# Do you use Reverb sends pre- or post- fader?



## Harry (Feb 20, 2018)

I was reading in another thread where one user was using Reverb sends pre-fader, this is the exact opposite to me, who uses them post-fader.

I'm not quite sure of the logic of using them pre-fader -- any volume modulation on individual tracks would surely cause issues, and control of reverb levels per instrument would surely be lost? But maybe I'm mis-understanding the whole concept.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Jerry Growl (Feb 20, 2018)

Hi, Harry!

I hope to hear what everyone thinks about this, too.

Perhaps I feel the urge of answering because I might be that user you refer to. Hope this could shed some light:

By default everyone usually will start out with post-fader sends. It is the normal way of working, but there are exceptions. In some cases you may want to plant an instrument or instrument group 'at the back' of the hall. You can't have all sections of the orchestra receive the same detail or presence in your mix. Some instruments work better if they sound further away.

If you want to obtain a realistic sounding orchestra, you have to find a way to create depth and contrast in depth between instruments at the front and instruments at the back. A mix is like a cloud of phasing problems, masking effects and spectrums either blending, overloading or obscuring each other. Like a painter you cannot have every figure stand out with the same detail if you are planning to have lots of figures on the canvas.

There are several ways to achieve this. You could e.g. only work with room mic positions if you have the luxury, or a working mix using various mic positions. But sometimes you have a wonderful sampled instrument that's been recorded with close mics only. One of the options you have is to send these close mic instruments pre-fader to your favored reverb plugin. By doing so you can seriously diminish the direct sound, you don't need to load another seperate reverb, and you can place the instrument exactly where you need it using the sends panning.

Grts,
J


----------



## Jdiggity1 (Feb 20, 2018)

Using reverb in *pre-fader* is essentially giving you DRY and WET control, just as if you used the reverb/effect as an insert. The channel volume is the dry signal, and the send is the wet signal.
When using *post-fader* (default method), it's the equivalent of having the DRY signal turned up to 100%, all of the time.

One benefit of using *pre-fader *sends, is that you can have the WET signal louder than the DRY signal, which can be very helpful in setting an instrument further back in the mix, or placing it in a space more effectively.

I use both methods, depending on the signal/instruments I am working with.


----------



## Harry (Feb 20, 2018)

Jerry Growl said:


> Hi, Harry!
> 
> I hope to hear what everyone thinks about this, too.
> 
> Perhaps I feel the urge of answering because I might be that user you refer to. Hope this could shed some light:


Hi Jerry, yes it was your earlier post on another thread, thanks for posting here. It got me thinking. So I think the post-fader method IS standard, but the pre-fader method can achieve certain results that post-fader method can't. As jdiggity1 says above, he uses both, so I think I'll give it a try and experiment.


----------



## Dietz (Feb 20, 2018)

After dealing with this issue since about thirty years now, the only real use I found for pre-fade sends into reverb is to achieve the effect of a signal source coming closer or moving away from the listener, or some rarely used special FX. When I need more "wet", I simply change the volume of the return, and if the source signal is very quiet, I raise the level of its AUX-send, too. 

... the beauty of a post-fader send is that we can adjust the volume of the source unobtrusively and naturally.


----------



## CT (Feb 20, 2018)

I prefer pre-fader because I assume that in reality, everything in a room excites the space's reverberant qualities to the same degree, but the direct sound of the instruments is what varies depending on where you or the microphones are. It makes sense to me, then, for everything to feed into the reverb at the same level, and to control depth by decreasing the dry signals in relation to it, rather than doing everything in the opposite direction. That might not make any sense, but I'm sticking with it.


----------



## NoamL (Feb 20, 2018)

I send to the reverb post-fader, but the dry signal goes out to a submix bus for that orchestral section (e.g. Strings-Dry). That lets me turn the dry strings up or down if I want, _without affecting_ the amount sent to the reverb. Thus I have the same control, on a large scale, as I would if using the reverb inserts instead of sends.

The problem with using pre-fader sends is that it doesn't take into account whatever CC7 levels you have set at the start of your template for balance. For example let's say you have a particularly loud brass library and you set the fader at -12 to balance with your strings from a different developer. If you send the reverb pre-fader, the brass will be much too loud in the reverb.

The only use I have found for pre-fader is when I want there to be almost no dry sound, and create a sound almost entirely from its reverb return for a special effect. However, this could be achieved just as easily with an inserted reverb.


----------



## CT (Feb 20, 2018)

I do that sort of balancing on each individual channel though, and then I group the sections together into buses which I send to the reverb channel. I don't put the sends on every instrument track, so I think I avoid that problem.


----------



## IFM (Feb 20, 2018)

What about using multiple reverbs as inserts into the section subgroups instead? I always felt it sounded more realistic that way.


----------



## Mundano (Feb 20, 2018)

IFM said:


> What about using multiple reverbs as inserts into the section subgroups instead? I always felt it sounded more realistic that way.


That's the way i often work!


----------



## NoamL (Feb 20, 2018)

I used to do that @IFM the problem is you are making "dry" mix decisions when you set the dry levels inside the inserted reverbs. So if you have to deactivate the inserts (for example to produce dry stems) even the dry mix changes. Another problem is that if you have multiple reverbs inserted on a track, you are reverberating reverb; it's cleaner to use sends so that the reverbs are acting in parallel instead of in series.

I often have to send dry stems to an off site mixer, that's why I like to have very segregated dry and wet signals. I can include a bounce of the overall reverb just to give the mixer an idea of what I had in my rough mix, but then they have all the stems isolated dry so they can have max flexibility in their own mix.


----------



## Josh Richman (Feb 20, 2018)

IFM said:


> What about using multiple reverbs as inserts into the section subgroups instead? I always felt it sounded more realistic that way.



I was curious about this too. I’ve always just used one reverb on the master and ran everything through it. (My belief has always been that the sounds interact with one another inside the reverb IR, like summing inside the reverb just like a real space. Though I’m not certain this is true or that my mental model is correct.) I have seen other people’s mockups where each individual instrument had it own reverb. (Seems counterintuitive to stack instruments like this, almost soloing in empty locations) I have yet to test a comparison of this approach.


----------



## Mundano (Feb 20, 2018)

IFM said:


> What about using multiple reverbs as inserts into the section subgroups instead? I always felt it sounded more realistic that way.


or also i work with section soubgroup routed to reverb fx in pre, so that the section subgroup holds it dry signal, while leveling reverb fx, achieving almost a realistic "room" behavior .


----------



## IFM (Feb 20, 2018)

NoamL said:


> I used to do that @IFM the problem is you are making "dry" mix decisions when you set the dry levels inside the inserted reverbs. So if you have to deactivate the inserts (for example to produce dry stems) even the dry mix changes. Another problem is that if you have multiple reverbs inserted on a track, you are reverberating reverb; it's cleaner to use sends so that the reverbs are acting in parallel instead of in series.
> 
> I often have to send dry stems to an off site mixer, that's why I like to have very segregated dry and wet signals. I can include a bounce of the overall reverb just to give the mixer an idea of what I had in my rough mix, but then they have all the stems isolated dry so they can have max flexibility in their own mix.



I can see your point and why you choose to do it that way. I am not creating stems and I created a number of subgroups so that I wouldn't run into the reverb/reverb issue. I tried using sends only instead but it felt like too much dry in the mix so I went back to inserts for most and sends for what needed it.


----------



## Divico (Feb 21, 2018)

A big problem with pre is that it doesnt follow automation. So if you use volume automation your dry signal changes but your wet one doesnt which is unnatural.


----------

