Producing Space With Reverb

"Normally"...you would put your reverb on an Aux channel (or as you call them, FX track)...and then you send your individual track signals to the Aux. You adjust how much send signal per track, and that creates your reverb level balance between the tracks you send to it. The pre-delay, the decay and all reverb parameters would be the same for all those tracks...only the amount of reverb signal would vary based on what you send to the Aux.
If you want a different reverb feel on some of the tracks, you set up a second Aux with that other reverb, and send to it what you want.

A DAW makes it easy to take a reverb, and individually apply it to 30 tracks, and then tweak each as desired...but it's not the usual approach to have that many different reverb configurations on that many tracks.

It works OK to set up like 3 of the same flavor reverb on 3 Aux channels, but with slightly different pre-delay and decay times for each...and then choose which tracks to send to which of the 3 setups.
I'll do short/med/long (you decide what the times are)...and like if I have an uptempo rhythm guitar track, I would send it to the short reverb setup, and I might only send low amount of signal, so that on the rhythm guitar, the reverb is just a mild shadow, and it's short.
On something like a lead guitar, I might go for the long reverb setup, and the level would be much higher, so that you really hear a nice lush reverb, and the long decay works well with a lead guitar track.

That's just one example and one approach.

With reverbs...like guitar distortion...find something you like, then dial it down to only 3/4 of what you had...especially if you plan on having a variety of reverbs on various tracks. It's easy to get addicted to a lush reverb on one track, and then you keep going and all of a sudden your mix has turned to cream chowder soup.
 
4tracker said:
What if you setup an FX track with reverb and send everything to that. Can you adjust the pre-delay for everything feeding into it? Would this be via automation?

Or do you have to setup a 2nd FX track?
Click to expand...

I've got a bunch of (free VST) reverbs, and never have seen tha tyou can vary the pre-delay on the sends to any of them. It's part of the base reverb settings. so I don't see how that would work.
 
There's a reason they are freebies. :) ;)
The programmers only provided the basic features when they wrote the code.

That's not to say that a quality reverb might still not give you pre-delay options...but generally speaking, the better reverbs (hard or soft) include that parameter since it is a key option, just like the overall decay time.

If I mess with anything on a given reverb...it's the pre-delay and the decay time. I may occasionally adjust the EQ or the diffusion...but the whole feel of the reverb and how it works with a given source and how it sits in the mix, can be dramatically adjusted with the pre-delay and the decay time. The other parameters are just bonus stuff that you can tweak if you really want.
 
So I finally got to experiment today with this technique and it didn't really come out like I wanted. The multiple reverbs started to layer over top of each other and started to get sorta washy.

I really wish there was a way to have one reverb and set the desired predelay for each instrument.

I called it a night before I started digging into trying to EQ each delay separately.

Back to the drawing board I guess.
 
I've been wanting to experiment more with reverb. What I've done so far has been basic. I would be concerned about using too many different reverbs at once that the overall feeling of space would lose coherence, like the instruments are in difference spaces instead of together. But maybe that is what you're going for. Has anyone found this?
 
bdam123 said:
So I finally got to experiment today with this technique and it didn't really come out like I wanted. The multiple reverbs started to layer over top of each other and started to get sorta washy.

I really wish there was a way to have one reverb and set the desired predelay for each instrument.

I called it a night before I started digging into trying to EQ each delay separately.

Back to the drawing board I guess.
Click to expand...

Stop using so much reverb. I'm not a fan of reverb, but you can use it on every single track and have everything work if you use it tastefully. One unsuccessful go at it is not enough to give up on it entirely.
 
Massive Master said:
Just coming in sideways -- Using different verbs, or especially different takes on the "same" verb, is certainly a valid process if it does what you want. [/okie dokie]

That all said, you're adding spaces -- You aren't changing the original space. Nothing gives the illusion of "depth and space" like depth and space will.

If you mic everything from a foot away, you'll end up with a recording that sounds 1' "deep" with varying spaces behind sources. If you vary the distance of microphones, especially pairs (not necessarily ORTF or XY pairs, but a near and far pair), you're changing what that mic hears -- Not just in the time domain, but in the way the source sounds at a distance.

I could dig up a zillion recordings where it sounds like there's a band set "inside" of a giant drum kit. No matter how hard you pan everything, no matter how much or how many reverbs. The only thing that was more than a foot from the source are the overheads on the kit and it shows in the mix. Delays can help, sure. But keep in mind what that 'phantom' source would hear -- It wouldn't be the same thing the source mic hears.

In any case, keep in mind that one of the biggest 'selling points' of any studio is the space itself. It's the one commonality in every recording that comes out. And if has far more impact on the finished product than one may think.
Click to expand...
I want to tag into what Massive is saying here with some more ideas regarding finding front-back depths.
One of the primary ways to varying depth- is track level- and image size.
:)
Levels.. self explanatory. 'Image size can be helped along by looking at a track's low end weight'.
I.e, as a track moves back away from 'up front from a close-ish mic'd big fat image, it gets lower in level, and it thins out.
You're simulating at least part of what happens if the mic had been pulled back.
Try start there, and the verbs, 'spaces to add on to it.
 
Last edited:
Creating Distance and Space with Reverb

JDOD said:
What, you mean give every instrument a slightly different amount of pre-delay. I don't put anything on my drums either and they normally sound a bit flat.
Click to expand...


I came across a great technique for using reverb to give sounds their own room in a nice spacious mix. Here are some of the basics.

