Reverb

Ziller

New member
When does one usually add reverb to the tracks? Because I'm only working with an 8 track, I recorded guitar with reverb on a track, and vocals with reverb on a track. Now, when mixing down, if I apply reverb to the whole thing, I end up 'double' reverbing them. Is this how it's usually done? What I noticed is that, because I only have one effects unit, whatever I send to the effects comes back mono. So if I send the guitar, which is panned at say 3 'oclock, it comes back mono reverbed. It seems to loose its place in the stereo field.

Should I just add any reverb as I lay down the tracks, and none on mixdown? What is usually done? (i.e, Reverb 101). I'm only want reverb to get some depth in the field.

Thanks for any input.

Ziller
 
I have seen suggestions that reverb be added to the individual tracks last, after any compression and eq. I don't think you ever want to add it to the overall mixdown. In my (fairly limited) experience, I like to work with eq first, then compression, then go back and revisit the eq, then reverb, then go back and revisit the eq and compression. I usually end up reducing all of the above once I get it all working together.
 
So, as your laying down the tracks, not when mixing down?

I've been recording the tracks basically flat, and EQing on mixdown, the exception being the bass. For that, it seems to work best if I reduce the low end while laying down the track. So I guess that means I end up EQing the sound AFTER the reverb is applied.
 
For instruments such as guitar, where the effect can be an integral part of the sound, there's nothing wrong with printing the track with 'verb, unless it absolutely doesn't mesh in the final mix...

Printing 'verb for vocal is less common, because you generally want the most flexibility at mix-down - but if you have an effect you really want to use, print it. Again, you have to be sure it will still work in the final mix...

And if you do print effects with the track, you certainly have to be careful about adding any more at mix-down, otherwise you end up with mush.......

Bruce
 
OK, so let's say I have a few track without any reverb. I want to use some reverb simply to position them in the field. Say I have:

sound A - panned 3 oclock left
sound B - panned 3 oclock right
sound C - panned center

I have a stereo reverb. Should I try to *match* the reverb pan position which gets added to the final mix with the pan position of the source? I could, I suppose, hook my stereo reverb left to Aux send 1 and right to Aux send 2. Then, only send sound A out Aux 1 and sound B out Aux send 2, and sound C out both evenly. This would make the reverb returns both panned hard left and right.

Or send sound A out Aux 1 at about 5, and out Aux 2 at about 2, so the ratio going out between left and right *matches* the pan position of the source sound.

If I print the reverb on the track with the souce, it's pan position (obviously) will be exactly that of the souce.

Does this make sense?

(Or should I just listen and do what sounds best....) I know that's probably the right answer, but I'm just trying to get a sense of what other people do :)


Ziller
 
Think of you stereo image as a 3-dimensional field having height (lows to highs), width (left to right panning), an depth (near to far).

Decide where you want to place each track in this "space" and according to these "planes" -

- EQ controls the height (bass freqs-low/high freqs-high)
- PANNING to control width
- reverb/delay to control the depth (more reverb = more depth "thru" the speaker, less reverb = more up-front ie, closer)

Bruce
 
Right, that's exactly how I'm thinking of it, which is why I have the question, "should the pan position of the reverb return signal match the pan position of the source"? If they don't match, it seems that you would have two seperate sounds, one dry panned to one position in the horizontal field, and one further back in depth but positioned differently in the width.

I drew up a very basic graphic of what I mean. This is a view from the top of the stereo field, disregarding the vertical aspect of EQ. In the top, the reverb return doesn't line up with the source in the panning, but they do in the bottom.
 

Attachments

  • verb.gif
    verb.gif
    2.5 KB · Views: 46
With a stereo verb, I would personally keep it fully left/right and use the reverb parameters to create the "room" or space that you want your signal source to be enclosed in.....

In that 3-d space, the main reverb should really encompass the entire space (assuming you're going for realism - after all, if you listen to a band, the drummer is not playing in a 10 by 10 room, while the guitarist is in a 4 by 4 room - 'cept in the studio!)...

Any specialized reverb used on a single track can be panned to taste....... there are really no rules - you need to use your ears -- plus you also need to lay out the space you're trying to create and tailor your effects to that space.......

Bruce
 
Thanks a lot Bruce. You really made me re-think what reverb is. I was totally associating reverb with the specific sound sources. Which, I guess is what you ment earlier by 'integral part of the sound'. In my graphic, I had envisioned the reverb return as a single point in the field. But if I think of it as the entire space, that's a whole different thing all together.

Looking at it that way it makes sense that the further back an instrument gets in the field (i.e., adding more reverb), the less pan it should have (or will seem to have). In essence, you are decreasing the angle between the hard left and hard right by getting farther away. Kind of like you will loose stereo effect by standing 50' away from your monitors (which are 5' apart), and have definite stereo standing 3' a from them (still 5' apart). So, the wetter a signal gets with reverb, the less definite pan it should have.

By sending the instruments out a single Aux to my reverb, and coming back stereo panned hard right and left, I create a defined space. By adding more reverb send to an instument, the reverb sound becomes lounder then the dry, the instument begins to loose it's definite pan position, and seems further away.

Time to experiment.

Thanks

Ziller
 
Back
Top