Send Effect vs. Dry/Wet Ratio?

[Tranceparent]

Sup future producers

I'm a little confused on send effects as you can probably tell from the title. It is my understanding that send effects basically apply a filter to a sound and then send that modulated sound back through the same channel as the original sound. Then you can tweak the modulated sound to have higher/lower presence (please correct me if I'm wrong!!!)

That being said, I am not grasping what is the difference between tweaking a send effect's strength with the wetness turned up to 100% and just tweaking the wet/dry ratio itself. Shouldn't this be the same thing? I use Reason, and everyone talks about how using send effects is such a great technique, but if these are the same then why don't people just tweak the dry/wet setting?

I feel like I'm missing a key concept here. Someone help me out ?

 

[CPhoenix]

Only thing ur incorrect about is where the "wet" signal goes. When you use a send, ur ultimately utilizing two separate channels. Your original dry channel, and a new send channel with the wet signal.

To my understanding, the benefit of using sends for something like say a reverb, is so thank you can apply the same effect to multiple signals. Hence, making a group of different instruments sound like their in the same room. Another benefit is to save on CPU

I used Reason a few years back. Back then I didn't use send too much. I'm not sure if Reason actually shows u the separate send bus or not. If it doesn't, that may cause confusion.

 

[WeissSound]

A "send effect" is a catch all term for effects that generally yield better results along an auxiliary send channel rather than as an insert effecting the source signal.

In other words:

Certain effects are applied directly to the source sound - let's say a guitar - to effect it, like eq, or compression. Generally speaking, you want to directly effect the source sound. One may call eq or compression an "insert effect" in this case.

Other effects generate a new sound based on the source sound - like reverb and delay (echo). You're not so much effecting the source sound, as creating the sound of a space or an echo based off of the source sound. These types of effects often have a wet/dry ratio - if you were to use them as an insert. But it's rare that you would ever need or benefit from using these effects as inserts. They are better served as auxiliary returns with the wet/dry on 100% wet. So if you wanted reverb on a guitar, you would make an auxiliary send/return channel (aux channel), and place the reverb effect on the insert chain of the auxiliary channel. So essentially you end up with two audio stems - the guitar, and the reverb that the guitar generates.

 

[Tranceparent]

CPhoenix:

Gotchu. So, if you're trying to use different kinds of reverb on different instruments, the wet/dry thing should be used instead of send effects. If you want them all to sound like they're in the same sonic space, then use a send effect channel n route em all there to save the headache of replicating the settings on each/CPU?

There's no other benefit?

Also, thanks for the clarification on the channels. I knew the concept, but you expressed it way more clearly/simply than me.


---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------

Thanks weiss, after reading through your explanation a few times this is starting to become clearer.


So, if I understand correctly (trying to put it in different terms to see if i get this)


Generally speaking, is the benefit of a send effect normally: a fuller sound that retains the soul of the original sound since the original sound is there with the effected sound layered over it? This opposed to completely modifying the original sound and creating something entirely new?

A "send effect" is a catch all term for effects that generally yield better results along an auxiliary send channel rather than as an insert effecting the source signal.

In other words:

Certain effects are applied directly to the source sound - let's say a guitar - to effect it, like eq, or compression. Generally speaking, you want to directly effect the source sound. One may call eq or compression an "insert effect" in this case.

Other effects generate a new sound based on the source sound - like reverb and delay (echo). You're not so much effecting the source sound, as creating the sound of a space or an echo based off of the source sound. These types of effects often have a wet/dry ratio - if you were to use them as an insert. But it's rare that you would ever need or benefit from using these effects as inserts. They are better served as auxiliary returns with the wet/dry on 100% wet. So if you wanted reverb on a guitar, you would make an auxiliary send/return channel (aux channel), and place the reverb effect on the insert chain of the auxiliary channel. So essentially you end up with two audio stems - the guitar, and the reverb that the guitar generates.

 

[Mersikil]

CPhoenix:
Generally speaking, is the benefit of a send effect normally: a fuller sound that retains the soul of the original sound since the original sound is there with the effected sound layered over it? This opposed to completely modifying the original sound and creating something entirely new?

No, they sound exactly the same whether they are on an insert or a send.

 

[Tranceparent]

Mannn thank you so much for your help Weiss and CPhoenix. I got home and figured out how to properly use reverb/echo/delay via send fx and the difference to my mixes was like night and day. Everything is clearer and has more energy instead of being muddy and meh. I can't wait to remix all my old songs that were mixed improperly. EVERYTHING ON MY MIXER MAKES SENSE NOW .

Mersikil- Yep the fx sound the same, but the effect to the overall mix is pretty dramatic when you do an A:B comparison of send vs. insert. After learning this, I see why people would recommend send fx for atmospheric mixing that makes the channel "sit" in the mix better. Insert FX would be more for changing the raw sound of the sound source before embedding it within the mix (if it needs to be embedded).

If neone reading this doesn't know the difference between insert/send fx pleaaase study it up as a favor to yourself. I put it off and I really wish I hadn't.

 

[Mersikil]

Nah, you got it twisted man, the end result is exactly the same, either;

a) your ears are playing tricks on you.
b) the wet/dry mix is not exactly the same when you are A/Bing.
c) you have other plugins inserted after the reverb on one and not the other.

 

[JeanLukPigheart]

@Tranceparent

original-->effect set to 50d(ry):50w(et)-->output

What You hear in the output is the 50:50 mix of the dry and the effect signal.

original--------------------------------------->output
+
send -->effect set to 0d:100w------------>output

What You hear now is the unchanged original sound source PLUS the amount of
effect You have sent to the effect through the send channel; this time, the effect has its DRY signal set to 0, so that only the PROCESSED signal of the effect is being passed on to the output.

So the first example is about a ORIGINAL VS. DRY/EFFECT balance, the second example is about the SUM of the ORIGINAL PLUS the EFFECT.

The send on the track has the PRE/POST fader options; when You set the send to "POST"-fader mode, when You change the volume of the track, the amount You send to the EFFECT changes as well; when said option is set to PRE, You can pull down the fader on the ORIGINAL signal, or raise the volume and the amount of signal/volume You send to the EFFECT remains the same.

You could for example want to pull down the ORIGINAL, but still hear the effect, OR if You set it to POST, the moment You pull down the fader on the ORIGINAL, the send sends less/no signal to the EFFECT.

Make sure, that if You use the effect by using the send/receive channel method, it doesn't output the DRY signal of the original as well, but only the WET signal (so a 0d/100w ratio for e.g. delays or reverbs, etc...).

Hope this helps. Play with it.