Verb on entire mix vs individual tracks?

[rob2001]

Say you've got a song and your noticing you have slight reverb on almost every track. Will it sound better and more uniform keeping the tracks dry and applying the reverb to the strereo bus? Any reason to prefer one over the other or is it just that, preference?

[Bassomatic]

Say you've got a song and your noticing you have slight reverb on almost every track. Will it sound better and more uniform keeping the tracks dry and applying the reverb to the strereo bus? Any reason to prefer one over the other or is it just that, preference?

No! No control over perceived depth of soundstage if everythings hitting the verb at the same level.

Used in the purist sense (which i rarely do), things that you want further back in the mix/soundfield get more reverb, generally speaking.

That said, reverb is often used as a crutch by newbies to cover up a bevvy of other problems. Your mix should sound good bone dry, too.

[rob2001]

No! No control over perceived depth of soundstage if everythings hitting the verb at the same level.

Used in the purist sense (which i rarely do), things that you want further back in the mix/soundfield get more reverb, generally speaking.

That said, reverb is often used as a crutch by newbies to cover up a bevvy of other problems. Your mix should sound good bone dry, too.


Ya, I can dig that for sure. My mixes from years back had way too much of everything on them. I do use verb to "place" things in the field, not always though. One song in particular, i'm using relatively the same amounts and parameters on all tracks. (actually a slight early reference effect) Just wondering if anyone uses one or the other as a preference.

[LSchefman]

You can certainly control the amount of dry vs wet on any track with the aux send, and use a single reverb on the whole mix. I often do this with orchestral stuff.

In the Pop music world, the concept of all the instruments in a single space isn't adhered to much, and people use lots of reverbs on various instruments and vocals.

It's really a matter of personal preference and what you're trying to accomplish.

[rob2001]

You can certainly control the amount of dry vs wet on any track with the aux send, and use a single reverb on the whole mix. I often do this with orchestral stuff.

In the Pop music world, the concept of all the instruments in a single space isn't adhered to much, and people use lots of reverbs on various instruments and vocals.

It's really a matter of personal preference and what you're trying to accomplish.


Thanks! I'm doing some mixing tonight and i'll have to try a few things. I guess I was just wondering if effecting the entire mix is straight up wrong. I'll just trust my ears! Thanks

[Dickie Fredericks]

No! No control over perceived depth of soundstage if everythings hitting the verb at the same level.

Used in the purist sense (which i rarely do), things that you want further back in the mix/soundfield get more reverb, generally speaking.

That said, reverb is often used as a crutch by newbies to cover up a bevvy of other problems. Your mix should sound good bone dry, too.

Spot on!

[foghorn99]

FWIW (2-cents.............or possibly less):

Mostly I record with very slight 'room' verb or slight/quick fade delay. Then, some tracks like drums, I will split the stereo track into separate right and left components, slightly shift the timing between them...measured in milliseconds, depending on your taste...then recombine the track back into stereo. This slight shift/delay between left and right seems to increase the perceived width of the track...at least in my opinion.

Try experimenting with different copy time shifting techniques...often, the resulting sound is more pleasing (IMHO) than adding reverb.

Have fun.

[sf audio]

If you listen to most pro recordings, there's not a lot of reverb splashing around, except for tracks with the obvious intent of reverb (certain vocals, snare, guitar lead,etc.) Even then, it's always "in the background" and not washing away the dry sound. All those patches on your reverb box are there to show what they can do, but really, how useful are they?

What's missing in most home recordings is depth, which is hard to get with most home environments. When micing I back off on the source to about two feet minimum. Use two mics if you can. Use small amounts of delay panned to the opposite side for creating depth.

Reverb is a shortcut way to get depth, but not really satisfying many times...

[Bassomatic]

When micing I back off on the source to about two feet minimum. Use two mics if you can.

This will create more problems than it solves in a lot of (inferior) rooms and applications, imo.

For vocals?

For guitar amps?

In a bad sounding room?

