In a small dry room of course. It would be too simple to dismiss the question through recourse to larger and more lively rooms. :smile:

and justice for all....

It's definitely not my style. I really like using reverb and find that using just the right reverb in just the right amount is a key to getting a song "right."

With the said there are a few sounds that I love that have little or no natural reverb. One is a late night radio DJ. Very intimate sound. Like someone talking very close to your ear. If I was trying to accept this challenge I'd start with that and add electric bass and some synth sounds.

Probably the best answer is, "no."

its music, there are no rules, and there have been many high selling records, that had no reverb on the track.

"there have been many high selling records, that had no reverb on the track."

Name one.

lol!!!

I'd say it is possible. Depends on where the sound source is recorded, what's being recorded and ultimately, who the intended audience is.

Can chorus, echo, or delay still be used? :)

a

Space, post: 359307 wrote: "Name one. lol!!!

The first two Beatle records, released in the UK had no reverb, the American versions had reverb added to them. Johnny Cash's Folsom Prison record, didn't have a drop of reverb added to it. You've got to remember reverb is simply just a tool you use to make music. Thinking it is necessary to use reverb for a song to be successful is like thinking you need to use a piano in a song to make it sell well. Reverb has absolutely nothing to do with the sales of any record, I never once heard a bunch of people buying a popular album because they really like the reverb. Reverb is just a trend, a tool, and a sound, it doesn't constitute success. In some music it would be inappropriate to add reverb. Also if you look at virtually every high selling rap album many of those tracks have little to no reverb. Reverb is only necessary if the song calls for it. If you are a professional Producer or engineer, you add reverb because its appropriate for the sound, its a conscious decision, just like what lyrics to put into a song. For example, if you were recording in a orchestral hall, to capture an orchestras performance, it would be considered a mortal sin to add reverb. The people who record that music, set up a few choice mics in the room, with a few choice pre-amps, and record. I only know this because I know a guy who is currently up for a few grammys for his classical recordings. I hope that helps.

Reverb is an artifact of a room's properties...so it isn't, to me, specifically an electronic device it is a simple process to electronically re-produce what specific rooms can create but not every room can sound like. :)

anyway, it was kind of a trick question :)

Ravikash, post: 359397 wrote: ... Johnny Cash's Folsom Prison record, didn't have a drop of reverb added to it....

Sam Phillips made a record in 1955 with no reverb??? He must have used his supply up on all of his other records. I'll have to check this out.

UPDATE: Well if the is no reverb on [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.amazon.c…"]this sample[/]="http://www.amazon.c…"]this sample[/] then there were some interesting rooms in 706 Union Avenue.

Ravikash, post: 359397 wrote: For example, if you were recording in a orchestral hall, to capture an orchestras performance, it would be considered a mortal sin to add reverb. The people who record that music, set up a few choice mics in the room, with a few choice pre-amps, and record. I only know this because I know a guy who is currently up for a few grammys for his classical recordings.

This is generally true, but it depends on the hall in which the orchestra is being recorded. In the 50's orchestras would frequently "borrow" a hall that was known to sound great. The original configuration of Orchestra Hall in Chicago is an example of this (prior to the first remodel). This died off in the 1980's due to budgetary concerns. Today, it would not be anathema to add some additional reverb if the Music Director and RE/ME decided it was warranted. Does it happen very often? Not so much, but more than one might think with us purist long hairs.

I return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

Ravikash, post: 359397 wrote: The first two Beatle records, released in the UK had no reverb, the American versions had reverb added to them. Johnny Cash's Folsom Prison record, didn't have a drop of reverb added to it. You've got to remember reverb is simply just a tool you use to make music. Thinking it is necessary to use reverb for a song to be successful is like thinking you need to use a piano in a song to make it sell well. Reverb has absolutely nothing to do with the sales of any record, I never once heard a bunch of people buying a popular album because they really like the reverb. Reverb is just a trend, a tool, and a sound, it doesn't constitute success. In some music it would be inappropriate to add reverb. Also if you look at virtually every high selling rap album many of those tracks have little to no reverb. Reverb is only necessary if the song calls for it. If you are a professional Producer or engineer, you add reverb because its appropriate for the sound, its a conscious decision, just like what lyrics to put into a song. For example, if you were recording in a orchestral hall, to capture an orchestras performance, it would be considered a mortal sin to add reverb. The people who record that music, set up a few choice mics in the room, with a few choice pre-amps, and record. I only know this because I know a guy who is currently up for a few grammys for his classical recordings. I hope that helps.

