# Reverb sends on individual tracks vs group tracks (orchestra)



## Vebjörn (May 3, 2021)

Hi,

I have looked at a few tutorials on routing\reverb and they all seem to suggest to send the individual instruments to their appropriate reverb channel (woodwinds reverb, strings reverb, etc.). My issue with this is that I want to be able to control the volume on many different levels using group tracks. When I send the individual instruments to the reverb, I can only automate the volume on the individual instrument or the channel to which the reverb is routed (woodwinds, strings, etc.); any groups that I make between those two don't allow me to control their volume. I am using post-faders. For instance:

SM horns 1, 2, 3, 4--routed-->SM horns--routed-->SM brass--routed-->Brass
SM horns 1, 2, 3, 4--send-->Reverb Brass--routed-->Brass 

In this scenario, I can only control the volume on the sample modelling horns 1, 2, 3, 4 tracks and the Brass group track (where all of my sample brass libraries eventually go). I would like to control the volume of the SM horns and SM brass group tracks as well. I found that I can do this if I send the SM brass group track to the reverb, rather than the individual instruments.

SM Brass--send-->Reverb Brass--routed-->Brass 

Is there an issue with this? For instance, will there be problems if I adjust the volume of the individual instruments with this system because I will be changing their levels before they get the reverb? Do I need to send each instrument track to the virtual instruments and use VCA tracks to automate volume instead?

Thank you!


----------



## Jiffster (May 4, 2021)

What daw are you using? In cubase, i think you probably could set up vcs faders to do what you're trying to do?


----------



## Vebjörn (May 4, 2021)

Jiffster said:


> What daw are you using? In cubase, i think you probably could set up vcs faders to do what you're trying to do?


Yes, Cubase. But is there a problem sending the groups to the reverb instead of using vcas?

Thank you


----------



## Danilebob (May 4, 2021)

If your question is about having it as an insert as opposed to sending it to a bus: Sending it through reverb modifies the original sound while sending/bussing it to a reverb both doubles and adds to the sound. You normally address this by turning "bussed reverb mix" up to 100% wet/mix. While adding/inserting directly to a track, you normally keep the mix anywhere from 0-50%

Is this related to your question?


----------



## Jiffster (May 4, 2021)

Perhaps I'm not quite understanding what you want to achieve, but there's no issue with sending to a reverb bus from a group channel at all. It behaves in exactly the way you'd expect, treating the cumulative signal of anything sent to the group as though it were an individual source. Adjusting the volume of any individual channel or group before the send group will work exactly how you expect it to also. And I'm sure you know this already but, adjusting the return from your reverb bus won't affect the original volume on any group/channel prior to the group you're sending from, and conversely, adjusting the volume of the individual horns won't affect the reverb return volume. Once you've sent to reverb, the reverb volume is only controlled by either the amount of send or the return volume.


----------



## youngpokie (May 4, 2021)

This might help, perhaps?






Pre/Post Fader Sends


You can send the signal from the audio channel to the FX channel before or after the audio channel volume fader.




steinberg.help


----------



## InLight-Tone (May 4, 2021)

Trevor Morris sends to Reverbs from his Group channels and he seems to be doing pretty well...


----------



## JohnG (May 4, 2021)

If you're writing for orchestra, for media, it's typical these days to have a number of separate reverbs. Maybe one for each of:

1. Woodwinds,
2. Brass
3. Plucked/frets
4. Keyboards
5. Strings
6. Vocals
7. Synths
8. Effects (whooshes, booms, that kind of thing -- sound design)

If you work like that, with 5 or more reverbs, you can send individual instruments to those reverbs, bring the output of the reverbs to the respective group (so, all the brass instruments go to the brass group along with the output of the "brass" reverb). That way you can control everything; you have the ability to boost overall brass reverb or, say, just the send from the trumpets to the brass reverb, leaving it unchanged at the group level.

Does that answer your question?

For demos this is much more complicated than necessary. You can make wonderful music with a single reverb and without stemming / grouping at all. It depends on what you're writing and what your intentions are.


----------



## Jiffster (May 4, 2021)

InLight-Tone said:


> Trevor Morris sends to Reverbs from his Group channels and he seems to be doing pretty well...


Where'd you read about his routing config? I'd be very interested in checking out his setup to compare to my own


----------



## InLight-Tone (May 4, 2021)




----------



## Vebjörn (May 4, 2021)

Danilebob said:


> If your question is about having it as an insert as opposed to sending it to a bus: Sending it through reverb modifies the original sound while sending/bussing it to a reverb both doubles and adds to the sound. You normally address this by turning "bussed reverb mix" up to 100% wet/mix. While adding/inserting directly to a track, you normally keep the mix anywhere from 0-50%
> 
> Is this related to your question?


Hi, it’s not about send vs insert, it’s about whether the send needs to be on the lowest level in the chain (the individual instrument) or if I can just send the group tracks to the reverb. My concern was that if I send the group tracks to the reverb, but automate the volume of the individual instruments, then I’d be affecting the reverb somehow. I don’t understand why this would be the case. I was just reacting to the tutorials showing that the sends should be in the individual instruments rather than the group tracks and I was trying to find a reason for it.


----------



## Vebjörn (May 4, 2021)

JohnG said:


> If you're writing for orchestra, for media, it's typical these days to have a number of separate reverbs. Maybe one for each of:
> 
> 1. Woodwinds,
> 2. Brass
> ...


Hi,

I have 5 separate reverbs (similar to your example) but I would like to send the group track for each library to the reverb rather than the individual instrument because it allows me to automate the volume of my group tracks. Am I correct in assuming that doing so is OK?

