|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Oct 23, 2022 4:34:05 GMT -6
For a few years, I have been using fewer and fewer plug ins: trying for more natural, at source, cleaner less cluttered mixes.
I find approachs to reverbs a little counter intuitive.
In a live situation, we’d be hearing everything in the natural reverb of the same space.
Often, in mixes, it seems people are using multiple, different reverbs, literally as effects to embellish some aspect of the mix/song.
So, that’s where I get confused thinking, either, isn’t that actually not natural and or, you’d need a lot of judgement for that to work?
There is also the use of multiple simultaneous different verbs to add more dimensionality (height?)?
Just wondering what people’s approaches are to this: less is more or bring it: creative decisions, depending on song ?
I’ll repost this as its a good example of good sounding specific reverbs on a part but different reverbs throughout the song: ie, needing that good judgement to work.
Thoughts ?
|
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Oct 23, 2022 10:34:11 GMT -6
I'm probably the worst person to answer this because it's been my goal since the first time I was ever in a recording studio to always use less reverb. I do like room mics if I need space when possible. So, drums, piano, strings (those rare times I get to record them), horns, and acoustic things usually get a room mic or mics. I do still like close mics for articulation and the rooms mics for ambiance.
As for artificial reverb, I often use just one, sometimes two on any given mix. Even ITB I still put reverb on an aux fed by sends from the tracks. I vary reverb amount by how much I sent to the reverb. The reverb fader (or return if I'm using outboard reverb, which I still do) is usually quite low compared to the instrument and vocal levels. I generally believe in having it so you wonder if there's reverb, but if you mute it you can tell it's gone.
I also spend time making sure the predelay works well in the context of the song. This is especially important on vocals. Keeping the reverb out of the way of the story and melody are super important to me.
Sometimes instruments and vocals get different reverbs, and occasionally a solo gets a unique reverb from anything else in the mix (though more often I'll use delay for that).
I LOVE things with little to no reverb. I love dry lead vocals.
There are exceptions to the above, but there are usually very song/production specific.
|
|
|
|
Post by copperx on Oct 23, 2022 12:19:34 GMT -6
First, it helps to get disabused of the notion that recordings are natural. Even the most naturalistic audio recordings are artificial: - Microphones have pickup patterns, frequency, and a time domain response that differ from our ears. Using a Blumlein dummy head in front of an orchestra might be the closest to reality, but very few recordings are like that (e.g., MA Recordings, Chesky Records).
- The recordist selects what to point the microphone at; just by doing that, you're distorting reality. Nobody listens to a singer 2" from their mouth.
- If you touch a fader in the mix, you're distorting reality.
- Even with your best efforts, the recording will be transformed into sound pressure waves by highly flawed paper cones that vibrate. The dynamic range of those things is as far from reality as you can get.
With that said, I want to point you in the direction of two engineers with diametrically opposite approaches to reverb: Steve Albini and Chris Lord-Alge. I find both approaches valid, and it helps to experiment with both. I was once in the Albini camp, but I've veered away from it just because honestly, it is more fun to play with electronic reverbs. Steve Albini rarely uses electronic reverb. Instead, he tries to record as much of the natural ambiance as possible by using microphone configurations that pick up reverberation. Sometimes he embiggens the reverb by delaying the ambient mics (in drums, he often delays the ambient mics by 20 ms or so to make everything bigger). When he needs additional reverb, he uses a natural chamber in his studio. You can see see a glimpse of his ambient mics here: Chris Lord-Alge uses up to 6 reverbs and 4 delay lines in a mix. The delay lines feed into the reverbs. Do you need judgment to make that work? It seems like picking compatible reverb times and units that complement each other is important. Then you have to judge the levels of the returns. You might also have to apply EQ to the returns. Here is a good explanation: |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2022 12:24:11 GMT -6
The studio is not live. Your brain filters out things live. Close mics are not natural.