Where ever did you get this information? This sounds exactly like internet half-truth. The FACT is, EMI was famous the world over for their echo chambers in the basement of Abbey Road. And with the use of what they called the STEED system they were able to add a tape generated pre-delay to the chambers signal. They were the innovators of this technology which is so commonplace today and YES this sytem was ON the entire time the Beatles recorded ANYTHING. There were tapeops assigned to the tape machine controlling the predelay signal to the chambers.

As for the popularity due to such an effect, MANY artists recorded their records at Abbey Road simply because of the unique and very identifiable sound of the studio and its gear. So, in a way, people did buy records based on the reverb of a room.

As for adding reveb to a classical recording, if you think its just a matter of throwing up a "few choice mics" with a "few choice pre-amps" and bang, thats the ticket, you have a lot to learn.

We have a number of engineers who frequent these pages who record this type of music almost exclusively, and hopefully they will see this and show you the errors of your thinking. Yes, there is , on occasion, reveb added to a classical mix. Sometimes to fill in the bloom in a room with uneven acoustics and perhaps a variety of reverb lengths within the hall itself.

As far as a "mortal sin", the only thing I can think of there is playing the devils interval in praise music.

Adding reverb to a classical recording has been marked down to a venal sin. Couple of Hail Marys and you are good to go.

Davedog, post: 359420 wrote: ... As far as a "mortal sin", the only thing I can think of there is playing the devils interval in praise music...

I wrote a pretty good blues communion song called "Thirteen at the Table" that has flated fifths all over the place, so it had better not be mortal.

Bonus math question: Does anyone know WHY the tritone is the Devil's interval?

Thanks Bob. Its good to know I can take the gaffers tape off that fret.

I'm guessing....Played in order they are all descending sixths? Like I said....a guess.

Talking about reverb gets a little philosophical in that sense, because when do we not here Reverberations, because that is what you are talking about, the phrase room sound comes to mind when you talk about reverb in that sense, and people put up room mics, to record the natural reverberations in the studio, so thats a good point is the question about room sound or reverb, because technically delays are a reverb as well. Not all reverbs model a room, and those that do are called Impulse Response, or convulsion reverb which is the simulation of the reverberation of a physical or virtual space. Because even if there is a room mic, or the room sound was involved with the mic positioning, some people will still call it a dry recording. I have pulled up recordings for people where all I used where room mics in the recording to create space, and they asked me if I was keeping the mix dry, so in that sense what constitutes reverb?

"Reverberation [reverb] is the persistence of sound in a particular space after the original sound is removed..." in the literary sense, now to what end the OP referred is out of my mental control. But I am thinking, and also seeing support here, that you have to take the rooms ability to color as well as the potential coloration from electronic or other external devices to completely cover reverb in respect to what gets printed on an audio track.

But if the clarification is that reverb, in this sense, is confined to electronic devices, that would be fair to me...since I didn't start the post anyway :)

...and if I can take this one step farther, two things: the complete removal of room based, mic placement technique or artificial reverb in an attempt to record would make listening a difficult process for the human since we by nature are used to hearing the spatial enhancements that are a direct process of our environment.

And then you cannot replay any recording that will not be somehow affected by where you are listening to it. The main reason a control room and tracking room are given a different rt60 [if applicable] or at least the two rooms are different in nature aimed at this exact phenomenon that is a simple by-product of hard boundaries.

Carly Simon recorded vocals in a hard tiled bathroom for this effect alone...she among many others.

But like I said, isn't my question...just some random thoughts in a random day :)

OK I will bite,whats the answer Bob?

