Please explain - the benefit of natural sounding reverb

trifidmaster

trifidmaster

New member
It seams obvious, but I like to have a rigorous explanation why a more natural sounding reverb is benefitial when it is used as a "master" reverb for multitracks (the individual tracks feed the master reverb via their sends).

Stefan.
 
Because it sounds natural to our ears. For the majority of work, that's preferred. For some things, it's not necessarily so, and the sonic sculpting can include some alternative ambiance. Most good reverbs have algorthms for natural spaces, classic plates, and wierd sounds.
A lesser quality, less natural reverb will lose it on the tails, where you can hear too simple reflection patterns repeating themselves and decaying in an unnatural way, and/or ther may be a metallic quality to the reflections.
 
Robert D said:
Because it sounds natural to our ears.
Click to expand...



exactly. it sounds more like what we're used to hearing every day.


in the way you've suggested using it (a master 'verb), it can also help "glue" the track together..
 
Thanks for the replies.

MessianicDreams said:
exactly. it sounds more like what we're used to hearing every day.


in the way you've suggested using it (a master 'verb), it can also help "glue" the track together..
Click to expand...

Since I have the 01v96v2, I like to ask, how good/natural is the reverb in that unit? Can you please compare it to other 'master' reverb(s)? Any further elaboration/advice/comment is very much welcome.

trif.
 
Damn... do people really apply reverb to the master track of a recording?

How many instruments are on these tracks, and what style of music is it?

I'm only surprised because even with simple folk/rock music I've recorded, where there's acoustic guitars on rhythm/lead, a vocal line, mandolin and piano, I only end up applying reverb sparingly to the guitars and vocals, and even those are different amounts per instrument.

Once everything gets put together, I couldn't imagine slapping another 'verb on the end of that... in any style I've recorded.

Just curious where this might have a place, since I can't seem to think of one at the moment. As far as I can tell, there's been a place for just about every type of effect in every conceivable place in the recording/mixing chain at some point or other in the history of audio engineering, but this one isn't standing out to me :)

As for natural sounding reverb, why is it surprising that most aim for realistic sounding verses... not-so-natural sounds?

I've heard the occasional use of a ridiculous reverb that sounded like it came from nowhere on this Earth, but it is rare. Usually reverb is mixed in to give things a more natural sound because, as people have already said, it gets the performance closer to what someone might be hearing, and the type of reverb might dictate the feeling the listener gets. E.g. a room reverb will make you think someone is singing next to you in your apartment, whereas a lush hall 'verb will give you the impression that you are hearing a performance in a large auditorium.
 
cusebassman said:
Once everything gets put together, I couldn't imagine slapping another 'verb on the end of that... in any style I've recorded.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not real often to entire songs, tough it is sometims done very lightly.

More often, I think, is the mastering application of reverb tails to rough edits, stepped fadeouts, etc. Maybe the real MEs here can correct me/instruct me on this, but IME the more "natural" room/hall reverbs seem to serve better for this purpose.

G.
 
I've put reverb on the master buss on several acoustic songs before. I usually listen to it with 100% wet, 0% dry to get the right kind of reverb/decay for the mix then usually turn up the dry to 100% and the wet to anywhere from 5-15%. This can help make things all sound like they were recorded in the same space and give more of a live setting if done correctly.

I also (sparingly) apply a little reverb on each acoustic track to give them their own sense of space in the mix.
 
The OP wasn't talking about putting reverb on the mix buss. He called it a "master reverb", but went on to say "(the individual tracks feed the master reverb via their sends)". So he really meant it's an aux buss reverb vs a channel insert verb.
 
Robert D said:
(the individual tracks feed the master reverb via their sends)". So he really meant it's an aux buss reverb vs a channel insert verb.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what that means. :D

The whole aux/sends/inserts shit confuses me. :confused:
 
danny.guitar said:
I've put reverb on the master buss on several acoustic songs before. I usually listen to it with 100% wet, 0% dry to get the right kind of reverb/decay for the mix then usually turn up the dry to 100% and the wet to anywhere from 5-15%. This can help make things all sound like they were recorded in the same space and give more of a live setting if done correctly.

I also (sparingly) apply a little reverb on each acoustic track to give them their own sense of space in the mix.
Click to expand...


Really, you should have the reverb run 100% wet on the unit itself because that's what a reverb unit only suppose to do right... So give it 100%, send it back to a track, or aux and turn it up and down there. Anyways, you got your main signal running through your board right, then hits your DAW, assuming... the signal in the board, goes in a straight line, except that you can patch into that signal, and send the same signal to whatever you want, headphones, effects units, etc... but the main signal still goes along to your daw, even when you patch it... so you send the signal to your reverb unit right, and then return into aux 1.... Now, all channels that you can feed aux 1 into, are able to use that reverb just by turning up aux 1 on each channel strip. So the signal remains going to your daw, but the patch to your reverb unit, and then back into the aux returns or another channel, and continues along with your regular main signal to your DAW. if your mixing of course.
 
The OP was talking about one reverb that he would send some of each instrument to (not through). Like when you put reverb on drums, you use the same verb for all the toms, but you don't insert a separte instance of the same reverb on each tom track, you use the aux send to send the toms to a single reverb.
 
Thanks.
Sorry for any potential confusion.

Yes I ment to use ONE reverb, as Farview pointed out:

Farview said:
The OP was talking about one reverb that he would send some of each instrument to (not through). Like when you put reverb on drums, you use the same verb for all the toms, but you don't insert a separte instance of the same reverb on each tom track, you use the aux send to send the toms to a single reverb.
Click to expand...


trif.
 
trifidmaster said:
I like to have a rigorous explanation why a more natural sounding reverb is benefitial
Click to expand...

The reason "natural" reverb is better than most plug-ins is because there are more echoes. Real reverb is the combination of thousands of individual echoes. It takes a lot of computing power to create enough echoes to sound truly natural.

Also, a good digital reverb is generally better than a live chamber because there are enough echoes to fool the brain and the frequency response can be even flatter than most live chambers.

--Ethan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top