audiokid pcrecord Boswell dvdhawk Davedog kmetal Kurt Foster ...and anyone and everyone else who is interested in the topic of Reverb and its tonal character.
I 'm just curious as to how my colleagues here approach the tonal side of the reverbs we use, hoping it might spark a discussion, and perhaps we can all learn a little from each other on this subject.
So, say for example, if you are using an average-sized room reverb on drums, maybe something around 13m (or so) in size, with a reverb time of around 300ms or so, where do you generally start in terms of setting the EQ for the reverb - either on the reverb plug itself - if that plug allows it - or on an aux/FX return?
Are you rolling off the top end around 6k with a gentle shelf? Or are you using something more dramatic, like an LPF?
Same with the low end as well... are you allowing lower frequencies to blend in equally, or are you using an HPF starting around 350hz ( or so) - or maybe even higher than that, and taking away most of the lower frequencies?
How about for vocals? Or for guitars?
What types of reverb do you like for certain tracks ( or mixes), both in terms of Natural Space Emulation and as a Special Effect?
Feel free to add your own scenario. :)
( LOL - I think we already know Chris's answer ( cough - Bricasti - cough cough) - and to an extent, perhaps Marco's as well, as he has mentioned several times in past threads his preference for using reverb as more of a natural space emulation ) ;)
Or, are you someone who usually just calls up a factory preset on your favorite reverb plug, and uses that without much tweaking, (if any) ?
Plates, Halls, Rooms, Chambers... Digital Reverb or Convolution?
I understand that these things I've asked vary widely, and are mostly "hypothetical what-if's", and that there are so many variables at play, in that each reverb is going to be chosen and adjusted within the context of the song/mix at hand, and, I also understand that there's a difference between using reverb as a way of emulating a natural environment - and that of using it "unnaturally", which would be considered to be more as a special effect.
Most modern mixes seem to lean towards room emulation than they do for effect, but certainly not all.
I've heard plenty of modern mixes where reverb has been incorporated as a special effect, as well as for room emulation.
I'm not putting any confines on this subject; the types of reverb, the use(s) of the reverb, nor am putting any limits regarding the parameters of the reverb, either, in terms of size and time, pre-delay, decay, mono, stereo, modulation, etc.,
And as mentioned above, there is nothing that says that this thread must be about reverb used only for space emulation, or only as an Effect. Either is fine. Anything is fine. Anything and everything is all good.
All comments are welcome. ;)
d.
Comments
I'm pretty plain w verb, I like it subtle because I mostly use
I'm pretty plain w verb, I like it subtle because I mostly use room mics for drums, and it's usually a small amount of hall on vocals and maybe gtrs and keys. Hpf/lpf 200/5-8k. I enter really never done much more than that with verb, it her than for effect.
I do d-ess delays tho. I can't stand hard cononssnts in delays, or at least unessaarily loud in the delay decay.
I use reverb the standard ways everyone does. The dryer the cap
I use reverb the standard ways everyone does.
The dryer the capture or source, the more options you have to a point you can actually go closer to flat, especially in the low end.
When you use a Bricasti, you can actually use it to boost subs which sounds absolutely amazing. This is something I've heard no other reverb do as well.
When I use a Bricasti, my setting are mostly stock patches. They are representations of the actual spaces. example: the Amsterdam Hall. Especially if I am using it on the 2-bus.
When I use plugs, I usually customize the settings for each performance.
Being said, most of the time LPF is always part of the curve.
ClarkJaman, post: 430144, member: 42802 wrote: Chris, last fall
ClarkJaman, post: 430144, member: 42802 wrote: Chris, last fall you were convinced that your DAW stock reverb was outperforming your Bricasti! I know I haven't been around much lately, but fill me in on what made you go back to the outboard stuff?
I haven't gone back to analog outboard mixing at all. I've sold all my analog mixing and mastering outboard gear.
The Bricasti is still my choice for room emulation but I get close enough from the stock tools in Sequoia. I may buy the next version of Bricasti but its highly unlikely I will ever return to the level of hardware mixing and mastering bloat.
Two DAW's and a 2-bus stereo reverb on the capture DAW is very interesting to me. We should all own a Bricasti. but, where I get results is more to do with monitoring and being able to hear everything I am doing better. Digital audio is amazing. The Bricasti is a digital product, an amazing tool for the most realistic reverb I have ever heard but its not an essential for modern music. I've learned how to emulate what it does so well. Which has a lot to do with phase and my workflow.
