Reverb 101

  • Thread starter Thread starter mattkw80
  • Start date Start date
M

mattkw80

New member
Question about reverb....

I've read that way before my time, reverb came from 3 primary sources.

1. Springs
2. Hall (Hall ways and rooms)
3. Plates


As I have only known digital type setups, I simply push some buttons, and dial in any of these that I want.

My question is - when would you apply the different reverbs to different sources ?

ie: Is Plate best for vocals, and Spring best for guitar ?

I know the possibilities are endless, and experimentation is encouraged, but are their any direct relationships to the "TYPE" of reverb and the "Source / Instrument" ?

Does anybody have any favorite reverb settings or applications they use ?
 
Use spring reverb to emulate an old mattress.
Use Hall reverb if you need caugh drops.
Don't forget the forks and the knives with the plates.
 
no, as all things in recording, there is no "best". only "favorite".
 
mattkw80 said:
Question about reverb....

I've read that way before my time, reverb came from 3 primary sources.

1. Springs
2. Hall (Hall ways and rooms)
3. Plates


As I have only known digital type setups, I simply push some buttons, and dial in any of these that I want.

My question is - when would you apply the different reverbs to different sources ?

ie: Is Plate best for vocals, and Spring best for guitar ?

I know the possibilities are endless, and experimentation is encouraged, but are their any direct relationships to the "TYPE" of reverb and the "Source / Instrument" ?

Does anybody have any favorite reverb settings or applications they use ?
Click to expand...


I know this answer is going to sound weird, and yes it's only my opinion but:


I think the best kind of reverb is by far the kind you get before you even use artifical reverbs in the first place. Meaning, that the better you can use your room to define an instruments position in space, the better and easier the experience of using reverbs later on to enhance. I learned that lesson viciously at a time when I was DIing alot of my electrical instruments during sessions. Not that it's wrong to do so, but that critical air between a mic and its source can make a huge difference in terms of setting things right in a mix with reverbs and delay.

For example, that's a decision I didn't make on an album I am currently producing and engineering. All the guitar tracks where DIed, and therefore, missing a critical "something". Luckly, it dosn't cost us much to go back and do the guitar stuff with a good room and a decent mic. But you know, you're in there throwing around great ideas and shit like that does slip.

In terms of my personal choices for reverbs, it just really depends. I personally don't think any engineer should always reach for one type of verb when treating something, but rather remember the sound and judge when it's right to use it.

Like on drums, in some types of over-the-top rock music, it might be cool to use an excessive and "messy" verb. Maybe a bright hall verb for example. I suppose it's hard for me to be extremely specific on that.

My two cents. :D
 
Does anybody know the history on some of the types of Reverb - like which ones came first....

Do studio's today still use plates, springs, etc ?
 
LeeRosario said:
I think the best kind of reverb is by far the kind you get before you even use artifical reverbs in the first place. Meaning, that the better you can use your room to define an instruments position in space, the better and easier the experience of using reverbs later on to enhance.
Click to expand...
What about when one uses synthesizers and samplers (hardware or software)... ?
 
I would say don't use spring reverb for anything other than a guitar amp. If you've ever studied acoustics (which I've only done in the slightest bit), and have seen a spring reverb inside, you can easily see why doesn't do a great job of creating natural reverb. Reflection, refraction, diffusion, etc...are way too complicated to be imitated by a couple springs in a small metal box.

As Lee mentioned, natural reverbs are going to sound better than artificial ones most times anyway (unless you have an S6000). You may not know it but you have reverb chamerbs available to you already...your living room, your bathroom, a hallway in your house, that old refrigerator/washer or dryer out in your garage (Brendan O'Brien), your shower with some blankets draped over it, your attic (Motown)...you get the point. If you're not happy with the digital reverbs you have access to, find some nice naturally reverberant spots in your recording enviroment, take one of your monitors and one mic or a stereo pair and create your own reverb chamber.

Supposedly the first "reverb chamber" was the bathroom at Sun Studios. Like I mentioned above, the Motown studio had a large attic with a widow's peak which they installed a speaker in and used as a reverb chamber. Go nuts!
 
mattkw80 said:
are their any direct relationships to the "TYPE" of reverb and the "Source / Instrument" ?
Click to expand...
No.

Veeeeeeeerrrrryyyy generally speaking - so general with so many exceptions and loopholes and caveats, I almost hate to transcribe it - one might say there's a general idea that falls out something like this:

Spring - vintage or distortion sound on electric instruments.
Plate - bright but clean reverb for individual instrument and vocal tracks
Hall - general ambience for large vocals and stereo mixdowns

G.
 
noisewreck said:
What about when one uses synthesizers and samplers (hardware or software)... ?
Click to expand...


Ahh, :D exactly. I knew that would come up. I guess for that, then it's a total matter of judgement. Also the genre of music and the situation.


For example, I learned that not everything needs reverb all the time. Like say you record a lead synth part in a rock song. If it's purpose is to be upfront (maybe a solo), then it's probably not going to get so much reverb than if it was intended to be an ambient track. Or even another example is the way I'm hearing alot of supplimental vocals in a lot of mixes these days.

