Reverb on Bass Guitar and Kick Drum tracks…

[miroslav]

Lee touched on this early on, but to put a point on an aspect of it: it's counter-intuitive to how sounds tend to act in nature.

I mean, out in an open field, nothing reverberates...but in a typical room, even the bass and kick have "some" amount of reverb.

Again...I'm talking about turning up the reverb until you are barely hearing it...
...and then backing that off half-way.

It's almost no reverb, but yet it's not that 100% dry sound, either.

 

[BrentDomann]

Glen, just out of morbid curiosity, will a convolution reverb act more naturally? I mean, clearly it will be more natural-sounding, but will it display the frequency-dependent response variations you talk about?

 

[noisewreck]

Reverb = reflections in nature, and it's the shorter wavelength/higher frequency stuff which will display the effects of reflection/direction more. Bass, OTOH, with its longer wavelengths has a tendency to fill the space without needing or causing much directional reflection. You'll more likely to consciously notice longer delays on bass than you will shorter reverberations.

That's an interesting point that I hadn't thought of.

I have a habit of clapping my hands or sing some really low notes (I have a deep bass) sometimes when I find myself in a particular acoustic environment... sometimes getting funny looks when I do that, I'll never forget a particular experience at a department store... uh, sorry back on topic. So, yeah I clap, sing and then listen to the reverb. What I have noticed is that the lowest and the highest frequencies tend to decay faster than the mid/mid-lows.

I always wondered why the lows kind of get lost in the reverb, but now that you point that out, it does make sense.

 

[noisewreck]

Glen, just out of morbid curiosity, will a convolution reverb act more naturally? I mean, clearly it will be more natural-sounding, but will it display the frequency-dependent response variations you talk about?

I know this was directed at Glen, but if you don't mind I'd like to offer some insights into this.

In my experience there are at least two important aspects that contribute to the quality of convolution reverbs.

1. The method the reverberant space was sampled. Let's leave mic choice and placement aside for now (although this is quite important as well) and concentrate on the source of impulse. Usually there are two ways impulses are taken, one uses a sine-wave sweep covering the audible range, the other is to use some kind of loud impulse source such as a hand gun or bursting balloon. Of these two, sine-wave sweeps tend to produce more accurate representations of the space since it covers all of the audio spectrum more evenly. However, this process tends to be a bit more involved, due to the fact that you then have to use a de-convolution process to remove the original sine-wave from the resulting sample. The second method is easier to deal with, but tends to be less accurate due to the limited and uneven frequency content of the original source.

2. The actual convolution reverb software. I have first-hand experience with two convolution reverbs, Voxengo Pristine Space and the one built in to Native Instruments Kontakt sampler. You'd think that convolution is convolution, but given the same impulse responce, I find that the one built into Kontakt actually sounds much better compared to Pristine Space. Pristince Space has a tendency to sound somewhat grainy and "shallow" for the lack of a better term. I like Pristine Space because it has some interesting ways of adding modulation envelopes to such things as volume, EQ, filters, so can be a cool sound-design tool. But when I want straight reverb, I wish I could use Kontakt's reverb as a standalone component.

To answer your question specifically, yes, impulse responses, taken properly will capture a given acoustic space with remarkable accuracy, which is difficult to obtain with algorithmic reverbs. Combined with a good quality convolution reverb software (or hardware), they can offer a very close approximation of an actual acoustic space.

 

[mixsit]

That's an interesting point that I hadn't thought of.
.. sorry back on topic. So, yeah I clap, sing and then listen to the reverb. What I have noticed is that the lowest and the highest frequencies tend to decay faster than the mid/mid-lows..

Not to refute that but more to focus on something else I believe is at play. Reverb’s character is partly about what we send it. In this case, and similar with a kit mix often for another example, the prominent spike and energy triggering the room' might be mid range- or the body tone of the snare on the kit.
Do you find sometimes to get verb to set right using eq to undo some of the mid tone (or pull that part of the source down) on the send?

 

[Chris108]

OK, I know there’s no absolute answer…but from a subjective position, I was curious how folks approached Bass and Kick reverb application during their mixing adventures.

I tend to apply maybe only about 30% (of whatever my “global reverb” sound is) to the Bass and Kick tracks…though that’s somewhat of a generalization…but basically, I don’t like to run them totally dry if I’m using any reverb on the rest of the drum kit or guitar tracks.