I still like to use real room tone first before I add simulated reverb

As far for the Beatles thing, I misunderstood what happened, when the first two albums were released in America, they added additional reverb to the American release, I thought they meant that the original was dry, so they added reverb, my mistake. Also I was only commenting on the first two Beatle's records. The Beatles, George Martin, and the team of engineers involved changed the recording process and helped develop a lot of the recording techniques we use today, by no means did I mean the Beatles never used reverb, I was just using the first two as an example, which now I realize was a mistake.

As far as the classical recordings, I didn't explain myself very well, I apologize for that. The person I mentioned in my post, really meant was the specific hall he was recording in, in Nashville, it would be looked down upon to add reverb, because the room is renowned for its great sound, granted I took my statements a little to far with the "mortal sin" line and generalized too much, but I was trying to give a specific example where it was prudent to not use reverb. Also putting up mics in the right spot and choosing the right pre-amps isn't exactly "Throwing them up", people spend hours finding the right mic locations, and making sure they use the best pre-amps for the job, I also didn't say they didn't do anything in post, but its usually a very delicate process, and typically with such classical recording its importatnt to stay true to the sound of the orchestra in the room. In my opinion the most important part of the sound recording process is microphone choice and placement, thats how you get the sound to tape, and the more time you spend on that means less time you spend on post, and in my opinion that yields the best recording. This is just my opinion you are more than welcome to disagree.

Furthermore, People pay money to see orchestras in specific locations, and when you buy Classical Music, the place where the music was recorded is typically printed on the front of the CD, because it is relevant to the purchase. The way people consume music is directly relevant to the way we record. Consumers of classical recording say, "have you heard 'such and such' orchestral group, well have you heard 'such and such' at this concert hall, they sound the best at this hall", etc. Now if one were too, add reverb to a recording of a specific hall, and it changed the sound of the hall, you might piss off a lot of consumers, because the consumer wants the most accurate representation of the hall. Now if you have the recording, and then the engineer realizes the decay of the hall sounds too short, so the egineer adds reverb to make it sound like it does in the room, thats fine, but from my understanding it would be more prudent to re-think ones mic positioning to get the most accurate sound, and once those options are exhausted then you look for post to help you, then again that is just one particular approach. I just don't think adding reverb to classical recording is something thats done off the cuff, and a norm, in my opinion you add reverb because it was not possible to accurately capture the room, when dealing with such recordings.

Davedog, post: 359420 wrote: So, in a way, people did buy records based on the reverb of a room.

As for this statement I am going to have extremely disagree, and I stand firm on the fact that nobody bought the Beatles recording because they were recorded at Abbey Road. This has to do with the philosophy of music recording, making, and purchasing. I stand pretty firm, that people bought the music because they liked the music itself. If I record and mix a track, and ask someone to listen to it, who is not an engineer, and they say they really like the reverb, effects, and the drum sounds, I would feel like an utter failure, because I don't care about that, I care about the music. If that person says the really like the drum beat, and the singers voice, and the guitar solo, then I did my job. The last thing I want is the consumer listening to work of the engineer. I want the consumer listening to the music. So as an engineer it is my goal to do justice to the music, to make sure every millisecond of the song, the listener is enjoying the music, and is unaware of any the work I have done, and in the end all they heard was the song, then I know I did a good job. If some band you didn't like recorded at Abbey Road, and relesead an album, I don't think people whom do not like the band will buy the album because it was recorded at Abbey Road. I also bet, if the Beatles recorded their first album at club live, like they originally planned, they would still be a huge phenomenon, because the songs would be the same.

BobRogers, post: 359402 wrote: Sam Phillips made a record in 1955 with no reverb??? He must have used his supply up on all of his other records. I'll have to check this out.

UPDATE: Well if the is no reverb on [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.amazon.c…"]this sample[/]="http://www.amazon.c…"]this sample[/] then there were some interesting rooms in 706 Union Avenue.

Sorry Bob, I should have specified I meant the Live at Folsom Prison album, it had no reverb on it, or at least the copy I own, it was just the live performance in the prison, and it sold a lot of records.

But then Folsum Prison violates rule #1b of my qualifications, since the room they played in had to have been very lively, since it was a fair size and obviously hard surfaced. :smile: I am surprised at the amount of dialog my (deceptively) simple question has generated. As a novice recording enthousiast, one can have all kinds of misconceptions about the craft. I naively thought that some amount of mechanical or digital reverb must be added, especially on tracks done in a very dry small rooms, but then again, maybe not. I am beginning to think the matter is entirely material dependent (i.e., the style and intent of the music) in part from my own experimentation, and also from the many interesting responses.

