The Sound Board

Jack Weaver wrote:OK Frank, I thought about it. Truthfully, if I follow my own work habits - get a bunch of different ones. One or two, no matter which they are, will work for all or most situations. Every piece I do has different reverbs. When I mix a movie score is the only time I repeat my reverbs and that's because of attempting to maintain a consistent sonic environment.

Buy a good plate (for software currently I tend to use Abbey Road Plates or the UAD EMT 140). Buy a good room package (maybe the PCM96 rooms). Buy any number of good hall and large spaces plugins. Get B2 - great fx reverb. Get SPAT - for when you don't want reverb per se.

I do not ever (well, 99.9% of the time) use an overall reverb. I tend to use different reverbs for different for different sections. For example strings and brass react totally differently to ER. I've written pretty extensively about this over the years at VI Control. Maybe if you're interested you could search for those threads.

.

Thanks again, Jack. I do like the Abbey Road plates and have used them, and I used to use the UAD Plate 140 until my UAD was rendered obsolete by the new Mac Pros. Will indeed reread your comments on VI, and I am aware of a few different approaches towards the use of reverb and even having two gloss reverbs EQ'd differently. Certainly lots to consider. Cheers!

Frank,

I did have a bit of a typo in my last post.

The third sentence in the first paragraph should have conveyed the thought that one or two plugins would not be sufficient to meet the demands of orchestral mixing. Overall the long haul, you would want several of both types - convolutions and algorithmic. Each composition would probably be different in scope - large orchestra, epic, concert orchestra, chamber orchestra, etc. Probably each of your libraries has multiple mic positions and that too, would effect your reverb choices. Even the reverbs you already own could be the perfect answer for certain situations.

.

Jack Weaver wrote:Frank,

I did have a bit of a typo in my last post.

The third sentence in the first paragraph should have conveyed the thought that one or two plugins would not be sufficient to meet the demands of orchestral mixing. Overall the long haul, you would want several of both types - convolutions and algorithmic. Each composition would probably be different in scope - large orchestra, epic, concert orchestra, chamber orchestra, etc. Probably each of your libraries has multiple mic positions and that too, would effect your reverb choices. Even the reverbs you already own could be the perfect answer for certain situations.

.

Got it! Thanks again, Jack. Very kind of you to offer informative responses.
Actually, just clarify, I already own at least 4 other reverbs and do use them when and where I feel they are required or work best. To simplify things this time, what I am really focusing on is that final reverb at the end of the mix chain which I feel is useful for pulling all the elements together. My goal has always been to get as good a mix as I can of the individual instruments and tie them together as best I can. After that is when opinions vary because some people don't use a gloss reverb at the end, some people use one gloss reverb and some use two gloss verbs. Two reverbs are not something I felt were necessary, one is my choice, but occasionally, depending on the instruments, one is not required. For me it depends on how well the instruments are blending and appearing to be in the same space. So like you, I might use one reverb for winds and other for percussion. Also the more instruments that have been sampled in the same hall (e.g. Spitfire) the less work required. But with so many good libraries from various sources, when one starts trying to make them sound as if they were all recorded in the same space...well that gets tricky as we all know. So it is at that point, personally (and this is just my opinion) I find that gloss reverb can often help, especially with the tail, In brief, that's what I'm focusing on with this purchase. Cheers.

Jack makes an important point, which I think deserves a little more attention, and that is that different instruments react differently to different implementations of both early reflections (ER) and reverb. And it isn't just that brass, winds, and strings behave differently, but even two string libraries from different developers can behave differently.

But more to the point, that behavior will have an impact on the application at hand, and vica-versa, and by application I am thinking of a singer with an acoustic guitar and some hand percussion vs a power trio vs Tower of Power (ok, fantasy over) vs a small orchestral ensemble vs a large orchestra.

If you think about it, this has always been the case. Before sample libraries and digital reverb (was there such a time?) a producer would put as much thought into the space where a recording was made as any other factor. The engineer would choose and place the microphones based as much on the space as on any other factor. And for recordings made in larger spaces it was unusual to supplement the natural sound with artificial reverb.

And when the world shrank to the recording studio many facilities put a lot of thought and time and money into building the recording spaces - more than they put into building the critical listening spaces we call control rooms. Some of that (fortunately) still goes on today.

But today, and for quite some time now, artificial reverb has been the thing, starting with chambers, evolving through plates and springs, and we end up where we are now, trying to emulate spaces, chambers, plates and springs with digital trickery.

