Adding Reverb...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Imaginator
  • Start date Start date
I

Imaginator

New member
As you can see from the title my rookiness doesn't allows me to add reverb the way i want it.
sometimes i am close but most of the time i find myself randomly tweaking all the knobs in a reverb plugin.
i would appreciate some help according to reverbation...which parameters should i tweak first?also what is the meaning of eq in the reverb?
 
Imaginator said:
...which parameters should i tweak first?also what is the meaning of eq in the reverb?
Click to expand...

'Reverb’ covers such a wide range of possible sounds it really helps to narrow the target down to at least a fairly clear idea of the sound in mind. First might be a read on the general qualities. This is one of the Lexicon manuals (PCM91 –you could use others, they all have a huge amount of good info and an insight that can apply everywhere.
http://lexiconpro.com/Product_Downloads/PCM91_User_Guide_Rev1.pdf

For example check out the opening descriptions in section 3-2 through about 3-8 on the different styles and their use and placement’ of ‘Halls / Rooms, and ‘Ambience vs Plate and Chamber.
Then the 'Size parameter is a good place to start, 'decay time' is often linked to size by default in programs.
‘Eq of verb can be tone filters within the programs (often seen as ‘High Cut in one or more points in the prog), eq’ added after (or before) a reverb unit or program, or Low R/T- the tone shaping by way of a ratio of the Mid R/T below a crossover point.
It’s a start. :D
 
mixsit said:
'Reverb’ covers such a wide range of possible sounds it really helps to narrow the target down to at least a fairly clear idea of the sound in mind.:D
Click to expand...

i understand that i have to read a lot and experiment much more, but let's say that i would like to add a light reverb to a vocal track without affecting it's tone so much...is it an easy way?i have noticed that early reflections produce some kind of light reverb but i spoil everything when it comes to eq:confused:

thx for the reply:)
 
This may not lead to anything but what verb are you using?
 
well, i try mostly the waves reverbs.also sonnox oxford...
does it lead anywhere?:)
 
Copy the track. Apply reverb to the copied track. Play normal dry track, and bring up the copied reverb track until the desired sound is acheived. This way you preserve the sound of your original track, and are adding reverb to your taste. May or may not work for you, but I like it.
 
omtayslick said:
Copy the track. Apply reverb to the copied track. Play normal dry track, and bring up the copied reverb track until the desired sound is acheived. This way you preserve the sound of your original track, and are adding reverb to your taste. May or may not work for you, but I like it.
Click to expand...

Seen this before- why would a copy track, 100% wet, mixed back together be 'truer'(?) than a split off of the original -an aux, 100% wet, then a remix of those the two?
 
Imaginator said:
well, i try mostly the waves reverbs.also sonnox oxford...
does it lead anywhere?:)
Click to expand...
Not much for me, don't use those.
FWIW (not much ;)) I initially found 'Chambers somewhat easier to shape to my needs and learn on (where it fit- general purpose, vocal, drums) simply due to their lower color, more even tone.
 
mixsit said:
Seen this before- why would a copy track, 100% wet, mixed back together be 'truer'(?) than a split off of the original -an aux, 100% wet, then a remix of those the two?
Click to expand...

In theory of course, you are right. But for some reason I feel like I have more control this way. Like I said, works for me. But to each his own.
 
Run the reverb on a buss, and then run the track through the buss. Solo the buss and you will hear how much reverb you are putting on there. Mute it and you can hear the track unaffected. Then tweak it to taste.
 
Rokket said:
Run the reverb on a buss, and then run the track through the buss. Solo the buss and you will hear how much reverb you are putting on there. Mute it and you can hear the track unaffected. Then tweak it to taste.
Click to expand...
Yep. Putting the verb through its own channel is a good way to get lots of control over its sound... compressing the signal before or after it hits the verb plugin, EQing the verb, and applying volume automation to the verb channel - especially to control tails in spots where they stand out too much. BTW when processing verb on its own channel make sure the verb plugin is set to 100% wet. If processing power is a problem, after you get it to sound just the way you want you can always render the processed verb to a new track and mix with that instead to save CPU power. Some of the better verb and EQ plugs are real resource hogs. Mine are anyway.
 