I might have
1) snare plate send
2) tom reverbs. Whether stereo plate/room or individual mono plate sends panned to where the toms are
3) drum room send if no room mics
4) vocal plate or hall
5) background vocal group send
6) lead guitar plate or ambient verb
7) synth ambient verbs
8) room/chamber/hall
And these will all be eqed and processed and may or may not be audible. Nothing will be how it sounds raw.
If your reverbs don’t fit, get better reverbs. Filter and eq better. Digital algorithmic reverbs fit best. I like:
Lexicon verbs but their modulation can be too conspicuous.
Alesis style. Goodherz Megaverb rules
Exponential Audio. RIP because of private equity.
Eventide stuff
PSP EMT 2445
Oxford Reverb
Pro-R
Cinematic Rooms and Taichi
Neunaber Immerse and other FV-1 chip verbs
Relab Sonsig smokes their other products
Strymon Big Sky now.
And hardware and direct hardware ports usually sounds better than software because it can’t sound bad! Otherwise people would return or sell it! Think of which is a classic… an Alesis Midiverb II (50-150 bucks) or Valhalla Vintage Verb? One made Shoegaze and sounds sick on drums, small mono room sends, etc. the other trap music and awful uneqed tinny muddy inserts in awful online pop unless heavily band passed and eqed to the point you could use the stock metallic reverb that comes with your daw for a more natural, less conspicuous result and save 50 bucks. It’s like the lexicon vocals on big budget late 80s and early 90s pop but worse because it’s muddier and less dense. Btw you still hear that early 90s country lead vocal random hall reverb sound on random stuff now where it’s totally out of place because of the UAD and Relab 480 plugs
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2022 12:30:17 GMT -6
And I prefer the albini approach when possible but not everything was all done in the same room with the same room mics to apply delay to and manipulate!
|
|
|
|
Post by copperx on Oct 23, 2022 12:44:13 GMT -6
Just to confirm what Dan said, I have a lowly Kurzweil Rumuor outboard reverb with a beautiful plate setting that many times I tried to replace with plugins because patching outboard slows me down, but no plugin I've found can replace it. It's just a digital processor, nothing that a computer can't do, but somehow it sounds better than any plugin. I suspect that the best reverb algorithms are trapped inside hardware.
Here's a trick I've been using to get awesome reverb: I have the Seventh Heaven plugin, which is an impulse response recreation of the Bricasti, and sounds like a plastic recreation of the original. But I often set up a mix with a few Seventh Heaven instances, then, after I've done all the automation, I use Access Analog to print them with the genuine article and then import the results into my DAW. It's a bitch to do all this, but it's well worth it.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943 
|
Post by ericn on Oct 23, 2022 12:44:26 GMT -6
One issue with multiple verbs of different types is this, remember most conveniental verbs are combination of multiple delays, distortion and EQ. Why is this important? Because If you use a bunch of different verbs upon summing your listening to as much comb filtering of multiple reverbs as the reverbs. If you like it great but, before spreading the gospel understand the physics of what’s going on.
A technique I was taught in the old days is this; use a bunch of the same program with delays in front of all but one. Flip polarity on all but one that you use as the master clock as well and use the delay till it cancels, you are now aligned do it to the next. Now bring them up individually and group as you need to, EQ on way in and out on console to taste. Why multiples of the same program ? You can group and EQ an even if it works delay to some extent without building this weird comb filtering. The idea is your building the idea of a space, not a bunch of different spaces.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehightenor on Oct 23, 2022 12:57:08 GMT -6
A really good tip kcatthedog,
Is to remember the rule about high frequency loss over distance, so bright sounds appear closer and dark sounds appear to come from further back.
I have a darker hall verb (LX480 or sim) for my mixes back wall and shorter brighter plate or room verbs for the front of the mix.
For vocals I record them dry (I have a well treated space to track in) and then I add a really short ambience verb (LX480 is good for this too)
and then a chamber or plate and then vocals sound really big (and sometimes a very subtle quiet delay too)
I have a pre-set verb library I load up for a mix - Hall, Room, Plate, Chamber and Ambience etc.
