Can I EQ some reverb send effect on (only) one track in Cubase?

[Unaspected]

Already answered by Old Nick and NAD: Insert a channel between instruments and reverb buss...

Not sure why you're closing the discussion? The question's been posted in DAW forum - not Cubase forum - so I guess it's only beneficial to learn what you can do in other DAWs? At least I'm curious to know.

Sorry, man. Not trying to shut anything down - I felt that maybe the answers above had been missed, as there seemed to be some confusion arising. Only ways this could be simplified is if filtering can be applied within send channels or if it is acceptable to apply the HPF to the reverb buss itself. Though it might be that one wants a sound to stand out more in the reverb mix so it could require special processing before it hits the reverb buss.

I'm all for discussion.

[ozinga]

If I absolutely have to use the same reverb,
I would duplicate the track and split them by frequency. For example: 1st track LP at 500hz and
2nd HP at 500hz and send only the second track to the reverb.

[antic604]

If I absolutely have to use the same reverb, I would duplicate the track and split them by frequency. For example: 1st track LP at 500hz and 2nd HP at 500hz and send only the second track to the reverb.

That's not necessary. It wasn't OP's intention to do multi-band processing, but rather to just have the top-end sent to reverb.

[antic604]

Sorry, man. Not trying to shut anything down - I felt that maybe the answers above had been missed, as there seemed to be some confusion arising. Only ways this could be simplified is if filtering can be applied within send channels or if it is acceptable to apply the HPF to the reverb buss itself. Though it might be that one wants a sound to stand out more in the reverb mix so it could require special processing before it hits the reverb buss.

I'm all for discussion.

I'm sorry. I read it wrong

[ozinga]

If I absolutely have to use the same reverb, I would duplicate the track and split them by frequency. For example: 1st track LP at 500hz and 2nd HP at 500hz and send only the second track to the reverb.

That's not necessary. It wasn't OP's intention to do multi-band processing, but rather to just have the top-end sent to reverb.

It is just splitting the frequencies between two tracks so OP can only send the desired portion of the signal to reverb.
The sum of those tracks is still the same, so there is no MB processing except sending the top end to the reverb which is what OP wants, no?
Other than that I do not know how you can "NOT" send certain frequencies of the track to the reverb without some sort of splitting?
I just did this in Cubase.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vvmdl9ab66sj5hh/Test.mp3?dl=0

[antic604]

If I absolutely have to use the same reverb, I would duplicate the track and split them by frequency. For example: 1st track LP at 500hz and 2nd HP at 500hz and send only the second track to the reverb.

That's not necessary. It wasn't OP's intention to do multi-band processing, but rather to just have the top-end sent to reverb.

It is just splitting the frequencies between two tracks so OP can only send the desired portion of the signal to reverb.
The sum of those tracks is still the same, so there is no MB processing except sending the top end to the reverb which is what OP wants, no?
Other than that I do not know how you can "NOT" send certain frequencies of the track to the reverb without some sort of splitting?
I just did this in Cubase.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vvmdl9ab66sj5hh/Test.mp3?dl=0

The sum of tracks split using LPF and HPF at 0.5kHz definitely doesn't sound like the original, unless it's a highly synthetic sound and you actually like the change in tone.

Best strategy is to make a parallel track (a bus) that has the HPF filter on it, set up a send on that bus and make sure the signal from the bus isn't going to master (or that it's muted). Duplicating the original track isn't optimal, because it can contain CPU heavy instruments and/or effects and you might want to change something on it along the way, so you'd have to make sure they're in sync. The original track should remain unchanged.

[dellboy]

I thought the OP was asking about reverb and not about EQ on the track ?

The OP said ......"less low end of the basic reverb effect"

Whatever the OP meant by that seems unclear

edit* OK, I see you guys are using EQ to cut the bottom frequency of the reverb. So what is the advantage of going this complicated route when you could just use an insert on that one track ?

I understand why it was used in the old days with mixing desks and expensive hardware reverbs, but today we are not limited in that way. So is there a reason to use the same reverb on that track ?

[juno987654321]

I thought the OP was asking about reverb and not about EQ on the track ?

The OP said ......"less low end of the basic reverb effect"

Yes, that's right, I only wanted to know if there's a quick way to somehow further edit the general reverb we use for many tracks - but just for an individual track to kind of still customize the reverb for one specific track before it's being sent to the output (speakers).
I'm just currently learning how to use Cubase and so I came to fx channels and send effects now. That's the whole purpose. Just curious...
But of course it's also interesting to discuss what other DAWs could do in this case (for comparison).

Now I see that in Cubase it might just be easier to use an insert effect on individual tracks that should have individual reverb effects that differ from the ones you GENERALLY use for MANY tracks. Oh, and I was just giving an example. I could have also said that for one track I wanted the reverb to have somewhat more high end than for the other ones...

The solutions you have discussed so far are interesting but they all change the reverb in a very sneaky way: you suggest that I copy the one track, EQ the INPUT signal and send that to the reverb fx channel and then also mute the dry signal again from that newly created input signal...
Yeah, yeah, that would RESULT in the reverb having less low end than it would originally have - so very indirectly you would have "EQ'ed the reverb" (in a way, though... not really).
But the problem with that I still have is that I wouldn't have the exact control over the cutoff points on the REVERB itself (that would result) as I had it had I post-edited the reverb for this one track itself. I would only have control over the cutoff point of the input signal and that might still differ from the resulting cutoff on the reverb, but I don't know ...