[slopeshoulder]

I'm not a pro engineer, nor an obsessive. But I do take my music very seriously, and I do my best.
Here's what I do:
- record in a treated dead space (Whisper room with refection package and bass traps)
- set up auxes with different plates for vocals, acoustic guitar, and snare; and then convolution for the other istruments: recording studio room, lively room, drum room; and add a hall maybe for background vocals, strings. Then send things to these auxes based on the song. It can vary.
- Then I leave a few auxes for Delays and maybe modulation
- Then I ask myself if I want to change anything this time (special effects, break from my norm, etc)
- Then I listen to a few reference CD's
- Then, assuming all compression and eq is already done (including on groups), I add Waves SSL bus comporessor, as well as UAD precision eq and limiter to the main outs and listen again(just to make sure that nothing gets wierd at mixdown).
- The I back off stuff a bit, leaving room for a mastering engineer and making sure I'm not seduced by a sound in the moment..
- Then I ask "what the hell am I doing here?"
- Then I PRAY/PLEAD/HOPE.
- Then I bounce/mixdown.

I hope that helps.

[Mayor McCheese]

I've been playing a lot lately with "LCR" mixes - everything is either hard left, hard right, or center - and going with much less overall reverb. I'll put just enough reverb on the "band" to where it sounds somewhat like they're in the same sonic space, and then I use a nice plate on the lead and background vox, with a delay.

Seems like it punches a little harder doing it this way.

And although I'm guilty of overdoing things with effects and stuff, I do try to subscribe to the KISS theory of home recording. I think it's better to close mic with one mic and try to keep the goofy environment from jacking the sound up as much as possible. Room sound is great IF you have a nice room. I don't. I don't want that junk on there.

[loudboy]

I've been playing a lot lately with "LCR" mixes - everything is either hard left, hard right, or center - and going with much less overall reverb. I'll put just enough reverb on the "band" to where it sounds somewhat like they're in the same sonic space, and then I use a nice plate on the lead and background vox, with a delay.

Seems like it punches a little harder doing it this way.

And although I'm guilty of overdoing things with effects and stuff, I do try to subscribe to the KISS theory of home recording. I think it's better to close mic with one mic and try to keep the goofy environment from jacking the sound up as much as possible. Room sound is great IF you have a nice room. I don't. I don't want that junk on there.

Take a listen to "Relish" by Joan Osborne. It was done this way. Some stunning sounds on that record, and it was all recorded in a house.

[elambo]

This will create more problems than it solves in a lot of (inferior) rooms and applications, imo.

I have to agree.

Room sound is so often overlooked because it's so inconspicuous. Bad room sound is often unnoticed until it's too late, or just unnoticed entirely. Miking from far away will give the room a bigger spotlight than when miking closer, and if you're room is sh!t, you're going to have that as part of your track whether you like it or not. Then you'll be wondering why you can't get a decent recording.

Now if you have a great sounding room (and very few of us at home would have this) then it could be advantageous to allow that to bleed in.

Otherwise, no, add room verb after the recording, and do so on individual tracks, not the entire mix as a whole (there are a few exceptions - e.g. orchestral recording).

[sf audio]

I have to agree.

Room sound is so often overlooked because it's so inconspicuous. Bad room sound is often unnoticed until it's too late, or just unnoticed entirely. Miking from far away will give the room a bigger spotlight than when miking closer, and if you're room is sh!t, you're going to have that as part of your track whether you like it or not. Then you'll be wondering why you can't get a decent recording.

Now if you have a great sounding room (and very few of us at home would have this) then it could be advantageous to allow that to bleed in.

Otherwise, no, add room verb after the recording, and do so on individual tracks, not the entire mix as a whole (there are a few exceptions - e.g. orchestral recording).

Well, my room is somewhat treated, so it's not horrible. I do find having a little space between the mic and guitar cab gives me depth and "realism" compared to jammin' the mic against the grill. I prefer this rather than add plug in reverbs which sounds like, um, plug in reverbs...

[foghorn99]

So....as you can see....there are differing opinions on this subject.

And BTW...when I mentioned 'room verb' I was talking about a VST plug-in setting, not using the actual room itself. For drums, I record with Roland V-drums, so there's no mic involved. I have to set/select the ambience that I send carefully...better to record as dry as possible then introduce wetness later. It's damn near impossible to do it the other way around.

Good luck. Have fun.

[Bassomatic]

Otherwise, no, add room verb after the recording, and do so on individual tracks, not the entire mix as a whole (there are a few exceptions - e.g. orchestral recording).

Agreed. Audio verite approaches to jazz bands, big bands, etc are some other possible exceptions.

[Sunbreak Music]

I generally have 3 or 4 verbs set up these days for a "typical" mix. Something like an ER or ambience setting, a "live" room, and then a hall setting.