They're all different amounts of brightness and size and this way I end up with mixes that sound deep, wide and engaging.
Occasionally is fun to have a spot FX were something get featured for a moment with an over the top FX like a backward verb of gated verb
just moment of something OTT and stand out - that can be fun too.
You don't need much of anyone one reverb though :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by sirthought on Oct 23, 2022 14:36:50 GMT -6
I always set up a room verb, often Ocean Way or Bricasti Clarity (via Reverberate), and place most elements in a common space.
After that I'm not afraid to bring other reverb styles to other elements as creativity presents itself. Especially with things like vocals or synths. You want those parts to stand out at times and reverb is a way to do it without mangling their essence too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Oct 23, 2022 15:03:23 GMT -6
Thx everyone, when I said live, I meant live, hearing a band in a club, concert hall etc, live music, real space with its natural reverb vs recording.
|
|
|
|
Post by RealNoob on Oct 23, 2022 21:28:14 GMT -6
When mixing live, about to do another big conference Nov 11-12, I don't usually have a lot of options or time to set them. until i get there, basic mix crafting is all I can get done, at times. Once there, I would generally have a plate for snare and toms. Guitarists are usually killing me on verb so nothing there and then a short hall and delay on vocals. I generally use them to create space and yes, dimensionality. The vocal usually very gently on both - so that if you take then away, you miss them. I am doing a series of live albums now - learning everything as I go. Getting better. This album, I was very fortunate to have an online chat with Sam Gibson who has done some VERY successful live albums. He helped me understand better how to truly bring the audience mics to bear. they run MUCH higher than before - more natural ambience. That said, All effects have to vibe with that. I generally start with an overall hall that is similar to the room. I even put the audience mics through that a hair, to make it bigger (a smidge). - That Hall: Keys, Sax, Violin and then anything else as needed for effect. May put OHs in it just a bit
- Plate for snare and toms, plate is part of snare sound - these stand more forward than the OHs
- Similar hall on a different plugin for Vocals
- Darker plate for Vocals
- Stereo plate (1/8 - 1/4) for Vocals
i picked up the 3 effects on vocals from Luke Hendrickson who has a lot of commercial success from live streamed audio - live mixes becoming albums - no overdubs. He also has mixed/produced a number of other live albums - different camps than Sam Gibson.
My intent is to create "micro-differences"/contrast for space and depth. The snare verb you hear, not the OH. You hear the hall on Sax & Violin - pushing them back in the mix, wide outside so they are heard but not obnoxious. i play with the guitar. He gives me 1 clean and stereo effects. they are usually over the top - I'm a guitar player, I get it. I will alternate between that and the main hall if needed to sit. These days, guitarist are doing a lot of ambient work - note the Big Sky verb. You don't hear the vocals verbs unless for artistic taste. To me... comb filtering and all  it sounds big but not too wet, at least not always. This live worship genre right now is projecting big spaces. I am working to use the verbs and filter enough out to feel the space and not really hear the space. It is tough. |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Oct 24, 2022 5:39:58 GMT -6
That's where I am at, running mixes very dry for clarity, a little delay and reverb here and there fir space snd effect.
i appreciate all this reverb food for thought and links: thx!