Long Distance/Far away sounds

Volume: Lower in the mix (pretty obvious but definitely a key place to start)
EQ: Lowpass the sound to only include the root frequencies, sounds with lots of high frequency information will always sound more upfront in the mix and lowpassing them will push them back nicely
Reverb: By using late reflections, instead of early reflections the sound will be pushed back. I find the Lexicon reverbs are awesome for this technique, simply switch the reverb response to Late and adjust the decay/diffusion time to taste.
Panning: Lastly by panning the sound slightly, you can literally see where the sound sits in your mix, Less is more with these kind of things but in moderation it's brilliant

Really simple but massively effective. If your going for that skeletal spacious sound or are having trouble making individual sounds sit right this 3 step combo is huge win.

The reverse of these techniques is great for bringing track elements forward too, Boom!

Drums

Auxiliary Sends: By using a single Aux send reverb channel in which you can send drums you can give them a lot of space whilst maintaining the transients and keep them hitting.

using one reverb for the whole kit (or selected hits) like this really gels the kit together nicely as the reverb sounds cohesive. and it saves you lots of CPU too

I hope this helps, it's something that took my production to the next level
 
Robus said:
I've been wanting to experiment more with reverb. What I've done so far has been basic. I would be concerned about using too many different reverbs at once that the overall feeling of space would lose coherence, like the instruments are in difference spaces instead of together. But maybe that is what you're going for. Has anyone found this?
Click to expand...

I'm in the same boat. I don't use much reverb at all, but I do like some recordings that use reverb and think it can help home recordings out since they're usually done in a bedroom, living room, or a bad "studio". I feel like using reverb tastefully and actually understanding all the controls can help me, but it seems overwhelming so I never dig in. This thread has helped clear a lot up, so I hope it keeps going.

I remember reading once that Lou Reed levied a fine on his bandmates for playing (a) blues notes or (b) using reverb. Not sure if that's true, but I thought it was funny. I hear a little reverb on some of his vocals, and the guitars seem to have it so it's probably myth.
 
Last edited:
so if i have a flat plate reverb on my vocals and a "medium studio" preset (obviously, much wider than a plate, plus more pre-delay) on my guitars should they theoretically not sit nicely together? one is boxy and the other long/thin.
 
andrushkiwt said:
so if i have a flat plate reverb on my vocals and a "medium studio" preset (obviously, much wider than a plate, plus more pre-delay) on my guitars should they theoretically not sit nicely together? one is boxy and the other long/thin.
Click to expand...
I don't understand the rationale. About all you have going here is that they could be good fits to a particular mix... because they're different?
Size, the style and character of the verb, what they do and how they 'speak in the mix.. This would be the questions you'd want to look at.
 
mixsit said:
I don't understand the rationale. About all you have going here is that they could be good fits to a particular mix... because they're different?
Size, the style and character of the verb, what they do and how they 'speak in the mix.. This would be the questions you'd want to look at.
Click to expand...

yeah, unfortunately, I don't notice the reverb so much once it's sitting in the mix. i'll listen to a track and think the verb sounds fine...someone else might say "no, this is not working". I'm just saying, "in theory" can flat plates "work" in a mix with a different type of verb. everyone is writing about using the same verb style but changing pre-delay for instruments. i'm asking about a different, but common, verb on the vocals and another on guitar. of course, in a particular mix it might work and in another it may not. just like recording vocals with a ton of distortion might work in a particular song and in another, definitely not. however... i'm saying overall. in theory. most commonly. on average. in most cases. usually. mostly. etc... yea?
 
Yeah, yes, Shure! :) We use few diffident verbs, or some delays.. very common. But you understand, that's still a vague set of 'guideline you have there.
 
how can i make it more specific then? you've heard my tracks. alternative pop rock...heavy wide guitars. double tracked chorus vox. going for mainstream melodies with a slight punk edge. what else
 
andrushkiwt said:
how can i make it more specific then? you've heard my tracks. alternative pop rock...heavy wide guitars. double tracked chorus vox. going for mainstream melodies with a slight punk edge. what else
Click to expand...
Uh, actually not. Your first post in here talked about some 'theoretical reverb methodology.
Actually my internet pc’s s/c is tossed - being replaced. But I can give a listen on the little ‘tower speaker here at work LOL.
 
mixsit said:
Uh, actually not. Your first post in here talked about some 'theoretical reverb methodology.
Actually my internet pc’s s/c is tossed - being replaced. But I can give a listen on the little ‘tower speaker here at work LOL.
Click to expand...

i'm gonna bow out at this point -can't see how my question wasn't clear or how it didn't apply to the topic. it was very much on point. mixing two reverb styles. that was a major topic in this thread for 4 pages... anyhow, thanks! i suppose
 
No it was on topic, but (it seems) is you want someone to tell you what might be good FX choice!
Tell you what. Why don't you post a few examples of band's songs that you thing might represent where you want your mixes to 'go'? That'd likeley be as usefull -more more perhaps? along with 'here's my mix that doesn't work'?
 
FWIW..
I got to hear your songs tonight (got a 'proper syst ..back up and running : >)
Very nice -songs, mixes.. dynamics in the arrangements too.. Thumbs up.
 
i'll try explaining one more time... i cannot hear anything "wrong" with the mixes as far as reverb goes. but that doesn't mean it couldn't be improved by something fundamental, if you will. when i started mixing my tracks a year ago, they sounded good to me. now, the oldest ones sound terrible. perhaps the same thing is the issue with the reverb i'm using (flat plate for vocals, studio for guitars). perhaps there is something fundamentally wrong with using two different reverbs -as most of this thread has suggested - and i'm just not hearing it because i haven't enough experience at this point. most of know you don't throw a ton of reverb on the bass guitar in most situations. i'm asking if two reverbs is something as fundamental as that. that's all.

thanks for the listens and the kind words - i appreciate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top