Inserts vs. sends

Mbazzy · Post by **Mbazzy** » Thu Oct 17, 2002 12:15 pm

Just wondered how most of you work regarding the efx routing and how some decision might influence cpu load :

When trying to make a 'template' liveset for midicontroller layout, I can imagine the easiest thing to do is assign eg. the native Live plugins each to its own send channel (and consequently map as well the track sends as the efx controls to the appropriate buttons).

I was than wondering if working that way, is turning the track send pot to 100% the equivalent of using an insert on that track.

How about cpu loads. Is it easier on the cpu to route eg. 10 trax to a send efx (provided you can live with that particular setting of course) than to insert that efx 10 times on each track.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Oct 19, 2002 7:09 am

joel macclellan · Post by **joel macclellan** » Sat Oct 19, 2002 2:12 pm

I was than wondering if working that way, is turning the track send pot to 100% the equivalent of using an insert on that track.

i'm pretty sure not - you get 2 channels worth of volume. also, you have to consider if the aux's are pre or post, or if you have sends-only for output configured . . .

Why the dichotomy? I use both sends and inserts . . . . reverb is an obvious choice for a send, while something like compressor/eq are inserts . . .

Mbazzy · Post by **Mbazzy** » Sat Oct 19, 2002 8:09 pm

Thanx for the 411 ... in fact I do use both as well , but wanted some opinions for this hypothetical question.....

kitchen · Post by **kitchen** » Mon Oct 21, 2002 11:43 pm

One thing you might also want to try is to build channel groups by turning their fader volume down and put it all through the send. Now map your midi controller to the wet/dry of your effect (s). I use this method to seperate bass, treble and drum channels. Seems like the easiest way to control lots of sound through few faders..
kitchen