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Oct 24, 2022 5:56:40 GMT -6
Thx everyone, when I said live, I meant live, hearing a band in a club, concert hall etc, live music, real space with its natural reverb vs recording. Live is all about making the space work with the verb no fight it, unless it is strictly an effect. Even if someone wants to use a big fake effect often at FOH I’ll forget the cue , these are usually bands that will have bands panned so hard that one side of the room is missing something. That’s the thing you really have to think of live mixing as mono plus not hard stereo. In college I worked for a band director with a show choir who kept the bands monitors on stands behind them, stage wedges and mains no band. Well he never walked the room and never figured out that 1/2 the room couldn’t hear the band and the choir was always missing cues. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Oct 24, 2022 7:43:04 GMT -6
I'm probably the worst person to answer this because it's been my goal since the first time I was ever in a recording studio to always use less reverb. I do like room mics if I need space when possible. So, drums, piano, strings (those rare times I get to record them), horns, and acoustic things usually get a room mic or mics. I do still like close mics for articulation and the rooms mics for ambiance. As for artificial reverb, I often use just one, sometimes two on any given mix. Even ITB I still put reverb on an aux fed by sends from the tracks. I vary reverb amount by how much I sent to the reverb. The reverb fader (or return if I'm using outboard reverb, which I still do) is usually quite low compared to the instrument and vocal levels. I generally believe in having it so you wonder if there's reverb, but if you mute it you can tell it's gone. I also spend time making sure the predelay works well in the context of the song. This is especially important on vocals. Keeping the reverb out of the way of the story and melody are super important to me. Sometimes instruments and vocals get different reverbs, and occasionally a solo gets a unique reverb from anything else in the mix (though more often I'll use delay for that). I LOVE things with little to no reverb. I love dry lead vocals. There are exceptions to the above, but there are usually very song/production specific. Your preference or method is almost the opposite of much of what is being done today. I'm with you. |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Oct 24, 2022 7:45:12 GMT -6
I'm probably the worst person to answer this because it's been my goal since the first time I was ever in a recording studio to always use less reverb. I do like room mics if I need space when possible. So, drums, piano, strings (those rare times I get to record them), horns, and acoustic things usually get a room mic or mics. I do still like close mics for articulation and the rooms mics for ambiance. As for artificial reverb, I often use just one, sometimes two on any given mix. Even ITB I still put reverb on an aux fed by sends from the tracks. I vary reverb amount by how much I sent to the reverb. The reverb fader (or return if I'm using outboard reverb, which I still do) is usually quite low compared to the instrument and vocal levels. I generally believe in having it so you wonder if there's reverb, but if you mute it you can tell it's gone. I also spend time making sure the predelay works well in the context of the song. This is especially important on vocals. Keeping the reverb out of the way of the story and melody are super important to me. Sometimes instruments and vocals get different reverbs, and occasionally a solo gets a unique reverb from anything else in the mix (though more often I'll use delay for that). I LOVE things with little to no reverb. I love dry lead vocals. There are exceptions to the above, but there are usually very song/production specific. Your preference or method is almost the opposite of much of what is being done today. I'm with you. I've never been one to do (or even pay attention) to what's popular... |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Oct 24, 2022 8:30:26 GMT -6
Your preference or method is almost the opposite of much of what is being done today. I'm with you. I've never been one to do (or even pay attention) to what's popular... Tony over the years I have learned to important lessons about not doing things the fashionable way in this industry. 1. If you build your client base on what you do and don’t worry about hits you can get away with it. 2. A big part of this leads to number 1; Clients are more results based, while modern clients know more about technique and technology than years ago, ideas of method can be treated more as a way of communicating a goal of the result. If you nod your head and figure how you can get there within the aesthetic your known for run with it. |
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Oct 24, 2022 9:56:02 GMT -6
Thx everyone, when I said live, I meant live, hearing a band in a club, concert hall etc, live music, real space with its natural reverb vs recording. FWIW, when I explore this concept I don't think about clubs, theaters, PAs, or any of those things. It's more, band in a great sounding space, than band playing a gig. To me, that's a huge distinction. |
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Oct 24, 2022 10:00:30 GMT -6
There’s a common underlying axiom in this thread that ITB reverb plugins can’t compare with OTB, even funky old early digital boxes. If this is true why is it true given the enormous advances in computer processing power? I understand the benefits of real plates, chambers and springs over plugins. But what’s the science behind the claim that old digital boxes are better than current plugins?