They seem to come out doubled up and harmonized in a wide stereo configuration, and for the most part, they feel really dry. Cool effect in my opinion. The new Chilli Pepper's album is a good example of that. I think it sets a nice contrast in comparison to the main vocals that will have some type of reverb treatment. So essentially what you have is your main vocal set firm in the middle, with whatever reverb and delay it gets, and then you have your background vocals showing up wide on either side. Dry, but upclose and "personal".

The other example would be if it wasn't rock at all, what if it was electronic music. That might be mixed a little on the drier side, depending on how clean you want things to appear in the mix.

A lot of times it just comes down to the magic A/Bing between reverbs. Like you can set up and save a couple of verb settings at a time and just flip back and forth until something grows on you. Trying different rooms, different sizes, different early reflection times...whatever you feel you need to do to make it stick.

So in that case, I suppose you're at the mercy of whatever reverb unit(s) you have availible. Or if you're really diehard about getting a natural verb sound, then perhaps you can send it out of your interface through an amp (stereo/mono depending on what you have). Then you can mic the amp like you would any other instrument.

It's cool that there's always room for interpretation. Or the easiest way I tell myself, "just make sure it sounds cool for the song and that it sounds cool for the ear". Keeps things a little more artistic and not so technical. :D
 
Wow.

GREAT responses.

Thanks guys - I am going to print this out, for reference in my studio.
 
noisewreck said:
Use spring reverb to emulate an old mattress.
Use Hall reverb if you need caugh drops.
Don't forget the forks and the knives with the plates.
Click to expand...
So, someone called me an "Idiot" because of this responce. Whoever you are, lighten up. THIS WAS A JOKE! You know what JOKES are right? :) :p
 
noisewreck said:
So, someone called me an "Idiot" because of this responce. Whoever you are, lighten up. THIS WAS A JOKE! You know what JOKES are right? :) :p
Click to expand...
FWIW, noise, I thought it was pretty good. :)

G.
 
Reverb - More Than An Effect

Here's something for you all to try, typically with a plate reverb.

When setting up a reverb for a sound, solo the sound and turn up the wet reverb, way more than you will ever have.
You need to start with minimal room size and decay. No diffusion, pre delay, damping or early reflections.

Listening to your sound SLOWLY increase the room size until you find the point where it all grooves in a percussive sort of way. Ignore how big the room actually is, instead just concentrate on the way the sound bounces with your dry source.

Next increase the size of the decay till the tail end sits with the tempo. Not ON the tempo, look for a decay that feels RIGHT.

Now bring the decay up till you find a point where the groove is back.

Diffusion is a bit like valve effect in that it adds complication at the expense of clouding the sound. With this in mind use it sparingly.

Early reflections are next up and with these you want to think about the fact that you are adding further echoes. In fact both Diffusion and early reflections can be kept to a minimum for a very slick sound. Use both at your peril and understand they will cloud your sound in exchange for what they offer.

Now look at the pre delay and bring it up a little at a time, listen to how it affects the groove as well as moving the sound into the background. A little goes a long way, in fact anything over 7 ms will probably be too much.

Finally reduce the wet signal till you find a nice balance. Drop it into the mix and marvel at how clear it sounds.

There is no preset for reverb that brings out the best in everything. Just like a simple delay it's very tempo dependant to the source.
Yeah, you will always find a reverb sound you like. But once you master this technique I doubt you'll ever look at your presets the same way again.
 
RDM, at the very least that sounds like it would make for a very educational trip through the various verb parameters. Looking at the tempo effects of the reflections in combination with the track is a good angle to have your ear clued to in the setup.
Wayne
 
RDMSstudio said:
Here's something for you all to try, typically with a plate reverb.
Click to expand...
Nice technique even more nicely explained :).

G.
 
Thanks for the positive feedback guys...

There are certain reasons why top songs get there... thinking about the groove is just one of them. The same mentality can be applied to straight delays, compressors and anything else that affects how a track MOVES.

Any of you notice how if you got the reverb right (using this method) on your drums they sound HUGE... with no apparent change in the peak meters...

I think too many people think a recording sounds weak due to poor EQ or lack of total level. WRONG, it's all about creating an illusion through what happens AFTER the peak level. Especially drums due to their extreme peaks.
 
RDM, could you please clarify some things here?
RDMSstudio said:
Next increase the size of the decay till the tail end sits with the tempo. Not ON the tempo, look for a decay that feels RIGHT.
Click to expand...
You initially set a grove with 'size, now we're extending decay time (R/T) right?

Now bring the decay up till you find a point where the groove is back.
Click to expand...
This part threw me. Is this decay level, or time again?

Now look at the pre delay and bring it up a little at a time, listen to how it affects the groove as well as moving the sound into the background. A little goes a long way, in fact anything over 7 ms will probably be too much.
Click to expand...
I've been using pre delay, primarily to 'move the wall back' (sometimes for tempo considerations) but I can see where some of my settings extending out into the 20+ range could mess with this approach.
Thanks in advance.
Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top