Thanks


----------



## janila (May 4, 2021)

I’m contemplating something similar. I’ve been using individual sends but I just got Softube Console 1. The Console 1 plugin includes a channel strip controlled with the hardware which can also control the level, pan and sends of the channel it is inserted into. It makes no sense to use Console 1 on every single track of my template so I’m considering switching to using a group for every section of every library.

For example:

all Samplemodeling brass -> Samplemodeling brass group -> Brass group
all Century brass -> Century brass group -> Brass group
all Century strings -> Century strings group -> Strings group

The Console 1 plugin would be inserted to the section groups (in the middle of the example above).

Pro: mixing a huge template with a console sound and feel
Con: loosing individual reverb control for every track

With individual sends I usually have the lower instruments like basses a bit drier than the higher instruments like violins to retain more clarity in the mix for the already muddier instrument. With the new approach I can compensate the low end buildup by using an EQ on the reverb return but I can’t control the amount of the high end of the basses sent to the reverb individually. In extreme cases I can change back to the old approach for the problematic instrument.


----------



## Vebjörn (May 4, 2021)

youngpokie said:


> This might help, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The pre or post fader settings doesn’t seem to affect volume control on group tracks between the individual instrument and the track to which the reverb is routed

In the following scenario, I can only control the volume of SM horns 1, 2, 3, 4 and the brass group (maybe I’m misusing the word volume? I mean that if the fader is at the lowest point, I don’t hear anything (dry or wet):


SM horns 1, 2, 3, 4--routed-->SM horns--routed-->SM brass--routed-->Brass
SM horns 1, 2, 3, 4--send-->Reverb Brass--routed-->Brass


youngpokie said:


> This might help, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Vebjörn (May 4, 2021)

janila said:


> I’m contemplating something similar. I’ve been using individual sends but I just got Softube Console 1. The Console 1 plugin includes a channel strip controlled with the hardware which can also control the level, pan and sends of the channel it is inserted into. It makes no sense to use Console 1 on every single track of my template so I’m considering switching to using a group for every section of every library.
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...


I wonder why we need to adjust the reverb of our SM brass instruments differently? They are all more or less on the same part of the stage (depth) and if we want to make one sound further back, we can use something like panagement (I’m using inserts of this this on my SM horn group, trumpets, and tbones)


----------



## Jiffster (May 4, 2021)

Vebjörn said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have 5 separate reverbs (similar to your example) but I would like to send the group track for each library to the reverb rather than the individual instrument because it allows me to automate the volume of my group tracks. Am I correct in assuming that doing so is OK?
> 
> Thanks


As has been pointed out already, there's no issue sending from a group to an fx bus in cubase whatsoever. If that's how you want to do it, you'll have no issues doing so.


----------



## Vebjörn (May 4, 2021)

thanks


Jiffster said:


> As has been pointed out already, there's no issue sending from a group to an fx bus in cubase whatsoever. If that's how you want to do it, you'll have no issues doing so.


----------



## MarcusD (May 4, 2021)

Personally like to use B. because it gives you more control. Keeps everything relative while maintaining consistency with processing. More so a single instrument chain, but you can easily adapt it for multiple instruments.


----------



## InLight-Tone (May 4, 2021)

"There are many roads leading to Rome"...


----------



## janila (May 4, 2021)

Vebjörn said:


> I wonder why we need to adjust the reverb of our SM brass instruments differently? They are all more or less on the same part of the stage (depth) and if we want to make one sound further back, we can use something like panagement (I’m using inserts of this this on my SM horn group, trumpets, and tbones)


For several horns there shouldn’t be no need except when they are playing completely different things, the amount of reverb needed might be different for low staccatos or high solistic legato. But that’s a rare case. Having different strings in a single group is more likely to cause some trouble but even that is quite theoretical.


----------



## Snoobydoobydoo (May 4, 2021)

MarcusD said:


> Personally like to use B. because it gives you more control. Keeps everything relative while maintaining consistency with processing. More so a single instrument chain, but you can easily adapt it for multiple instruments.


I use B too, but not sends just the ER Busses. That way i can exclude any instrument i like from the tail reverb.


----------



## Voider (May 12, 2021)

Vebjörn said:


> My concern was that if I send the group tracks to the reverb, but automate the volume of the individual instruments, then I’d be affecting the reverb somehow. I don’t understand why this would be the case. I was just reacting to the tutorials showing that the sends should be in the individual instruments rather than the group tracks and I was trying to find a reason for it.


That's easily solved by sending your group channels as post-send to your reverb sends. 
If you have them on pre, their volume changes will affect the volume of the reverb send as well, if you have them on post, both will work individually from each other, if you'd turn down the volume to 0 you'd only hear the send channel.

The disadvantage of this is of course that your relationship between dry (group channel) and wet (reverb send) changes, which alters the perception of how far/sharp/smooth the sound is. 

But this is how you do it. If you use Cubase you'll find the little icon to switch between both modes right in the window where you set up how much volume is fed into to the reverb send.


----------



## Vebjörn (May 12, 2021)

Voider said:


> That's easily solved by sending your group channels as post-send to your reverb sends.
> If you have them on pre, their volume changes will affect the volume of the reverb send as well, if you have them on post, both will work individually from each other, if you'd turn down the volume to 0 you'd only hear the send channel.
> 
> The disadvantage of this is of course that your relationship between dry (group channel) and wet (reverb send) changes, which alters the perception of how far/sharp/smooth the sound is.
> ...


Thanks. I have them as post-faders because I want to control the volume (although I really miss controlling the perception of depth with pre-faders...maybe a hybrid setup in the future, not exactly sure how it would work though...maybe I could send my post fader library group to another group that has a pre fader)


----------