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Oct 24, 2022 11:09:31 GMT -6
There’s a common underlying axiom in this thread that ITB reverb plugins can’t compare with OTB, even funky old early digital boxes. If this is true why is it true given the enormous advances in computer processing power? I understand the benefits of real plates, chambers and springs over plugins. But what’s the science behind the claim that old digital boxes are better than current plugins? I don’t think it’s processing power, it’s the brain power and that for the developers there just isn’t the money any more in a new reverb. Think about it we had companies with deep pockets like Yamaha and Sony, Eventide had the Aircraft electronics div. What moves the needle now is small shops, many are one guy who is doing everything including sales PR and support. The income is inconsistent, no benefits and you can move more product redoing someone else’s work! So why would push the envelope? Plus you are at the mercy of OS and PC architecture, any major changes and you are forced to rewrite your older stuff for little to nothing. |
|
|
|
Post by drumsound on Oct 24, 2022 11:54:21 GMT -6
I've never been one to do (or even pay attention) to what's popular... Tony over the years I have learned to important lessons about not doing things the fashionable way in this industry. 1. If you build your client base on what you do and don’t worry about hits you can get away with it. 2. A big part of this leads to number 1; Clients are more results based, while modern clients know more about technique and technology than years ago, ideas of method can be treated more as a way of communicating a goal of the result. If you nod your head and figure how you can get there within the aesthetic your known for run with it. Yeah, I've pretty much gotten away with this for about 25 years! There’s a common underlying axiom in this thread that ITB reverb plugins can’t compare with OTB, even funky old early digital boxes. If this is true why is it true given the enormous advances in computer processing power? I understand the benefits of real plates, chambers and springs over plugins. But what’s the science behind the claim that old digital boxes are better than current plugins? Part of the character of those old boxes are the analog stages, so you have the dedicated tone of the box PLUS the programing that often was very creative to squeeze the most out of available technology. I'm REALLY thinking Eventide here, but it applies to others. There's also a certain simplicity that is both charming, AND time effective. A Lexicon PCM60 just has a series of large buttons to get sounds. You press a button and listen, if you like it, stop. If the client asks to hear the different options, A/B is super simple. I don't like later Lexicon pieces because I HATE the UI (even though they sound good). I love my TC M3K because I love that UI (and it's sound). |
|
|
|
Post by copperx on Oct 24, 2022 12:02:50 GMT -6
There’s a common underlying axiom in this thread that ITB reverb plugins can’t compare with OTB, even funky old early digital boxes. If this is true why is it true given the enormous advances in computer processing power? I understand the benefits of real plates, chambers and springs over plugins. But what’s the science behind the claim that old digital boxes are better than current plugins? This is a human, rather than a technology problem. Only a few companies have ported their family jewel algorithms to the plugin world. Lexicon (just a few algos), and Eventide (also just a tiny fraction of algorithms). The most recognizable reverbs in the world are trapped inside black boxes. The best new algorithm designer, Casey from Bricasti, went all-in on hardware. Casey claims that his algorithm is too slow to run on a CPU, but it's not clear whether he even tried numerical optimization methods. |
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Oct 24, 2022 12:15:20 GMT -6
There’s a common underlying axiom in this thread that ITB reverb plugins can’t compare with OTB, even funky old early digital boxes. If this is true why is it true given the enormous advances in computer processing power? I understand the benefits of real plates, chambers and springs over plugins. But what’s the science behind the claim that old digital boxes are better than current plugins? I don’t think it’s processing power, it’s the brain power and that for the developers there just isn’t the money any more in a new reverb. Think about it we had companies with deep pockets like Yamaha and Sony, Eventide had the Aircraft electronics div. What moves the needle now is small shops, many are one guy who is doing everything including sales PR and support. The income is inconsistent, no benefits and you can move more product redoing someone else’s work! So why would push the envelope? Plus you are at the mercy of OS and PC architecture, any major changes and you are forced to rewrite your older stuff for little to nothing. I hear you. But I'm having a hard time believing that technical know how in regards to digital is more limited than it was 20 years ago. Maybe you're correct that today's small shops don't have what it takes. But how would that explain that zero companies can't compete or outdo those boxes of yesteryear? Many of today's plugin designers such as UA, Steinberg, Izopope, Eventide etc are not one man shops, simply copying old code because they don't know any better. We're living in an age devoted to bettering digital processing and design are we not? But somehow digital reverb can't be improved upon? |
