Puzzled about reverb explanations - sorry - I know I'm being dumbass....

[Chrisulrich]

Dear Everyone.
Firstly - thanks for all the great advice I've had here, you're wonderful.

Secondly - I thought I understood reverb till I read three different descriptions of it that seemed to contradict eachother. Here goes.

First. "Reverb is used to push sounds back in a mix." Fair enough. BUT....

Second. "Reverb is used to put all the instruments in the same room. You put the same reverb on all the instruments otherwise they won't sound like they're in the same room." Which logically would mean they're all pushed back equally far in the mix, as per the First definition, so they'd all still be in a straight line - no depth. But it gets worse. If you add more reverb to some instruments to push 'em farther back, you've no longer got the same reverb on all the instruments so haven't you put some in a different room?

Third, on a YouTube vid. "Most mixers over-use reverb. You're better off not using reverb on everything....." But if you're NOT using reverb on everything, you're not putting them in the same room (as above) so the reverbless ones (presumably the lead/front instruments) would surely sound like they're in a different room to the others WITH reverb. And how do you tell what not to add reverb to? How else do you keep all the instruments 'in the same room'?

What aren't I seeing here? Again!?! (And there's prob. an even dumber question coming up after you lot have answered this, so brace yourselves for Dumbassedness Unleashed, but I'll try the answers here first!)

Yours respectfully

Chris.

 

[mjbphotos]

1) Yes, that's part of it, but EQ also plays a part in that.
2), No, putting different amounts of reverb on different tracks does NOT put a different 'room' on them, because the reverb 'room' is the same, only the amount of reverb is different.
3) Don't believe everything you see on youtube!

 

[gecko zzed]

Some thoughts . . .

The sound of an instrument (e.g. violin, flute, voice) is a combination of what comes out of the instrument and what the space in which the instrument is played adds. As a result, the sound an instrument makes by itself, exclusive of the space, is not the best representation of what it sounds like to a listener in the room. Recording techniques such as close-miking, or recording in an anechoic room, or just recording it in a very dry room can result in an unrealistic and even unpleasant sound.

To counteract this, you can add reverb to recreate the sense of space that is missing. How much you add depends on personal taste and the sort of space you are trying to recreate. However there is a point where personal taste descends into unmusicality. For example, if you swamp the sound for reverb and lose any clarity.

The idea of using reverb to set a mix of instruments in a common space is sound, and varying the amount given to different instruments (along with EQ) is a way of creating depth, i.e. drier instruments move to the front, wetter instruments move to back.

 

[Gtoboy]

Slow down and start with basics.

Reverb (reverberation) is a naturally occurring phenomena, right? When you listen to anything, but especially a performance, there will be reflected sound that will help your ears define the space you are in and where in that space the sound source is. This is true for dialog as well as music.

When recording first came along, it started with using one microphone to capture a source in a space thus the "reverb" was part of the performance and it quickly became clear that microphone placement and the venue itself were huge influences on how well a recorded sound translated when played back.

Fast forward to the modern age of multi mic, close mic , dead room recording and changing tastes, as well as uneven and hard to predict natural reverb and producers of music and motion pictures desires, creates a need for controllable artificial reverb.

Once the reverbs went "outboard" they became ripe for manipulation, thus things like gated reverb. Thus reverb for effect.

So to answer your questions: Placing an instrument forward or back is not the "job" of reverb. It just so happens that in a real space a point source will sound differently when heard from different distances and part of that difference is eq, dynamic range and reverb. We use these tools together to manipulate a "dry" sound when attempting to create a "space" where there wasn't one, as in close mic'd sounds that we wish to sound "live" or simply as an effect.

Next: putting all the sounds "in a room" together may or may not be your objective, but if you are in a room the reverb you hear is going to be very different from one spot to the next as the listener moves and depending on the sources volumes, proximity to reflective surfaces, etc, . Thus many mixers will often use a couple of main reverbs, one longish and the other shortish and feed different amounts of source tracks to get it to sound like all the instruments were played in the same space. This is usually very low in the mix type of reverb and IME it's usually more "felt" than it is "heard". On the other hand you may be going for the sound of a concert hall which would require more volume from the reverb.

As for overuse of reverb: it depends on taste. You start with an objective. Maybe you just want to get the snare to pop out so you put a send from it to a delay and a reverb on the delay. Feed that back into the drum mix and just a little bit can add some excitement to the drums that wasn't there and was needed in your opinion. I suspect that the too much reverb complaint is down to inexperience in use since reverb used as a "space" really works best when eq'd and at a level where , as I hinted, it is not actually heard.

Yes, the instruments without reverb will sound different, which can help place them. Also where the reverb is placed can affect where the source feels like it is from. When using delay and reverb on an individual track or send, it can be panned directly behind (the same pan position), or opposite or anywhere in between. And it will sound different in each spot!

Start experimenting in a couple of ways.

One, mix reverb. Add one thing at a time and hear the difference. EQ the reverb different ways. less top, less bottom, more of either or both. Back the reverb down until you can no longer identify it then mute it and feel the difference. Do it again with more volume and less. Try multiple room sizes or combinations of long and short.

