D
dontouch
New member
In a scenario when combining vocal tracks, is there a sonic difference to add reverb to the group track vs. to add the same amount to the individual each vocal track?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
If you really want to put the vocalists "in the same room" then there isn't anything "illegal" about sending the aux from the group.
Typically? I prefer to send the aux from the individual tracks. Theoretically, the signal is going to be similar when summed at the aux buss. But I prefer control of the individual aux sends anyway - More control. The ability to add a little more verb to one voice (or one word from one voice in many cases) or what not.
No DSP difference (unless you're doing something silly like using reverb on inserts).
Typically? I prefer to send the aux from the individual tracks. Theoretically, the signal is going to be similar when summed at the aux buss. But I prefer control of the individual aux sends anyway - More control. The ability to add a little more verb to one voice (or one word from one voice in many cases) or what not.
No DSP difference (unless you're doing something silly like using reverb on inserts).
H
haymedic
New member
no rules... personally, i usually reverb them individually, bounce them down and add reverb again to the gang... is it wrong? i don't really care... i like it.
s
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
Why wouldn't you just use 1 verb on 1 aux and another for the group aux...?
(EDIT) Or are you actually using reverb as in insert??? On individual tracks...?
Well, if you like it...
(EDIT) Or are you actually using reverb as in insert??? On individual tracks...?
Well, if you like it...
H
haymedic
New member
D
dontouch
New member
No I don't do silly things like using reverb as insert. I just want to know if adding to the group makes a difference in sound. I listened back and forth and honestly I can't tell. I did feel like there's slight more unity but I can't say for sure. 3 vocals, one in center and 2 panned L8 and R8...They were from different takes(not duplicate).
Steenamaroo
...
why is that silly?
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
I do. In fact, I do all kinds of "silly" things the merit of which I judge with my ears.
Massive Master
www.massivemastering.com
I'd imagine any audible difference would be negligible and it wouldn't surprise me if the send from the group sounded more 'unified' than sends from individual tracks. If you definitely want to apply the verb to the signal as a whole, there's nothing illegal going on.
Because it's generally just not done that way...?
Say you have to get a dozen eggs -- Would you want to send 12 cars (using 12x as much gas and wear-and-tear to those vehicles) to the store and have each one pick up one egg and bring it back home - Or would you just send *one* car and bring home a dozen?
If you have 12 tracks with varying amounts of reverb would you insert a reverb on each of the 12 tracks (using 12x as much DSP and CPU cycles) - or would you use 1 aux buss and send varying amounts of each signal to that one buss?
It has nothing to do with ears. It's just a really odd and very inefficient way to add reverb...
Even with *one* send -- The amount of control over the signal is either (x NONE) as an insert or (x EVERYTHING) as an aux.
It's a rather rare occasion that I'm not compressing or EQ'ing (or both) or pre-delaying or modulating (or any of a host of other things) to a reverb send... Can't do *any* of that as an insert. Can't send anything else to it as an insert. Can't solo it as an insert. Can't mute it as an insert. Can't buss it somewhere else as an insert.
RULE OF THUMB: You want to *affect* a signal? Insert. Typically EQ or dynamics.
You want to *add to* a signal? Auxiliary. Typically, everything else. Delay, spatial (reverb, reflections, echo), modulation (flange, chorus, phaser), etc., etc., etc.
R
RAMI
Guest
...not only that, but when you insert a reverb, you end up with mono reverb on that track. If that's what you want, cool.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
In general I agree with everything you say, and I'm not advocating inserted reverb as sonically superior. But there are times when I need none of the advantages you list and I don't want another aux loop for a reverb applied to just one instrument. When an effect is good enough to sound exactly right there's no advantage to being more than good enough. When it isn't good enough to sound exactly right I make a new aux, simple as that.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
Not in the DAW I use. [Edit] But it does pan with the track, which is sometimes what I want and sometimes not.
R
RAMI
Guest
Yeah, sorry. I record on a stand alone unit. Forgot we're talking about DAW's, which I'm less familiar with.
R
RAMI
Guest
Actually, out of curiosity, if you insert a reverb into a mono track, and it pans with the track, how does it manage to be stereo? I'm probably still thinking too much in hardware terms, but it seems to me that if the reverb is being inserted into a mono track, it would be summed to mono, no? I'm just asking because I'm not sure if I understand it.
noisewreck
New member
For conventional stuff, such as placing things in an acoustic space, yes, I agree with you.
But there are instances where the reverb is going to be used only on one track, only for a specific scenario (be it special effect or a necessary treatment) and for those instances, there is absolutely nothing wrong with using reverb as an insert.
Personally, I can think of several off top of my head:
1. Recently there was a really cool "What's wrong with my mix" article in SOS, where Paul White (I think it was him) did exactly this to hi-hats. The drums were coming from one of the sampled instruments (don't remember whether it was EZ Drummer or BFD), and he had an issue with the hi-hats sounding too direct. So, he put a convolution reverb with very short impulses (according to him, he went through several to find one that didn't alter the overall timbre of the hi-hats), and adjusted the dry/wet control enough to make them sit well with the rest of the kit.
2. There are times when the sound of the reverb itself is an integral part of the overall sound. This may even include things such as compressing both signals together as a unit.
3. This is going further into electronic esoterica, it's sometimes desirable to have a filter (HP, BP, LP or whatever) to act on the overall source+reverb sound.
4. There are times when I want the reverb and the source sound to be distorted together, so, I will put the reverb as an insert followed by some distortion as an insert. Granted, this is an extreme case, but nevertheless, is the only way to get the desired effect.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
Those last two might come up if trying to simulate the sound of a guitar rig where the reverb precedes the effects of the amp and cabinet.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
The signal path is something like on a stereo input of a mixing board, that is, it can act as two separate channels through to the balance control. If you plug a single source into the "Left (Mono)" it gets sent to both the Left and Right paths in the stereo channel, but you don't hear it as stereo when the balance is centered. Say you put that mono signal into a stereo reverb box before the mixer. If the box is configured to pass the dry input signal to both outputs equally and mix it with the L and R of the stereo reverb then the dry is "centered" while the stereo reverb is spread out. Now hook that up to the stereo input of a mixer. You can use the channel's balance control to move the whole stereo image left or right. This is done simply by lowering the right to move the image left, or lowering the left to move the image right.
In a software mixer you have more flexibility. What I use gives me the pan/balance option to "add channels". It's like putting a stereo signal into two mono channels panned hard left and right, then panning one over to the other side. That's different than a normal balance control which lowers one side to favor the other, losing the information in the "off" side. Using "add channels" retains all the info (except for cancellation issues). Imagine a stereo keyboard with a ping-pong delay bouncing between L and R. If you "pan" it hard left with a balance control you lose half of your ping-pong effect. In "add channels" mode the right ping-pongs (the pongs?) move across toward the left channel.
Last edited:
noisewreck
New member
You're right. It will be summed to mono. It might or might not be desirable. If you want to keep the reverb itself in stereo, you have two options. You can either send your mono track to an aux send or route your mono track to a stereo group/bus and then insert the reverb on the group/bus channel.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
It may be the case for whatever DAW you're using, but it's absolutely not true for the one I use.
noisewreck
New member
What DAW do you use? I am using Cubase.