This isn't directed at anyone in particular... I'm just thinking
This isn't directed at anyone in particular... I'm just thinking out loud. ;)
I think that it's appropriate to mention that, while reverb in itself is based on the same time/delay theories, that there is a difference between using reverb as a natural space emulation and using it for an effect ( as well as the quality of the reverb being used). I've heard vocals that appeared on the surface to sound as dry as a bone - and which worked great for that particular song, as well - but in truth, there's always going to be some element of reverb - unless you track a vocal in an anechoic chamber.
It's the amount that is being used, and the quality of the reflection that comes into play.
I've heard a Bricasti used twice. Each time I thought that it was the best natural reverb I'd ever heard... ever. On both occasions, it was being used to emulate a natural space, nothing huge, nothing dramatic, but more along the size of a very big performance/tracking room in a studio. On both occasions, I thought it sounded fantastic. At the time, I thought that it was the perfect digital re-creation of a natural space, and that it could actually be used to take the place of trying to record an actual natural ambiance, of trying to find the "perfect sounding" room... which is not an easy thing to do. There are, without a doubt, great sounding rooms that exist. But, not in any home studios that I know of. You'd be far better off tracking as dry as possible and then using the Bricasti on the tracks to emulate a great-sounding room, than you would be to try and get that sound naturally out of the actual room you are recording in.
Reverb as an effect - think of Simon and Garfunkel's The Boxer, where the snare is just as wet as it is dry, maybe even more wet than dry... or vocal tracks on songs by Barry Manilow in the 70's... who's vocals were so "wet" with verb that you needed a towel after listening to the song. LOL - and while I'm sure that the Bricasti could give you a great reverb for effect as well as a smaller, more natural space, when it comes to using that much reflection, there are other great sounding verbs too, and which you don't need the hardware versions of anymore. Plugs by Lexicon, TC Electronics, Eventide... can all provide good-sounding reverbs for effect.
My point is that, unless you are looking at something as unmatchable as the Bricasti, and which is available only in hardware form ( at least as of this writing), that you don't really need a rack of hardware reverbs or delays anymore.
Most plug/emulations sound just as good as their original counterparts, and some sound even better than the older hardware units.
wyndzybeatz, post: 430189, member: 49238 wrote: How do i set cor
wyndzybeatz, post: 430189, member: 49238 wrote: How do i set correct revrb on vocal
This is an impossible question to answer, because there are so many variables involved. It depends on the song, the style, the sound you are looking for, and many, many other things that can determine this... including personal preference.
Perhaps you should start here:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may00/articles/reverb.htm
Also, providing a sample of a vocal that you like the sound of would help us to help you further in determining the type of reverb being used, ( hall, room, plate, chamber, etc.) along with the size, the depth, and the amount.
But don't do this until you have read the article i have posted a link to! You need to do some research and gain a little knowledge about the subject on your own first.
I'm not trying to be abrasive, or to wave you off. There's simply no point in us suggesting you do certain things - like altering diffusion, shortening decay, increasing pre-delay, etc. - if you don't know what these things are to begin with.
We're happy to help... but you need to help, too. That starts by you doing your own research first. Educate yourself as much as you can, understand what you are able to, then come back and we'll talk. ;)
audiokid, post: 430147, member: 1 wrote: I haven't gone back to
audiokid, post: 430147, member: 1 wrote: I haven't gone back to analog outboard mixing at all. I've sold all my analog mixing and mastering outboard gear.
The Bricasti is still my choice for room emulation but I get close enough from the stock tools in Sequoia. I may buy the next version of Bricasti but its highly unlikely I will ever return to the level of hardware mixing and mastering bloat.
Two DAW's and a 2-bus stereo reverb on the capture DAW is very interesting to me. We should all own a Bricasti. but, where I get results is more to do with monitoring and being able to hear everything I am doing better. Digital audio is amazing. The Bricasti is a digital product, an amazing tool for the most realistic reverb I have ever heard but its not an essential for modern music. I've learned how to emulate what it does so well. Which has a lot to do with phase and my workflow.
Casey from Bricasti just posted this. Look like a new M7 and an analog version is being planned. Here's the skinny:
The M7 upgrade will be a for cost hardware upgrade.
We are developing two new products. One will be a lower cost product that we are calling the M200, while the other will be our flagship M7 upgrade.
The M200 will have about 5x the computing resource of a 3 ghhz I7 processor while the M7 upgrade will have about 15x the computing resource of a 3 ghz I7 processor.