More importantly IMO is learning to manage the frequency content of the reverb itself. Use those low and high pass filters to capture the space you want, and get rid of everything else! Low to mid buildup of reverb tails ruins a lot of otherwise nice sounding spaces. I really can't stress this enough.

[Mayor McCheese]

Take a listen to "Relish" by Joan Osborne. It was done this way. Some stunning sounds on that record, and it was all recorded in a house.

Did they mono the drums on that, up the center? That's the only thing I have problems with - drums.

[loudboy]

Did they mono the drums on that, up the center? That's the only thing I have problems with - drums.

Nope, panned hard R/L.

Listen to "Dracula Moon" - one of my favorite drum sounds ever.

[elambo]

So....as you can see....there are differing opinions on this subject.

I think we all agree on the original question - that verb should be added on individual tracks. There are a few exceptions, but those practices are a minute percentage.

[rob2001]

Ok then, I tried some different things. I must admit, I don't like the way one verb on everything sounds. Just seems one dimensional.

Here's what i'm doing. Basically I record only the drums with mic's on the first tracks in the room. The bass is direct and the guitar is usually isolated very well to keep it out of the overheads. Sometimes i'll let the guitar bleed everywhere for natural ambiance if thats a sound I want on the first pass. The overs are centered using the kick and snare as a center line, 3 feet up and about 3 feet apart. Those are panned hard left and right. Otherwise it's just a 52 on kick and a 57 on snare down the middle. My "room" is a 25'x35' block building with 10' cielings. I studded the walls, filled with insulation and treated most of it with 703 fiber board. I built a 16x16 subfloor for under the drum kit and the cieling is kindof an eggcrate material just to knock off the flutter echo's. It's not a pro room but i'm really digging the drum sounds i'm getting.

The drums have a nice ambience to them but i'll add some early relections to the overs if the song has space for it, or even a large room or hall type verb if there is a lot of space in the song. But as far as reverb and ambience, I start with the kit and work accordingly from there. Most of the time, the song being done leads in the right direction as to amounts and levels.

Mr. Sunbreak... I just recently figured out about eq'ing the verbs. I had a guitar track that seemed "woofy" and I couldn't find the offending frequency... it was the verb!

We have 9 tunes almost done. Just putting the finishing touches on them. I guess I should think about copywriting this stuff but thats another thread! Then I have to figure out how to use Soundclick. Hopfully within a month or so I can post some examples of our stuff and my mixes. I'd look forward to all your thoughts. Thanks for the hints and tips everyone, Rob

[gixxerrock]

I think we all agree on the original question - that verb should be added on individual tracks. There are a few exceptions, but those practices are a minute percentage.
Great discussion, but I am still a little confused on a few things:

Is it adequate to set up an aux channel and vary the send levels to place things?

When you are setting the send levels, do you listen to the whole mix, or solo the reverb channel to get the ratios right then bring up that fader while listening to the mix?

[Sunbreak Music]

I would recommend against soloing anything (unless you're trying to find a problem)--it's a mix.

Yes, you can adjust the send levels through the aux.

[elambo]

Great discussion, but I am still a little confused on a few things:

Is it adequate to set up an aux channel and vary the send levels to place things?

When you are setting the send levels, do you listen to the whole mix, or solo the reverb channel to get the ratios right then bring up that fader while listening to the mix?

Yes, it's entirely normal to adjust the amount of reverb on a particular track by adjusting the level of the send.

There are no "rules" as far as soloing. I listen to reverb as part of the full mix, but I know people who solo the track in order to get the reverb just right, then listen to the track as a whole and make further adjustments. Both methods can be effective.

[rockinrob]

Used in the purist sense (which i rarely do), things that you want further back in the mix/soundfield get more reverb, generally speaking.



I don't know, usually it's the other way around. If you want something to sound close you put more reverb on it, further back you use less.

[dougb415]

- Then I ask "what the hell am I doing here?"
- Then I PRAY/PLEAD/HOPE.
- Then I bounce/mixdown.

I hope that helps.

Same method I use, I see....

[dougb415]

I don't know, usually it's the other way around. If you want something to sound close you put more reverb on it, further back you use less.

????

[rockinrob]

????