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Oct 24, 2022 12:20:23 GMT -6
There’s a common underlying axiom in this thread that ITB reverb plugins can’t compare with OTB, even funky old early digital boxes. If this is true why is it true given the enormous advances in computer processing power? I understand the benefits of real plates, chambers and springs over plugins. But what’s the science behind the claim that old digital boxes are better than current plugins? This is a human, rather than a technology problem. Only a few companies have ported their family jewel algorithms to the plugin world. Lexicon (just a few algos), and Eventide (also just a tiny fraction of algorithms). The most recognizable reverbs in the world are trapped inside black boxes. The best new algorithm designer, Casey from Bricasti, went all-in on hardware. Casey claims that his algorithm is too slow to run on a CPU, but it's not clear whether he even tried numerical optimization methods. If this is true, WHY aren't Lexicon and Eventide making the best possible ITB verbs? Wouldn't it be in their financial interest to do so? |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,943
|
Post by ericn on Oct 24, 2022 12:21:02 GMT -6
I don’t think it’s processing power, it’s the brain power and that for the developers there just isn’t the money any more in a new reverb. Think about it we had companies with deep pockets like Yamaha and Sony, Eventide had the Aircraft electronics div. What moves the needle now is small shops, many are one guy who is doing everything including sales PR and support. The income is inconsistent, no benefits and you can move more product redoing someone else’s work! So why would push the envelope? Plus you are at the mercy of OS and PC architecture, any major changes and you are forced to rewrite your older stuff for little to nothing. I hear you. But I'm having a hard time believing that technical know how in regards to digital is more limited than it was 20 years ago. Maybe you're correct that today's small shops don't have what it takes. But how would that explain that zero companies can't compete or outdo those boxes of yesteryear? Many of today's plugin designers such as UA, Steinberg, Izopope, Eventide etc are not one man shops, simply copying old code because they don't know any better. We're living in an age devoted to bettering digital processing and design are we not? But somehow digital reverb can't be improved upon? I’m not saying they don’t have what it takes I’m saying they can’t afford to invest the time. That’s the whole problem with today’s plugins, far more profitable and easier to copy an old wheel than reimagine. I’m sure if you offered to underwrite the development you could probably get at least 50 small shops pitch you ideas, they all have them it’s the cost of the time needed to invest in it and keep everything running at the same time. |
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Oct 24, 2022 12:25:10 GMT -6
There’s a common underlying axiom in this thread that ITB reverb plugins can’t compare with OTB, even funky old early digital boxes. If this is true why is it true given the enormous advances in computer processing power? I understand the benefits of real plates, chambers and springs over plugins. But what’s the science behind the claim that old digital boxes are better than current plugins? Part of the character of those old boxes are the analog stages, so you have the dedicated tone of the box PLUS the programing that often was very creative to squeeze the most out of available technology. I'm REALLY thinking Eventide here, but it applies to others. There's also a certain simplicity that is both charming, AND time effective. A Lexicon PCM60 just has a series of large buttons to get sounds. You press a button and listen, if you like it, stop. If the client asks to hear the different options, A/B is super simple. I don't like later Lexicon pieces because I HATE the UI (even though they sound good). I love my TC M3K because I love that UI (and it's sound). I get the analog stage piece of the puzzle. But should that be a major difference maker? As for plugin ease of use, isn't that what presets are for? I really appreciate everyone's responses here. I'm just not convinced yet as to why this little corner of digital technology has to be stuck in the 80s and 90s. |
|
it sounds big but not too wet, at least not always. This live worship genre right now is projecting big spaces. I am working to use the verbs and filter enough out to feel the space and not really hear the space. It is tough.