The M200 will be a rock and roll all out analog only never heard before effects reverb, while the M7 upgrade will include the digital version of the M200 and a never to be proceeded real space emulation.
The M200 uses a unique pitch algorithm for dozens of voices of delay slash reverb that will never be duplicated.
The M7 upgrade provides all of that but also takes the M200 basis and uses it in reverse to create time delay modulation without pitch modulation to create the most realistic space emulation that will likely ever be created.
So that's what I am doing this summer. How is summer going in your town?
"The M200 will have about 5x the computing resource of a 3 ghhz
"The M200 will have about 5x the computing resource of a 3 ghhz I7 processor while the M7 upgrade will have about 15x the computing resource of a 3 ghz I7 processor."
LOL...no wonder they haven't come up with a plug in version.
"The M7 upgrade provides all of that but also takes the M200 basis and uses it in reverse to create time delay modulation without pitch modulation to create the most realistic space emulation that will likely ever be created."
As if their "realistic space emulation" wasn't incredible enough already. ;)
DonnyThompson, post: 430254, member: 46114 wrote: "The M200 will
DonnyThompson, post: 430254, member: 46114 wrote: "The M200 will have about 5x the computing resource of a 3 ghhz I7 processor while the M7 upgrade will have about 15x the computing resource of a 3 ghz I7 processor."
LOL...no wonder they haven't come up with a plug in version.
When he says 5x the resource of a 3ghz i7, is he talking about a quad core I7 processor?
Once you own one of these, you realize where pro audio and acous
Once you own one of these, you realize where pro audio and acoustics are headed. Nothing sounds as good as these.
When I read how people are investing big money in smaller studios to get "that sound" of great acoustics my eyes roll.
I always say, before you build a studio, buy a Bricasti first and learn the drill.
In a mix, they will kill any studio acoustics. If I could, I would replace a room over one of these every time.
The bottom end on these is an eye opener. The sub acoustic information is astonishing. Its a game changer.
They are designed from ultrasound technology. Do research on that and then think about room acoustics and music.
DonnyThompson, post: 430306, member: 46114 wrote: Here's my ques
DonnyThompson, post: 430306, member: 46114 wrote: Here's my question... The Bricasti's I've heard were both M7's, and they sounded out of this world fantastic... so, LOL, how much better sounding can the new M200 be?
I mean, once you've reached perfection, what's beyond that? ;)
Delay as great as the reverb.
From my understanding, The M200 will be without a ADDA. It will be analog; targeted towards a hybrid setup. This is actually how I used the M7. I never used it digitally. I much prefer them on the 2-bus between DAW1 and DAW2. My guess, the M200 will be exactly what I want.
I do like my Bricasti - use it digitally to print - no worries o
I do like my Bricasti - use it digitally to print - no worries on latency. However, the one thing it cannot emulate is the depth that having a Blumlein in the kitchen(12' ceiling) recording the sound (1 room removed via a short hallway) in the great room(27' ceiling). I have yet to run across anything that gets close to that.
Once they get that (and they will), I guess I can throw the Blumlein out the kitchen window.
Sometimes "air" is good - sometimes "clean" is good.
reverbs come and go .... once AMS and Eventides were the snizzel
reverbs come and go .... once AMS and Eventides were the snizzel ... now you can't give them away. this will come to pass with the Bricasti's too. it's inevitable. anyone who insists that any verb in a box or a plug is "better" than real rooms , imo doesn't have any expierence using real rooms for any length of time. you need to live with real rooms and chambers and compare them over many different projects / sources to really hear what real reverb has to offer. there is nothing that is more fun to work with than real acoustics. everything else is nothing more than emulation and we all know where that leads ......:rolleyes:
To me, what ever sounds good is the way to do it !! ;) How I'm g
To me, what ever sounds good is the way to do it !! ;)
How I'm gonna treat a signal depends on the source and my goal. I nearly always use the Low Pass and High Pass filters of the reverb itself and if it still doesn't sound right I will use an EQ to tweak it further. I never use a preset or an established recipe because what the song need is never the same.
I guess one of the thing I do that comes natural is to listen how the reverb affect the EQ of the instrument. A reverb may make a guitar darker or sound hot in the mids. That's when I use graphic EQ on it.
Also regarding the source; If I send a ribbon room mic to a room reverb, I may not use much of the Low pass much because the signal don't have much HF already.
I tend to keep my drum reverb a bit brighter and my Band reverb a bit darker but it's not a rule ;)