I like to think about my mix in terms of an overall “room” sound that places all the “players’ in the same room....and then I will adjust my global reverb to-taste on those different elements.

I usually have 3 different reverb units running during my mixes (talking about outboard gear and a real mixer…not ITB).
I’ll have my main reverb unit set up primarily for the vocals (most often I’ll go for some type of plate setting, not always ), and I may also use that same unit/sound on some instruments as well if it works for them.
My two secondary reverb units are mainly for the instruments. I’ll set both of them with the same type of room/hall sound, but one will usually be set with shorter delay time than the other. That way I can have the same room sound, but with differences in reverb depth between the two, and then, depending on the song and the instruments and all the other variables…I’ll pick which instruments will be bussed to which unit. Organ may go to the reverb with the longer delay time…and drums to the shorter, and of course, the amount of reverb level will be set at the mixer for each channel/track…and this is where I’ll only give the Bass and Kick about 30% of what I set for the rest of the kick or some of the other instruments.
But I’m always wondering about the Bass and Kick…and sometimes I want to give them a pinch more reverb in the mix, but I don’t want to risk overloading the low end reverberation and possibly cluttering up the mix…though I don’t like the idea of making them 100% dry, either.

So I was curious how far people like to push that…or not at all….

I Think using Rev on Bass & Kick is actually reasonable if your trying to emulate room/Hall/areana acoustics ect.Because in life it would occur & depending on the layout of the venue and its type reflective or asorbtion surfaces can some times be a nightmare for sound engineer hence why delayed speaker stacks are used to compensate for Rev delay (RT60) and phase variations futher back at some large venues. ever wondered why in some venues bass & kick sound powerful yet move a few feet/metres away
your low end drops away due to cause of phase cancellation.
(another subject) for another time

In recordings it ok to add a little to kick & bass to create virtual space but you need to be careful not to to muddy your bottom end and your Stereo imagery.
Other than muddying things you can often push things into the background if not careful. not to mention other instruments when recording can often impact and often mask some of the reverb.
One option which I have used occasionaly is gateing the kick and side chaining Bass (adding a little tightness to Rythm section) & allowing a little rev on gated kick & chained Bass.
but use carefully.
In some instances you may need to roll off bottom end frequencies on the Reverb.
Again this depends on the instruments used & the effect your trying to achieve.
It`s always more forgiving for having less effects than having too much.

Have Fun & all the best
but again use

 

[Greg_L]

Bass - Never. Hate it. It sounds like ass in the music I do.

Kick - No, not by itself. I'll send the drum tracks to a group track and put a mild reverb across the kit as a whole. I'm not a fan of reverb on individual drum pieces. That's not how you hear drums in real life, and I'm not trying to make any kind of artistic statement with weird reverby drums.

 

[miroslav]

Bass, OTOH, with its longer wavelengths has a tendency to fill the space without needing or causing much directional reflection.

I always wondered why the lows kind of get lost in the reverb, but now that you point that out, it does make sense.

I understand what you are saying, Glen...though bass/lows still do have "some" reverb in a natural setting, though not as noticeable as highs with their many, shorter sound waves.
Main point I'm making is that there is NO natural situation where highs would reflect while lows stay 100% dry which is why I like to j-u-s-t sneak in a pinch-o-verb on the bass and kick.
It seems to tie it in better with the other instruments; though I agree that leaving them 100% dry in a mix would be a valid approach too. It's a song-by-song thing.

Also...with Kick...if you like to have a good amount of CLICK along with the THUMP from the beater, than that touch of verb will help it along, and make the snare and kick sound more cohesive, than having a wet snare with 100% dry kick….IMO…but again, it’s song-by-song...nothing absolute here going either way.

 

[Bob Ross]

In 31 years of recording I have never put reverb on a bass during the mix in order to make it sound like it was "in the same room".

If it didn't sound like it was in the same room as the other musicians when I tracked it, I changed the mic placement. (On something...maybe the bass, maybe the drums, maybe the room mics.)

I've put 'verb on a bass track a number of times as an effect, but never as "ensemble glue".

Kick drum is a whole 'nother story. In the mid-1980's nearly every pop mix I did had 'verb on the kick drum. That's just the sound people wanted. Rarely was it subtle!

 

[miroslav]

In 31 years of recording I have never put reverb on a bass during the mix in order to make it sound like it was "in the same room".

If it didn't sound like it was in the same room as the other musicians when I tracked it, I changed the mic placement.

