bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
I get paid to use it. I often don't get to choose the DAW I use.
Reverb: how do I imitate this sound?
- Thread starter nkberg
- Start date
I get paid to use it. I often don't get to choose the DAW I use.
Steenamaroo
...
You could set your sends pre-fader and group the dry+wet channel faders together to maintain balance, once your ratio is set, right?
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
Then if I want to adjust one channel fader I would have to disable groups or deselect the group every time then tweak the send as well. Why does Avid put us through all that crap when a simple logic circuit solved this problem in the 70s and every other DAW has followed that industry standard? It's completely nuts, but so many Pro Tools users have never used an analog board or other DAW long enough to see how lame the Pro Tools soloing is.
In so many other ways it's pretty good software, but there are a few fatal flaws that will keep me from buying or recommending it. PT 11 finally allows non-real-time bouncing, something I've been doing with Sony Vegas for a decade, but they've screwed people out of some of their plugins in the process. Basically, Avid is run by accountants, not audio people, and if PT keeps selling they won't spend the money to fix the deficiencies. Brainwashing their users is cheaper.
Avid, Apple, Adobe and a few other companies are on my no-buy list for this kind of business approach: get people hooked on a format, brainwash them into thinking their product is better than other, less proprietary, products, update the product in ways that mostly benefit the company and further hook the consumer on the proprietary format.
Steenamaroo
...
Why would you disable the group then adjust the main track fader and the send?
Grouping the tracks saves you the bother.
I'm not denying it's inconvenient if you're from the 'old school', but let me get this straight.
In the real world your send is post fader but pre solo/mute right? So adjusting the track fader adjusts the send level too, but muting the track doesn't mute the send, (or soloing the aux works) yeah?
If so grouping your track and aux faders whilst set in pre fader mode should achieve the same result.
Pre fader mode gets you the mute/solo functionality that you want, and grouping the two faders makes the set up act like it's a post fader send in terms of maintaining wet/dry balance.
It might not be perfect. I appreciate that the gain staging is a little different, but I think it'd work just fine.
Yes, you'd have to ungroup the two tracks if you want to adjust the balance, but that's not much of a tradeoff.
An experienced man like yourself is likely to have the balance set very quickly anyway, right?
Admittedly it'd be a lot better if Protools sends were post, pre, and something in between.
I'm not trying to argue a point with you; I'm trying to offer a solution.
The the OP. Sorry for the tangent. Feel free to reclaim your thread any time.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
Yes, sorry about the swerve, but it does relate to workflow when setting up reverbs.
Thanks Steen. I'd have to have my hands on the system to properly get what you're suggesting, but I don't have PT at home. I'm not sure how you would group the channel fader with a pre-fader send on the channel. Maybe it can be done. It still means spending time setting up groups and switching them on and off.
And no, I don't necessarily get the mix balanced right away and then "just" add the reverb. Adding reverb changes the mix, so I go around and around, jumping between the channel faders and aux sends and soloing the reverb. I would have to switch groups on and off constantly. That adds a lot of time and distraction to the mixing process.
The way soloing works on a real mixer or a DAW that does it right is with an independent solo bus. When you solo a track it is assigned to the solo bus and the headphone/control room output is switched to the solo bus. All the channels continue to pass signal to their sends and outputs so when you solo a reverb the channels feeding the reverb continue to do so. You click once to solo, click once to un-solo.
Thanks Steen. I'd have to have my hands on the system to properly get what you're suggesting, but I don't have PT at home. I'm not sure how you would group the channel fader with a pre-fader send on the channel. Maybe it can be done. It still means spending time setting up groups and switching them on and off.
And no, I don't necessarily get the mix balanced right away and then "just" add the reverb. Adding reverb changes the mix, so I go around and around, jumping between the channel faders and aux sends and soloing the reverb. I would have to switch groups on and off constantly. That adds a lot of time and distraction to the mixing process.
The way soloing works on a real mixer or a DAW that does it right is with an independent solo bus. When you solo a track it is assigned to the solo bus and the headphone/control room output is switched to the solo bus. All the channels continue to pass signal to their sends and outputs so when you solo a reverb the channels feeding the reverb continue to do so. You click once to solo, click once to un-solo.
Johnny Don't!
New member
Nice tip.Crap song...
Hahaha that's what I was thinking; glad someone else said it first. This song seems to fall into the huge chasm that most pop songs do these days: a big, yawning, black maw filled with trite lyrics that don't say anything and rely on cliches & vagueness, and rhymes and rhyme schemes a puking five-year-old could improve upon. The melody (or lack thereof) is mainly scalar and has very few interesting intervals. And don't even get me started on that chord progression; it's the modern-day version of the I-VImin-IV-V7 structure so often used in the 50's. BORING.
Steenamaroo
...
Nah I don't mean grouping the send level to anything. I don't think that can be done.
I just mean grouping the audio track fader to the reverb track fader. That would keep your two levels locked but the gain staging would be different to what you're used to.
Ah yeah, that makes sense. Selecting what goes out rather than what goes in.
Does seem simpler, huh?
