Reverb as a Send FX in Cubase

There is one concept with reverbs in the Send FX I find confusing,

  1. in Cubase if I have reverb as an insert plugin (let’s say an early reflection for example) as I ride the dry/wet fader in the plugin, the more I add reverb the less I have the 100% original sound.

  2. If I have my early reflection in a FX channel (100% wet) and I send my audio track into this FX channel, no matter how much I will add reverb by sending this track into the FX channel, there will always be the 100% original sound on top of the early reflection reverb.

So which way is the right way to go, should I always have the reverb on top of the 100% original sound, or should it be that the more I apply reverb, the less there is the original sound source?


Hi there devastat,

Those are two different approaches and there is no right or wrong. It basically depends on what are you trying to achieve with the reverb. In one case it will sound good one way, in other case it might sound better the other way. Just experiment and you will find out what works best for what. :slight_smile:

Thanks for the reply! One more question, is there a way somehow to set up the reverb in the FX channel in Cubase, to behave the same way as the reverb is behaving if I have it in an insert channel - so that the more I would send the audio into the FX Channel, the less there would be the original sound audible?

So for example if my Track 1 is sending 50% to FX channel, I would like to hear 50% of the Track 1 output and 50% of the Fx channel. Now I am hearing 100% of Track 1 and 50% of FX Channel 1.

You could try putting the reverb as an insert effect on a group channel, then route your source channel(s) to that group channel. Then you can adjust the reverb dry/wet level as desired.

Just a thought,


In order to achieve the best results, you first need to understand how Inserts, Group Channels and FX sends work.

When you Insert an FX (Reverb in this case) directly into a track, you will be affecting that signal by 100%, unless the plugin has a wet/dry mix knob that you can adjust. In this case, you are working with a single signal that goes through the different Inserts.

Now, when you Insert a Reverb into an FX Channel, the game changes a bit because of the use of Sends. As the name implies, when using Sends you are literally sending a copy of that particular track to the FX Channel. For example, if I have Reverb inserted into an FX Channel and I want to add some of it to a guitar track, I would go to the guitar track and send a copy of it to my FX Channel (where my Reverb is). That’s why it is customary to set whatever FX being inserted into an FX Channel to 100% wet, so that you can mix it with the dry signal via the Send level. The whole purpose of using FX Channels is so that you can save CPU resources by sending multiple tracks to one single Reverb unit (or other FX) as opposed to having to insert the same Reverb into several tracks (which will obviously consume more CPU resources).

As far as the suggestion Thes gave you regarding the use of Group Channels, this is yet another way to work and achieve a different result. By inserting a Reverb into a Group Channel and routing different tracks to it, you are basically simulating the same effect that inserting a reverb into several tracks does except you’re only using one Reverb unit as opposed to several. The problem with this method is that ALL the tracks being routed to this Group Channel will be exposed to the same amount of Reverb, since you only have one Reverb to work with and no way to adjust the level each track will be affected by it (since there is no level adjustment for each track). If that’s what you want, then that’s what needs to be done. But using FX Channels and routing a copy of each track to it via Sends is the most common practice since this will allow you to adjust the amount of FX you want. However, it does not affect the signal by 100% even if the FX is set to 100% wet because you also have a 100% dry signal mixed in with the wet one.

Like Crohde said, there is no right or wrong because it all depends on what you want to achieve. Any of those methods is valid based on the results you want.


Excellent explanation. Just want to add to this bit:

You can have any combination. There is an orange button on the send slot, next to the power button, which changes how signal is sent. When On, the send is sent before the fader, meaning that the the send level is now unaffected by the channel fader. You can now turn the fader right down and have 100% reverb coming out of just the FX channel. You can set the FX level on its own fader or via the send level from the main channel. I like the latter better. For me, FX faders tend to get left at unity (0db).

Ah yes, of course. There’s also the Pre/Post fader option I forgot to mention. I also prefer to leave my FX Channel faders untouched and simply control their levels through Sends.

Anyway, thanks for pointing this out Crotchety :slight_smile:

Might be better in manageable chunks, anyway :wink:

That is correct, but the most important reason for working that way, is that you can place your various instruments in the same virtual space - also by using send pan(!). Imagine this virtual room, then a bigger amount of send places the instrument further away from the listener, because you hear more reflections and less direct signal.

Using pre-fader send is in that sense ‘cheating’, because when used to the extreme there can be an ‘impossible’ amount of effect compared to the direct source. That in itself can be a great effect ofcourse!

In no way is sending pre-fade cheating! It’s just the great effect you also mentioned. But not cheating, OP, don’t let the bad man put you off… :wink: :smiley:

Another reason for putting a reverb send post fader is that, when you move the fader, the amount of reverb is adjusted in proportion. With a pre-fader send, if you pulled the fader right down, there’d be no sound coming from that channel, but the reverb would still be heard; similarly, if you pushed the fader a long way up, the sound would be drier because the amount of reverb wouldn’t increase - there might be circumstances when that’s wanted, but (for me, anyway) usually it’s best to keep the amount of reverb in step with the channel fader.

Common practice is that Post-fader Sends are used for spatial effects like Reverb, Delay, Chorus, Flanger, etc. On the other hand, Pre-fader Sends are commonly used on dynamic effects like Compressors (for Parallel Compression), where a change of the input signal caused by the fader movement is NOT desired since that changes the amount of compression applied to it. There’s many other uses for Pre/Post fader Sends, but those are the most common.

Take care!

Thanks for a really good explanation Jose and Crotchety, really appreciated!