Ravikash, post: 359440 wrote: Furthermore, People pay money to see orchestras in specific locations, and when you buy Classical Music, the place where the music was recorded is typically printed on the front of the CD, because it is relevant to the purchase. The way people consume music is directly relevant to the way we record. Consumers of classical recording say, "have you heard 'such and such' orchestral group, well have you heard 'such and such' at this concert hall, they sound the best at this hall", etc. Now if one were too, add reverb to a recording of a specific hall, and it changed the sound of the hall, you might piss off a lot of consumers, because the consumer wants the most accurate representation of the hall. Now if you have the recording, and then the engineer realizes the decay of the hall sounds too short, so the egineer adds reverb to make it sound like it does in the room, thats fine, but from my understanding it would be more prudent to re-think ones mic positioning to get the most accurate sound, and once those options are exhausted then you look for post to help you, then again that is just one particular approach. I just don't think adding reverb to classical recording is something thats done off the cuff, and a norm, in my opinion you add reverb because it was not possible to accurately capture the room, when dealing with such recordings.

Rarely do people have a choice of where to see/hear their favorite orchestra. In Chicago you have Ravinia, Grant Park, and Orchestra Hall. For thirty years however the CSO was recorded in the auditorium three blocks down which didn't sound like Orchestra Hall at all. And this was in the hey day when classical listeners really did rush out to buy the latest recording of their favorite orchestra. It was as important to many as their baseball team for civic pride. However, the hall didn't enter too much into the equation honestly. I say this not as a recording engineer but as a professional french horn player and student of classical music with a mile long album/CD collection. You didn't go buy NY Phil because it was recorded at Avery Fischer versus Carnegie Hall. You didn't go grab Buffalo because they happened to record at Eastman that day. With the orchestral listening public it is ALL about the conductor and the orchestra and who is playing principal of their favorite instrument section.

There are a few choice halls that have received a lot of buzz in the past decade or so-Disney Hall and Davies come to mind for CA, the Pei designed hall in Houston-but by and large that is localized to a core home town group. The whole civic pride thing waned dramatically in the 1980's and 90's to where today even some of the largest orchestras are in dangerous territory.

Now, I LOVE to hear a fine orchestra in the Musikverein and one of my great pleasures is watching the DVD ORF puts out of the New Year's Concert. But. Der Wienner Philharmoniker sounds like a great orchestra no matter where they are and they sound completely different today than in the past. To be clear I have recordings in the Musikverein from 1932, 1938, 1952, 56, 59, 1963 and on into modern recording times. The Sydney Opera House is a similar experience though I only have one or two recording from there.

As to post production, if the engineer has done his/her job, you'll never know if an reverb was added or not. If it were that obvious that RE should be replaced. I believe your buddy has a good enough alchemy with the hall, his microphones/preamps, and the Nashville Symphony (shout out to my friends there) to not need any reverb added. That says nothing at all about compression etc which can certainly alter the sound far more than a bit of 'verb and those tools are definitely used all the time even in classical genre.

For the record (ha), I am a less-is-more RE whether it's an orchestra, band, or any of the myriad of chamber ensembles out there.

reverb added here but its virtually creating DVZ and reflections. This is the next wave in real with sampler libraries. I wouldn't think of adding anything to real classical but as a composer using things like virtual sounds, absolutely. In Pop music, I don't think there are any rules. Just common sense.

You quote me out of context. THAT is a mortal sin......

My point is this...... and I do agree that no one....at least not regular people....buy records based on reverb......

Point: And this will obviously require some homework but is worth it...Listen to the top 10 recordings from 1963. When you get to the Beatles songs, notice the huge difference in the SOUND of the recordings. Not the songs themselves....I have ZERO argument over the power of the songwriting there.....Then consider, if you will, what basis there was for anyone to ever begin to listen to something they had never heard before? This is a first impressions sorta thing....before anyone would have had time to flesh out the lyric, groove to the backbeat, become enamoured with the vocalists, become a member of a fan club etc etc etc.....