Interesting suggestions and discussions so far!

In the meantime I have also come up with another solution I will try out. Maybe this could also work: just duplicate the fx channel (have a 2nd one) and send only the one track to this new fx channel and then I could put some further EQ on this fx-channel to tweak this one further? It could be done quickly: just duplicating the channel means I wouldn't have to set up the general reverb to start out from once again.

[Guenon]

The solutions you have discussed so far are interesting but they all change the reverb in a very sneaky way: you suggest that I copy the one track, EQ the INPUT signal and send that to the reverb fx channel and then also mute the dry signal from that...

That's the most traditional "real world" way of doing it - EQing the input signal, that is, not the track copying - in a studio where you might have had one actual physical reverb unit that you wished to use for certain (multiple) elements in a given project . As a send effect, the reverb is 100% wet in any case, and doesn't return the dry signal. Then, you send the channels you wish, in various amounts, into it - and if need be, you EQ the appropriate input signals by the means you have available, and not the (one single) reverb after the fact.

In the meantime I have also come up with another solution I will try out. Maybe this could also work: just duplicate the fx channel (have a 2nd one) and send only the one track to this new fx channel and then I could put some further EQ on this fx-channel to tweak this one further?

This is the simplest and pretty self-explanatory way to have a different "flavor" of a send effect, in pretty much any DAW, yes. In the case of using just a single reverb, adding an intermediary send channel with an EQ on it, and then in turn sending that channel into the one reverb... is also so basic functionality that it should be possible in any DAW by now.

[antic604]

...In the case of using just a single reverb, adding an intermediary send channel with an EQ on it, and then in turn sending that channel into the one reverb... is also so basic functionality that it should be possible in any DAW by now.

In Bitwig you can actually split the signal to 2 parallel copies (still on a single track), high-pass one of them, silence that copy completely and use regular pre-fader send to route it to reverb.

That's just one track and one reverb send

I don't think you can do that in any other DAW?

[Orbit-50]

What I would do is duplicate the bass track, make sure it's not going to your master out, (you can set this in your "Channel Routing Rack" in the mix console, then EQ out the bass frequencies, then send that track to the reverb, using your reverb send on "phantom" track. The advantage of doing it this way, is that you can add other insert effects to this track, without destroying the integrity of the original track. You can even automate the insert effects to add some interest. Try it.

Oops, it was stated already.

[Guenon]

I don't think you can send a bassless version of SINGLE track to a reverb send in most DAWs. You can in Bitwig, but probably not in Live and definitely not in Studio One or Reason (using standard routing). In all of them you can split the signal still on single track, remove bass and use reverb as insert, which you can't do in Cubase - but that wasn't the OP's question.

In Live, this can be done without M4L (with a little M4L device it's trivial, but fair enough, if talking about just stock functionality ) with a routing trick known as the "compressor sidechain listen trick" or similar, hehe. It's not pretty, but it gets the job done, and also works in the non-suite non-M4L version of the software.

Instead of a sending something into the reverb channel using actual regular send functionality, you place a rack with parallel signal chains directly in front of the reverb. One empty chain lets everything through that you send in the normal, standard manner into the reverb. Every additional chain you add contains a Utility device that mutes the actual chain input (so that you don't get doubling of the traditionally sent signals), and then after that, a compressor which is effectively receiving from somewhere - this can also target and pull from individual rack chains in the project btw - by using the sidechain selector and an enabled listen feature. In other words, this lets you select a signal point in the project and then just pass that through downstream. Into a chain-specific EQ and then the shared reverb, for example

[Guenon]

In Bitwig you can actually split the signal to 2 parallel copies (still on a single track), high-pass one of them, silence that copy completely and use regular pre-fader send to route it to reverb.

That's just one track and one reverb send

I don't think you can do that in any other DAW?

Yeah you can do this in Live as well, if you have M4L. Do a split like that, and then put a simple send device on the EQ'd chain that "really sends" it where need be. The hack I described above is when you don't have M4L or want to keep it completely vanilla. You can also do a split send like this in Reaper, and hmm I imagine some other DAWs support stuff like this these days, too.

[antic604]

In Live, this can be done without M4L (with a little M4L device it's trivial, but fair enough, if talking about just stock functionality ) with a routing trick known as the "compressor sidechain listen trick" or similar, hehe...

Right. In Bitwig that would be done using FX Layer in front of the reverb, populated with Audio Receivers grabbing the signal from various points in the project, followed by individual signal chains if needed.

But both those methods avoid the simlicity of using Send knobs in the mixer, so 1:0 for Bitwig

[Guenon]

For what it's worth, for me personally the aesthetic of doing something like this by copying the track is something I tend to avoid the most. Even when tailoring the send effects for a single track (be it through signal chain splits, receiver devices or intermediary processing channels, or a combination of some sort) I much prefer the means that allow me to keep the track itself singular and intact - so that, if I perhaps do further edits to that track, I don't need to re-copy anything, and the sends just keep working as I set them.