Last edited:
Everyone works a little differently, of course.

But there is one thing that I'd like to point out. If you print the reverb to it's own track, rather than running it through a buss, you can EQ the dry and wet tracks seperately. The OP said he wanted to add reverb without changeing the tone of the original track. If you use a buss everything on the dry track, including EQ, will go to the buss as well.

So once again, I think that having the ability to EQ the dry and wet tracks independently, without one affecting the other, really does give more overall control.

He can retain the tone of the dry track, and tailor the eq on the reverb track a little differently if desired, to minimize or enhance it's response.

Works for me but, IMHO, YMMV, ABC, PDQ, etc. Just something a little different for him to try.
 
omtayslick said:
If you print the reverb to it's own track, rather than running it through a buss, you can EQ the dry and wet tracks seperately.
Click to expand...
To each his own. But I don't need to print the verb to a track to be able to EQ the wet and dry signals separately. I do it with channel routing, which leaves more flexibility for making changes to the verb as I mix.
 
XLR said:
To each his own. But I don't need to print the verb to a track to be able to EQ the wet and dry signals separately. I do it with channel routing, which leaves more flexibility for making changes to the verb as I mix.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Maybe I can learn something here. What would the routeing scheme be to accomplish this in a DAW with hardware reverbs? My interface has 8 in and 8 out.
 
omtayslick said:
.. If you print the reverb to it's own track, rather than running it through a buss, you can EQ the dry and wet tracks seperately. The OP said he wanted to add reverb without changeing the tone of the original track. If you use a buss everything on the dry track, including EQ, will go to the buss as well.

So once again, I think that having the ability to EQ the dry and wet tracks independently, without one affecting the other, really does give more overall control.

He can retain the tone of the dry track, and tailor the eq on the reverb track a little differently if desired, to minimize or enhance it's response.

Works for me but, IMHO, YMMV, ABC, PDQ, etc. Just something a little different for him to try.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Maybe I can learn something here. What would the routeing scheme be to accomplish this in a DAW with hardware reverbs? My interface has 8 in and 8 out.
Click to expand...
Not sure if you were thinking 'external hardware in your earlier post, that adds a twist, but interestingly other than the extra layer of routing, perhaps not. Just to sort through this a bit.. :)
In Sonar (and I believe this may fairly typical in mix systems), an aux send (presuming post fader for effects here) would be after channel eq and fx bin 'inserts (or on a hardware mixer). This would set track eq as effecting also the verb send.
So at this point, software, hardware, insert or ‘bus, the path re channel eq’ sent to verb tone is the same. Sort of a default for ‘get the track tone before sending it on.
There are plenty of times though where the channel tone’ may not be what you want to send to the verb at all, even more typical, eq'ing the return.
No doubt vs channel insert‘, bus and/or printing the effect is the way to go to open up these options.

BTW, "DAW with hardware reverbs"- What's your app? (I can do ya' Sonar, they might all even be pretty simular ;)
 
mixsit said:
BTW, "DAW with hardware reverbs"- What's your app? (I can do ya' Sonar, they might all even be pretty simular ;)
Click to expand...

I do use Cakewalk, but it's Guitar Tracks Pro3. I think it has some similarities to Sonar, but no midi, it's audio only. I enjoy it for it's simplicity. It does have the ability to choose Pre/post on the aux sends. And I've often wondered if there might be a better way to route things using outboard.

I just started playing with this hardware reverb a couple of weeks ago, so I'm a little enamored of it right now. We'll see if that lasts. Plug-ins are more convenient to use, and who knows there may be an expiration on the "honeymoon" with the hardware verb.
It's a low-end ART FXR, but even so it seems to add a dimension of depth that isn't there with the plugs. Very, very subtle difference though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top