Guitars - Use the amp's reverb, or add it in the mix?

steelphantom

steelphantom

New member
Just wondering if there is a generally accepted way to do this. For the last CD I recorded (a 4-piece rock band with 2 electric guitars), I tracked the guitars with no reverb on the amps themselves and just added it in the mix. Is that how it's generally done? Or do guys usually use the reverb on their amp instead? Obviously the reverb coming out of an amp will be mono as opposed to a stereo reverb plugin. Just trying to get some thoughts on this subject. Thanks!
 
if you like the sound of the spring reverb in the amp, then use that. Hell, you can always add a hall reverb during the mixing process if you want to.
 
steelphantom said:
Just wondering if there is a generally accepted way to do this. For the last CD I recorded (a 4-piece rock band with 2 electric guitars), I tracked the guitars with no reverb on the amps themselves and just added it in the mix. Is that how it's generally done? Or do guys usually use the reverb on their amp instead? Obviously the reverb coming out of an amp will be mono as opposed to a stereo reverb plugin. Just trying to get some thoughts on this subject. Thanks!
Click to expand...

It's better to add reverb in the mix.
that way if you decide later on you don't want it then you still have the option to remove it.

always remember, recording a wet signal is permanent.
recording a dry signal can have FX applied to it later on without ruining the take.
 
Kingofpain678 said:
It's better to add reverb in the mix.
that way if you decide later on you don't want it then you still have the option to remove it.

always remember, recording a wet signal is permanent.
recording a dry signal can have FX applied to it later on without ruining the take.
Click to expand...
I agree, especially if want the band to sound cohesive, using different reverbs on the instruments will make them sound like they are not in the same room. It's better to add it later on.
 
There are two sides to my answer on this:

If the sound of the guitar should have verb on it, then getting it at the amp is usually the best way. There is a depth in the sound that gets recorded that is really hard to get after the fact. Guitars recorded with the spring reverb in an amp often sit in the mix in a really beautiful way.

That said, if most modern styles of music its very common to have very little to no reverb on the guitars.

Just realized after writing this that you could be talking about digital FX built into an amp. If that is the case leave them off.
 
^^^ that's pretty much it.

A good amp with a good spring reverb is often part of the guitarist sound, and has nothing to do with room ambience.
 
it's not either or.

I may record with a bit of the amps reverb and then I may add a tad post tracking.

the answer: It depends.

do what fits and will satisfy the end goal.
 
I too have occasionally mixed in some spring reverb from an amp...
...but most times I prefer to add reverb at mixdown.

What I do during tracking is to add reverb to my cue mix of the guitar, that way I'm not playing "dry".
 
do one track with the amp's reverb.

do another take without the amp's reverb and add your plug ins.

which one do you like better?

s
 
There's also editing to take into account (we all do at least a bit of it). I think it would be easier to edit/chop/cut/copy/paste without worrying about the tail of the reverb from the part before, or cutting off the reverb tail at the end of a part your inserting somewhere.
 
Record it dry, then re-amp and then you can add reverb with the amps reverbs if you like what's on the amp. If not, add the verb in the mix.. Good luck..
 
Thanks for all the responses guys! I think I'll stick with adding reverb in the mix. I didn't think of the hassle it would cause with punch-ins, and I definitely have more control adding it later in the mix rather than when tracking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top