Two: reverb on channel/tracks/instruments. Best done as an aux . Set up a mono reverb and move the panning of the source so that they are opposite. Move them closer until the reverb is behind. Pan them together from middle to side. Try different length reverbs. Bring the volume of the reverb all the way down til it disappears in all the different panned positions. EQ the reverb. Smash the reverb with a compressor. Then add the mix verb and hear what happens.

It's a long journey but once you have a better idea of what you can do then you will be able to use reverb with intention. Without intention, it probably will sound like too much.

 

[rob aylestone]

Levels don't matter, but different reverbs do - so if you are doing a typical pop song but it has strings, the strings generally need reverb to make the sound sorts of blend and sing out. If you have a large space reverb for the strings but a shorter one for the drums and then a different one for the vocals, these three different spaces are identified by your brain and the conflict makes the thing not 'homogenise' (I think I just invented that word in an audio sense?)

Different amounts of a common reverb don't mess your brain up.

The backwards and forwards is a function of reality too. Signal to noise, with the voices vs reverb as the signal and the noise. If a real person gets further away, two things happen. The room component - the reverb increases compared to the voice, but most critically, there is a no reverb period until that first reflection arrives at your ears. So to mimic a voice being further away is more reverb, but an increasing delay before the first reflection. Shorten this , and the person gets closer to the mic. The type of reflection also matters. A big long RT60 could sound like a cavern underground, but a short first reflection would make the person very close to the mic, in a huge space. making first delay a crazy time. Over a second with only a small amount of reverb would place you in a really massive space that would be rejected by your brain as so big as to be unrealistic if you don't tweak it very carefully. Weird reverb for effect, on percussion works in general - like the big gated reverbs. As an effect your brain can set aside reality, and accept it as processing and treatment. Three singers, with different reverbs or same reverb and different setting would not work well because they would sound like different spaces.

 

[grimtraveller]

"Reverb is used to push sounds back in a mix."

Yes, it can be used for this.
But that is only one way it can be used. You can have something with reverb on it right out front.

"Reverb is used to put all the instruments in the same room. You put the same reverb on all the instruments otherwise they won't sound like they're in the same room."

Again, this can be one way of using it, if you're that way inclined. But I have never heard a recording in my life, to this day, in which all the contents did not sound like they were in the same space. I just don't know what that means ! They're coming out of speakers, dammit !!

Most mixers over-use reverb.

I don't know about that. I mean, I really don't !
I use it both in recording and mixing, but I use it more in recording. I commit to my sounds very early on and many things will have reverb in certain degrees. When it comes to actual mixing, I barely use it.

You're better off not using reverb on everything.....

Well, again, that depends on the song, what you want the song to sound like and whether or not you feel that everything does need reverb. I almost never use it on a bass drum, although I love the sound of reverb on a bass drum when solo'd. When you add other things though, you soon realize why it's not always a good idea.
I almost never use it on a bass guitar. But I will use it on a double bass. Sometimes backing and harmony vocals don't need it. Etcetera...

And how do you tell what not to add reverb to?

If you're talking in a mixing sense, just add it to everything and see what it sounds like. Does this enhance or destroy your track ? If you take away from each instrument, see how the balance and clarity is altered. That points you to clues as to what, when and whether.
A lot of these things in recording are about time and experience. The more you do it, the sharper you'll become.

What aren't I seeing here?

That's exactly it. You aren't seeing what someone else sees because you are not that person, nor do you have their ears or mind. You're you. It comes down to what sounds good to you.
Now, it is worth taking on board all the viewpoints you hear and experimenting with some, if not all, of the things that people suggest. But one thing I soon learned was that there are what appear to be many contradictions from people in recording and the simple law of averages and common sense tells me that they're nearly all right ~ just not all the time. If someone has done something in recording or mixing in the last 80 years, then it can work, even if it is no longer standard practice or practical to those that oppose it.

I actually really like reverb. But I had to learn not to slather everything in it all the time and to mix and match with wet and dry sounds. And develop my own reverbial approach. I wasn't always like that and I learned bit by bit, just like you're doing now.

Much is also dependent on whether you are doing your own music or mixing for someone else. In the latter case, you have to be a little less experimental and stubborn and self directed in preference.

 

[TimOD]

"I actually really like reverb. But I had to learn not to slather everything in it all the time and to mix and match with wet and dry sounds. And develop my own reverbial approach. I wasn't always like that and I learned bit by bit, just like you're doing now."
Yes, exactly so. I love reverb (and certain short delays, etc.), and when I first started mixing I had a tendency to go overboard. Everybody is different, and I've worked with musicians who generally dislike reverb, but as I've gotten better at determining when a song's elements need it, those musicians stopped complaining about reverb that I added. Turns out that maybe they were right, and now I'm doing it better, or at least have a better understanding of when it's needed and how. It takes a while to get it down. My touchstones were classics like the Moody Blues' Seventh Sojourn and Yes' Close To The Edge. Those records are awash in reverb, but that was what was done in those days, especially with "prog" rock. "Reverbial approach." I love that! Great name for a band or a record.