|
Questions on using sends vs insert fx
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Astralist |
Hi everyone,
I've been experimenting with various signal routings lately. A lot of what I've read on the net seems to strongly suggest using time-based effects on a return bus, such as reverb and delay. However... with delays & flangers especially I've noticed that they seem a lot harder to control, and come off sounding worse quite often vs using them as an insert effect.
If I'm remotely correct it seems a send knob doesn't work how one would expect a "wet/dry" knob to function, at least in Ableton. 50% on the send knob does not seem to equal 50% wet. I'm not sure how to calculate where "50%" would reside on the knob.
Where do you guys strike the balance on when to use an effect as an insert... vs using it on a send/return bus? I'm not sure why I'm hearing such a difference in presentation between the two methods. I do have the returns set to 100% wet and still seem to hear a difference. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
I think you may not be using it correctly;
With sends, the ideal way to work, is to have the aux channel (with the FX on it) at unity gain + 100% wet on the FX.
Then you just dial in on your instrument track, how much you actually want to send to that effect.
This standardizes a particular FX in terms of how much you want to add to each element or group.
Bear in mind with an insert, it will depend on the FX itself (and how it's wet/dry balance operates) not to mention how hot the instrument is (inserts are pre fader by usual default) which is maybe why you're getting different results, as the FX sound may vary on input and w/d balance etc.
Read this thread and my post at the bottom for more info:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...05#post10542105 |
|
|
| Beatflux |
Can also:
group an fx and create two chains: one for the dry signal and one for the wet.
Inverse utility trick. |
|
|
|
|