What brought them to want to hear it again?

Maybe, like me, you caught the end of a song on the radio, but the SOUND of it so intrigued you , you couldnt wait to hear it again in whole. Yeah....I'm that old. Real time listener and all.As it happened. I was there.

It was a sound like nothing before . And very little after.

Your point was they could have achieved this with a standard sound of the times or even a live show recording.....It would have taken a lot longer.

People bought those records in the beginning for one reason only. It was like nothing they had ever heard before and a BIG part of that was the production at that time.

So, in a way, people did buy records because of the reverb. The inherant quality of the establishment it was recorded in. Most records of the day were like that. There werent ten thousand recording studios with cookie cutter rooms and cookie cutter gear. You want to tell me that producers and engineers didnt put out a definable sound?

Just like the Maestros and the Principles John spoke of.

Yeah. I always serve the song in my work. You betcha. I dont want stuff hanging out there that doesnt belong....who does?? Good-on-ya that you work that way too....but to think for a minute that the old school producers and engineers didnt have a sound that people bought the records because of, is ludicris. Or misinformed.

Its the main reason that so much music todays sucks ass. It all SOUNDS the same.And you can make it sound alike on yer home computer with a few decent pieces of gear.

Davedog, post: 359456 wrote: It was a sound like nothing before . And very little after.

I have to say, I basically agree with just about everything you have been saying, and I think I can use this quote to make my point. Its not that I think what the engineers did with mixing wasn't amazing, and that wasn't a contributing factor to why the music was successful. My point is, its not the reverb or effects that made it awesome, it was the people working on it, that made it awesome. I just don't like the mentality that Lexicon Reverb will make a better song, because thats not true. Its the engineer that decides it would be cool to use a Lexicon Reverb on a certain track in a certain way, which makes the song better. I agree, when an engineer creates a sound that was never heard before, that does sell records, but its the people that make the sound not the equipment.

So when people ask questions like do you need to use reverb to make a successfully Artistic song, I'm upset because this person has been told in some way to restrict their art, and it almost takes away power from people. Many of the professionals in our industry are upset, because now anybody can buy a pro tools rig and start recording. Its frustrating, I took the time and spent lots of money to educate myself, network, and invest. Now some guy who would normally have to seek a professional, can do it on their own. I feel discredited, like my skills have no value. So now, I am looking for a fast food job, while I work for a music company for free, because I believe in what they are doing, and they can't afford to pay me, because people don't value music in the same way anymore.

I feel this mentality in our field, and I sense this backlash, of using the "right gear" so to speak. Don't get me wrong quality equipment helps make better music, but its not necessary to sell records. People have bought millions of recordings, on 8tracks, casset tapes, CDs, Vinyl, and more recently we went down in quality to MP3s, so how important is sound? Ultimately its about the music, and everyone agrees that the music industry is not in the best place right now, and everybody is trying to blame everybody else, and the problem is everybody is right. We are all to blame for the state of the music industry. One part of the problem is Producers and engineers putting to much thought into everything but the music itself, and this allows bad music to be created. An example I would like to use is a real test question that my professor wrote,

"Which of the following will yield the best music recording?"
a. High Sample rate, low bit depth
b. Low Sample rate, High bit depth
c. High Sample rate, High bit depth
d. recording with Good Musicans

The answer was d, I got it wrong, as did most of the class.
So how can we complain about bad music, we support bad music in the way we record. The drummer was sloppy, but I'll edit it, beat detect it, quantize it, because the drummer can't drum, autotune the voice because the singer can't sing, I have 30 playlists of a guitar track, because the guitarist can't play guitar, and so on and so forth. So we spend all this time trying to make bad music sound good, and we support technology that does so, and we wonder why the music industry is generating less revenue.

I thinks its important to have these kinds of discussions because we are one of the few people that can help make a direct change. I hope thats what this website is ultimately for; if we can't make mistakes, and get our viewpoints changed and adapted through this website, then it has no purpose. If we want better music, then we have to help make better music, by any means necessary, even if that means working on a laptop in a bedroom, and recording a hit record.