You are missing the point...you already HAVE reverb on the bass...from the room!!!

I'm talking about all the DI recorded bass tracks that are 100% dry...

 

[JRSIV]

"Reverb" vs. "Ambience"

You are missing the point...you already HAVE reverb on the bass...from the room!!!

I'm talking about all the DI recorded bass tracks that are 100% dry...

I think for the purpose of this discussion the OP meant "reverb" as an effect; something to be put on during mixing artificially with a hardware or plugin reverb device.

Sure, when you record bass with a mic, in a room, there's going to be reverberations, etc. I would call that room ambiance or room sound though, not necessarily "reverb". That's why so many record bass with a mixed signal of DI and a miked cabinet; the roundness and fuller sound provided by the miked signal complements the sometimes sterile DI bass sound.

But when recording only with a DI bass, I personally would not reach for a reverb to simulate that effect. What makes the miked amp so nice is the air being pumped into the mic and the amps volume and sound. The reverb will only put that DI signal into a simulated "room"; causing the DI's shortcomings to be made that much worse IMO.

I like DI bass personally. There are alot of techniques to warm it up (tube preamps, bass amp modeling, reamping), and make it more like a miked amp. Plus there are some problems inherent with recording a bass amp as well; a bad amp, poor room acoustics, etc. can cause more problems than the effort is worth.

To me, adding reverb to bass in either a DI or miked form is just not a good idea. I'm sure there are some brave experimentors out there who do it and some examples that may show it can work. But as a rule and for most practical recordings, it just ain't cool.

 

[miroslav]

I think for the purpose of this discussion the OP meant "reverb" as an effect; something to be put on during mixing artificially with a hardware or plugin reverb device.

Since I'm the OP... ...yes, during mixdown, but not necessarily just as an "effect"...but more so to create the final “room” for your "band"….and I like mixing some things from that perspective…a band, playing in a room. I actually think that when you leave stuff 100% dry…THAT is more of an effect, since few sounds in nature exist as 100% dry. That’s something that’s been created in the recording/production environment, and is found more in later/modern production techniques.

To me, adding reverb to bass in either a DI or miked form is just not a good idea. I'm sure there are some brave experimentors out there who do it and some examples that may show it can work. But as a rule and for most practical recordings, it just ain't cool.

I don't think this can be made as any blanket "rule"...which some folks seem to be doing and follow religiously.
It's like the "rule" about always putting the bass and/or kick/snare dead center in the mix!
I never do that either, and prefer to pan the bass, kick and snare off-center by little bit. I like to put the bass and kick on opposite sides…not by much… 10:30-11:30<--->12:30-1:30 …but it opens up a nice space for the vox/lead instruments. Like if you have a baritone vocalist, or even some lead instruments that hit in the lower registers…IMO…having the bass/kick/snare dead-center, will interfere with them.

Again...with any of this stuff, it's often about the amount you use in your particular application…and AFA the reverb, it’s also about the type of reverb used and how it works with the song.
But it appears to me from some comments made by people who are objecting to using ANY reverb on bass or kick, that they are imagining what is being implied is the use of some Large Hall or Cathedral type of reverb, cranked up to super-wet in the same way you might do for lead guitar or vocals or whatever!
But no…not at all…it’s a very subtle application…though it does sound different from leaving it 100% dry.

Simulated reverb is used on just about everything else during mixdown...using it on kick or bass is no different, you just have to do it sparingly/carefully, but of course, a mic on a cab, in a room, might be the better way…but again, not as any “rule”.
Unless you have the right room and can really get that good room sound from your mic position while at the same time thinking well ahead how that room sound will fit in with your mix in the end…
…it just might be actually better to save the “room” application for the mix stage, even if it is simulated.
Though I agree that close miking a bass cab will probably NOT reveal a whole lot of room sound anyway.

 

[Bob Ross]

yes, during mixdown, but not necessarily just as an "effect"...but more so to create the final “room” for your "band"….and I like mixing some things from that perspective…a band, playing in a room. I actually think that when you leave stuff 100% dry…THAT is more of an effect, since few sounds in nature exist as 100% dry. .

And now you're missing my point (...which, to reiterate, was "If it didn't sound like it was in the same room as the other musicians when I tracked it, I changed the mic placement.")

