Please explain the difference between insert and send effects . . .

[shniggens]

I really don't see the difference when using them inside a DAW like Cubase. What should one consider when choosing between the two?

[where02190]

Inserts break the chain of signal flow,, sends route the signal to a separate buss.

 

Inserts are used for dynamics and eq, sends are used for effects.

 

Effects are very processor taxing, putting the same reverb as an insert on several channels would quickly eat up your CPU power, but using a send to a single reverb would not.

[shniggens]

 

Originally posted by where02190 Inserts break the chain of signal flow,, sends route the signal to a separate buss. Inserts are used for dynamics and eq, sends are used for effects. Effects are very processor taxing, putting the same reverb as an insert on several channels would quickly eat up your CPU power, but using a send to a single reverb would not.

 

 

Uh, ok, that kind of makes sense, I guess.

 

If it's all software based, like Cubase, why would there be a difference in processor utilization?

[jonmatifa]

Well, say you have 8 tracks that you want to have reverb on (assuming you want the same reverb setting, which is generally a good idea anyway), you could either insert a reverb on each track (so you have 8 total reverbs, which run the risk of fighting each other in the mix, etc) or you could just put a single reverb on a send track (one reverb, no fighting), adjust the send level on each track so everything gets the right amount of reverb.

 

The more you get into complicated mixes, the more you'll be inventive with signal flow (which can make or break a mix as well as your CPU), if you learn to do simple send effects on smaller projects, you'll develop good habits.

[shniggens]

 

Originally posted by jonmatifa Well, say you have 8 tracks that you want to have reverb on (assuming you want the same reverb setting, which is generally a good idea anyway), you could either insert a reverb on each track (so you have 8 total reverbs, which run the risk of fighting each other in the mix, etc) or you could just put a single reverb on a send track (one reverb, no fighting), adjust the send level on each track so everything gets the right amount of reverb. The more you get into complicated mixes, the more you'll be inventive with signal flow (which can make or break a mix as well as your CPU), if you learn to do simple send effects on smaller projects, you'll develop good habits.

 

 

Good explanation, than you.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Yup, good answers folks.

 

You can think of inserts as being "series" and effects busses as being "parallel". As Where said, you use an insert to stick a compressor or EQ in to a track / channel. The insert breaks the signal flow through that channel, and the output of the device (or plug in) you insert into the insert point then patches back into the SAME CHANNEL and the signal flow proceeds as normal from that point.

 

On most mixers, the insert point is just after the mic pre, but before the A/D converters (that's for a digital board) and before the EQ, aux sends and faders (on both analog and digital boards, as well as internal DAW "mixers"). You CAN insert an effects processor into an insert if you want, but because it's running in series, you'd have to adjust the wet / dry mix ratio at the effects processor.

 

With a aux send, you're taking the signal off the channel and bussing it elsewhere - usually to an aux return. Insert a effects processor into an insert point on that aux return channel and use the aux send to bus as many channels as you'd like - in any ratio per track you'd like (IOW, a little verb for the guitars, a bit more for the BGV's or whatever) - to a single effects processor. If you have several channels / tracks that you'd like to use the same verb on, this is far more processor efficient because you are only using one processor / plug in instead of several, with one dedicated to each individual track.