I use convolution reverbs on send/returns. They have their own wet/dry control, but it's easier if you have individual control over each channel in my opinion.

Also, I don't understand why moving the instrument is more correct than moving the mics, Mr. Evan. You get a closer ambience recording and a farther one. Why is that backwards? You can put the farther one in surround speakers, for example, or you can use the two separately to simulate different depths.

I wasn't sure if this should go here or in the gigastudio topics but it is mixing:

How does Gigapulse factor into this dry/wet discussion? The question is important because you could use dry signal to avoid multiple instances, which use up the CPU real fast. I'm wondering what Dietz or other mixing engineers feel is better - to use the "perspective" to achieve clearer sound or mix in dry signal? I am a little leery of mixing in dry signal, because isn't it contradicting the entire idea of the convolution - to place the source into a new space?

From a dogmatic point of view, it may seem to be a contradiction to mix the dry part with the convoluted "wet" signal. But in real life, recording engineers will not seldom combine a main microphone system (i.e. the convolution part, in our scenario) with some amount of closer mic'ed group- or soioist microphones (i.e. the direct signal).

HTH,

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

Thanks Dietz! That is a very interesting analogy...