When I was coming up through the ranks, so to speak, I was fortunate to work with echo chambers, plates, and especially springs. Since 8 tracks was something of a luxury we'd "print" the reverb if we wanted to soak a singer or a guitar or a drum kit, and then we'd go back and mix with the reverb across the 2-mix because, well, because most studios (at least the ones I worked in) had one reverb, maybe two.

With the advent of affordable digital reverb (affordable being relative to the hourly billable rate - not everyone had a 224 or a Quantec) we suddenly had options. In one studio where I worked we had a Lexicon (I don't remember the model, but it was a big deal), a couple of Yamaha Rev-7s and SPX-90s, and we still had the springs and plate. We even had a crude chamber, as long as no one needed to use the facilities<G>! All of the sudden we could mix with a different reverb-like effect on several track.

This led to an entirely new way of thinking about reverb-like effects, not the least of which was to start thinking of them as reverb-like. We also started using a LOT of digital delay lines in front of the different reverbs. And outside the digital reverb paths. Mostly the guy in charge started studying reverb - what did we mean by reverb? This led to hours of experimenting, and ultimately the realization that we were not going to get past reverb-like, not because the tools weren't good, but because the sound field in a really nice sounding space is really complex!

We started to think about it as an effect, and I think we started to make better records as a result. At least I liked them better<G>!

Then a big name engineer took me under his wing. He had two mantras - the first was that I needed to stop using dynamics processors and equalizers (I'm thinking this guy also had to learn to be economical with outboard gear at some point in his career). I needed to start sculpting the sound with microphone selection and placement. I still start there if I am lucky enough to record with microphones, and it does work - of course it works better if you have a really large collection of really good microphones, but that's another tale.

The other thing was that I needed to be more adventurous with reverb and delay. At this point it was possible to use a different reverb on every instrument, even in more modest facilities, and he was a master of crafting a space that couldn't exist in the real world. These were pop music tracks, I don't believe he would have taken the same approach on an orchestral recording, or any recording that was intended to be a snapshot in time. But pop music? No rules!

I've since extended the idea to include orchestral music, at least as we think about orchestral pieces. And since i work almost exclusively with libraries (ok, exclusively) I start with whatever space was recorded when the library was recorded. And then I add, and add, and add<G>!

At this point I'm less interested in algorithmic vs convolution vs spacialization tools - they all do cool things, and while I have certainly ended up with dog food for sound, there aren't a lot of hard and fast rules.

I use VSS to help me with general placement.

I use Reverberate, mostly with impulses from real spaces, although impulses from other reverb processors can be a lot of fun.

I use the UAD EMT 140 Plate a lot, and I may have a couple of instances on any given track.

I use a couple different springs - mostly because I love springs - mostly because that is what I started with maybe? - but I seem to keep coming back to the PSP spring. The Overloud and Softtube springs are pretty cool too. Remarkably, I was underwhelmed by the UAD AKG Spring. It might be a better emulation, but I like the PSP better<G>!

And I use a handful of algorithmic reverbs, all of which work, none of which have caused me to delete the others...

If I were being brutally candid I'd have to admit that I've gotten results I liked on more pop-oriented tracks, but I tend to rely heavily on the 'baked in' room tone in my libraries, and seldom feel as if I've improved upon it. Made it different? Sure. Better? hmmm... probably not. Weird? You bet (you haven't lived until you've used Eventide Black Hole on a string section!)

There is a new reverb arriving "any day now" - Adaptiverb from the wizards at Zynaptiq - I am very intrigued!

Just wanted to follow up on this, and to thank everyone who took the time to offer advice and information, I ended up purchasing the Lexicon PCM Native Reverbs ($233 US @ AudioDeluxe), and am VERY happy with my choice. I tested a number of other reverbs, but the Lexicons were, by a narrow margin, the ones that impressed me the most. The only one I didn't try was the Relab one...mainly because it was a bit out of the price range I had set. I do understand that the Lexicon plugins may not see further development, but it's also been reported they work fine in El Capitan, so that was enough to alleviate some concerns.
Jack was kind enough to provide me with some very useful tips, and advice concerning how he approaches the art of using reverbs, and I'm currently in the process of experimenting with some of his suggestions as well as combining those ideas with the techniques I have used over the years. I also thoroughly enjoyed reading about Bill's experiences, and the outcome of this thread, for me at least, is that not only have I acquired the plugins I feel work for me, I've also acquired of LOT of additional information about using reverb. So my thanks to everyone who helped and participated. Cheers.