I was curious if it's more common to send reverb to a separate track that's 100% wet (only reverb no dry signal) and then send the dry signal through a seperate track before it hits the master bus, so you can EQ the original signal and the reverb separate, or to just apply the same EQ to the original signal and the reverb at the same time? I personally prefer to EQ my reverb differently than the signal creating the reverb, but wanted to see other peoples take on this, and some other techniques you guys might have ?
Applying EQ to Reverb
- Thread starter 2infamouz
- Start date
MrWrenchey
New member
Yeah, this is how reverb is used. But they don't make a seperate track, they just use an aux send to send the track to a reverb unit, and then EQ the reverb return so that the reverb sounds different. =]
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
What DAW are you using? In Pro Tools terminology, yes, you would use a post-fader send from an audio track to an aux track with the reverb set to 100% wet. The reverb aux track would be receiving the post-eq signal from the audio track's send, but it's common to eq the input or output of the reverb as well.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
I EQ the input to the reverb - Almost always. I don't want sibilance triggering giant sibilant reverb, I don't want plosives either.
For the record, I usually compress the input signal also. Sometimes the output of the reverb as well.
For the record, I usually compress the input signal also. Sometimes the output of the reverb as well.
You compress the input of a reverb so you place eq then comp then your reverb on the aux?
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Mix dependent of course, but yes. Compression of the return on some mixes too (the more dense the mix gets, the farther back the very return gets pushed - Density goes down, verb comes up a bit more).
Learned something new
pure.fusion
New member
I so wish I understood this post 
I use Reason, FL, and StudioOne...