GY Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 Hey Craig. Let's say you've got a single instrument audio track recorded in mono in Sonar. My question is, what would use more CPU, using a Pantheon type reverb plug, or running the mono track through an outboard reverb and recording the return back into a stereo track in Sonar? TNX GY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 I'm not Craig, but... The plug in will use the most CPU power. The outboard reverb / re-record puts more load on your HD drive, but should use less CPU resources overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philip OKeefe Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 Of course, you could use the internal reverb and do the same thing - route the original track through the Pantheon and record the stereo out of that to a new stereo track. Same end results, because you can then turn off the verb plug in and original track if you want. Either way, you end up with the same thing - a processed (reverb'ed) stereo version of the track. But using the internal verb is a bit more CPU intensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GY Posted August 8, 2004 Author Share Posted August 8, 2004 Thanks Phil for chiming in. That's kind of what I expected but never did a test. I don't pay much attention to the little CPU meter thingy, but maybe I will. The nice thing about recording the reverb to dedicated stereo audio tracks is the ability to pan or manipulate countless ways. GY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theblue1 Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 It sounds like you're on target, but just to clarify for those who haven't done it: the best way to use an outboard reverb as suggested above is to set the reverb up for only the wet signal (at though you had the 'verb on the fx buss of your mixer) and record the wet signal to your two tracks. That way your original (dry) track remains virgin -- and in it's original time spot. (Running the signal itself out and then bringing it back in with the reverb would introduce some [possibly minor] latency delay, which you would otherwise need to compensate for by moving the sound a few ms toward the beginning of the track.) And, of course, doing it this way, you maintain the greatest flexibility, as well, as suggested, you can pan the verb channels and balance them against the original and the mix appropriately. You can even 'gang' your Sonar faders in a group so that when you pull the dry original up or down the reverb goes with it. Or not. bookmark these: news.google.com | m-w dictionary | wikipedia encyclopedia | Columbia Encyclopedia TK Major / one blue nine | myspace.com/onebluenine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderton Posted August 8, 2004 Share Posted August 8, 2004 Yup, everyone here is right. Craig Anderton Educational site: http://www.craiganderton.org Music: http://www.youtube.com/thecraiganderton Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/craig_anderton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.