IOW, if it didn't have "that perspective…a band, playing in a room" -- regardless of whether I was using a DI for the bass, or a mic, or both -- I moved some mics during the tracking session so that it did sound like "that perspective…a band, playing in a room". Putting some of a DI'd bass track into the same digital reverb send as a bunch of other instruments has rarely achieved this if the tracks didn't already possess some semblence of geographical cohesion.

Also, keep in mind that there's a difference between "leav[ing] stuff 100% dry" and having it sound as if it's 100% dry.

 

[Greg_L]

Man, some of you are some wordy mofos.

 

[miroslav]

And now you're missing my point (...which, to reiterate, was "If it didn't sound like it was in the same room as the other musicians when I tracked it, I changed the mic placement.")

IOW, if it didn't have "that perspective…a band, playing in a room" -- regardless of whether I was using a DI for the bass, or a mic, or both -- I moved some mics during the tracking session so that it did sound like "that perspective…a band, playing in a room". Putting some of a DI'd bass track into the same digital reverb send as a bunch of other instruments has rarely achieved this if the tracks didn't already possess some semblence of geographical cohesion.

I think though you are basing your mic placement comments from the perspective of recording a full band, all pretty much at the same time....right?
That can work if you are going for the *final* sound, right then and there as you track. But when you are multi-tracking individual instruments, how can you tell how much or what type of room sound to go for from mic placement on a single instrument, if all you have is maybe drums and some scratch tracks to play against...?
How do you know how all the individual tracks will mix later on with their individually recorded room sounds come together? If you record the room sounds per single track/instrument...you are then stuck with them and that may or may not work out in the end when all the other tracks are recorded.
Right?

IMHO...when talking about a full Rock/Pop kind of mix, with the use of good digital verbs, I don't think many people will be able to tell if the ambience is from a mics in the room or from a digital verb applied during mixdown.
For a sparse, live recording, yeah, the reverb/ambience can become a bigger part of the overall mix and may be more identifiable, but again, with some of the good digital verbs out there, unless you are listening to very long tails, it's not easy to tell the difference between a good digital and a real room.

I work mostly using the individual, multi-track approach, so while I do end up with some room sound when tracking... it makes more sense to apply the final ambience during mixdown after I have all my tracks recorded and I can hear how they work with each other and how much reverb can be applied to all of them as a whole

Of course…YMMV.....

But let’s be realistic and honest here…if we are going to talk about a great room sound, well, we need either a great room or a great room simulation…right?
Who here has world class rooms at their disposal…?
I don’t.
And even if you have maybe one “decent room”…is that the only room sound we will ever want?
How about a hall or large room or some cathedral ambience?
Who has all of those different, real rooms to record in?

Also, keep in mind that there's a difference between "leav[ing] stuff 100% dry" and having it sound as if it's 100% dry.

And that's been my point...the bass/kick that I apply my reverb to sounds pretty dry...but it's not 100% dry. No one is talking about any kind of very obvious wet reverb effect on bass/kick.

 

[miroslav]

Man, some of you are some wordy mofos.

Someone has to make up for your frugal discourse.

 

[Greg_L]

Someone has to make up for your frugal discourse.

Lol @ frugal discourse. Did you seriously just say that?

 

[miroslav]

"frugal discourse"

There...I said it again.

 

[JRSIV]

Also, keep in mind that there's a difference between "leav[ing] stuff 100% dry" and having it sound as if it's 100% dry.

And that's been my point...the bass/kick that I apply my reverb to sounds pretty dry...but it's not 100% dry. No one is talking about any kind of very obvious wet reverb effect on bass/kick.

I understand where you're coming from Miro, I just don't use the same method on bass, in particular. I've used the "subliminal reverb" technique on drum samples that were dry. Just a little bit and it does liven up the sound.

On bass though I prefer to do what Bob is describing. Even though my DI bass track may be 100% dry, the use of tube pre's and compression can give the sound a woolly, warm sound that sounds more atmospheric than it would if just recorded by straight DI into the board with nothing added.

Bottom line is, this shows how individual home recordists are and that's a good thing. I agree that "rules" are made to be broken and you know if something makes you happy, do it!

 

[miroslav]

Well...this discussion has been interesting.

And the album project I just finished, I' was doing most of my bass DI, but I found a really nice combination that gives me that wooly, fat bass...not so much the hard, in-your-gut stuff.
I kinda wanted to keep the same overall signature sound to give the album a cohesive quality as much as possible rather than have it be just a bunch of songs stuck together in one CD.

As I get ready for my next album project...I'll probably change things up and go for something different...if the sounds grab me.