I guess it can seem counter intuitive, but think about it a bit. Let's say you have a room, drums and bass in back, guitars and keys in the middle, and vocals and horns up front. Then there's you, the audience after that. If the drummer hits the snare when no one else is playing it's going to take longer for that sound to get to you (the audience) than if the vocalist sings a note. But the reverb- the sound bouncing off the back wall from the drummer is going to hit you soon after the initial drum hit, because the drums are close to that back wall. The singers reverb, on the other hand, is going to take much longer to hit you because it has to travel all the way to that wall and back. Make sense?

Of course this is a really simple way of looking at it. For one thing, rooms have more than one wall. That's why people will use multiple length delays/reverb and lots of EQ on them to replicate different rooms. And of course you can do whatever you want when recording, you don't have to set up your mix so literal like it's a live performance in a room. But it's good to know how to do it, and even if you're going for something unnatural it's important to think of all the instruments in a room in relation to each other and the listener. One think that I think is confusing people in this thread is what "more reverb" really means- does it mean a wetter signal or a longer delay time?

[MichaelK]

When you are setting the send levels, do you listen to the whole mix, or solo the reverb channel to get the ratios right then bring up that fader while listening to the mix?

I solo the track first, then un-solo it. It's real easy to send too much when it's buried in the mix and harder to isloate the offenders when I finally realize what I've done.

I always put a high pass filter on my reverb returns, usually 350 - 500 Hz. That's one of the few things about which I can say "always."

When I'm mixing several songs that will be used in the same project I'll often choose one room ambience as a "home base," save the setting, then come up with send settings where I'll begin each mix. E.g. lead vocal at -20, BGVs at -15, instruments at -18 or whatever, depending. Those are just examples from a project I'm working on now, they could be anything... but that will be my starting "white point" for each mix. Very light, just enough to act as glue. The meter on the return averages around -30 to -25 dB.

From there I'll make changes to individual tracks if I feel the need. I might change the send levels or use other reverbs, or not. I've often found that most tracks sound perfect right there at my "white point" level. Saves me a lot of time and I have some consistency in sound from track to track when it's all mixed down, even if the songs are very different.

Sometime I send certain tracks at 100% fader level or more, like handclaps, tambourine, or a mournful pedal steel. Sometimes I've muted the main fader altogether and just kept the reverb send, it depends.

[MichaelK]

But the reverb- the sound bouncing off the back wall from the drummer is going to hit you soon after the initial drum hit, because the drums are close to that back wall. The singers reverb, on the other hand, is going to take much longer to hit you because it has to travel all the way to that wall and back. Make sense?

:confused:

Sorry, it makes no sense to me. What room has only one wall? What about the walls to the listeners' left and right, or behind them? More reverb = seems farther from the listener, not closer...

[Greggy]

Rockinrob, consider this. The farther away from a sound source you are, the quieter the direct sound wave is relative to the reflected (reverb) waves. As you move closer, the direct sound wave becomes louder relative to the reflected sound waves (e.g., imagine putting your ear 3 inches from the snare, then 300 feet from the snare). Therefore, turning up the reverb send relative to the direct track places the source further back in the mix.

[rockinrob]

I guess I'm not explaining it quite right. It's not a question of how much reverb, or how long the reverb lasts, but how delayed the reverb is from the initial signal. I'll try and think of a better way to explain it...

[elambo]

You're right, the brain hears those early reflections from surrounding walls and is able to interpret how close the source is to its surroundings. The difference in time between close proximity and far is VERY small, but the brain is good at identifying the differences. Tweaking early reflections is a great way to create and dictate spatial distance with reverb. You're brushing on the basics of reverb in general.

[MichaelK]

You're right, the brain hears those early reflections from surrounding walls and is able to interpret how close the source is to its surroundings.

(bold emphasis mine)

That's very true, and I've tweaked early reflections to change the apparent size of a space, or placement in the space, too. But not the relative closeness of individual instruments to the listener. That's still a matter of more reverb or less reverb overall, at least that's how I see it.

R-Verb is a plug I still have in OS9. That's a terrific sounding reverb and you can tweak pretty much everything with a graphic interface. I have less control in Altiverb, but tweaking the pre-delay time does the trick with early reflections.

[rockinrob]

(bold emphasis mine)

That's very true, and I've tweaked early reflections to change the apparent size of a space, or placement in the space, too. But not the relative closeness of individual instruments to the listener. That's still a matter of more reverb or less reverb overall, at least that's how I see it.


Well, I see "upfront" as being closer to the listener, if that makes sense. You get into some weird areas between reverb, delay, echo, etc and the effects they have.