volume of your track. So yeah, it's not automatic per say, but once you found the level you are going for, it'll stay like that no matter how much you wiggle the track fader around.

You do however end up juggling two different controls with the traditional pre/post send type whereas with your idea, you'd only be changing a single control.. the send, and the fader would adjust accordingly. I really do like your idea. It's a rather elegant solution from a single track standpoint. Could even be quite intuitive with multiple tracks.

[jamcat]

...

INSERTS level = 1 then you get 0.63 track and 0.37 reverb about 2 to 1 ratio
SENDS you get track 1.0 + 0.37 reverb, so more like 3 to 1 ratio - so less reverb

I thought it may be nice if DAWs had an option to automatically lower the dry signal on the sending track the same amount sends are turned up because of this (so dry/wet and send behaviour would be similar), would it make sense?

No, that doesn’t makes sense. Because you can send to multiple aux FXs. You don’t want your dry signal messed with just because you’re putting a touch of reverb on it.

From what you’re describing, what you really want is an insert with a wet/dry mix, not a send at all.

[bmanic]

...

INSERTS level = 1 then you get 0.63 track and 0.37 reverb about 2 to 1 ratio
SENDS you get track 1.0 + 0.37 reverb, so more like 3 to 1 ratio - so less reverb

I thought it may be nice if DAWs had an option to automatically lower the dry signal on the sending track the same amount sends are turned up because of this (so dry/wet and send behaviour would be similar), would it make sense?

No, that doesn’t makes sense. Because you can send to multiple aux FXs. You don’t want your dry signal messed with just because you’re putting a touch of reverb on it.

From what you’re describing, what you really want is an insert with a wet/dry mix, not a send at all.

No I do think it could be implemented as he is envisioning it. The track fader that would change it's volume in relationship would be the 'send' track + the dry track, so that it all maintains sort of unity gain up until 50/50 proportions.. then after that the dry track would have to get progressively less in volume.

Even with multiple tracks this would still be able to make some sense with some clever math behind the scenes to balance it all out. Basically his idea is a novel user interface solution but it may not be easy to implement. The only reason we have the traditional pre/post send system, at least I imagine so, is due to it being the system of choice in the analogue domain as it's the easiest to implement. In a DAW it should be possible to create more intuitive and elaborate systems though.

.. granted, I have no idea if I personally could ever get used to anything different as I've always used sends the way they are for more than 30 years.