Quote Mike Craig.:

---

So if "Moo the magic Cow" wants to find out more about reverb etc. you wouldn't recommend "The Mixing Engineers Handbook"?

---

I'm not sure reading books about mixing can be a substitute for sitting down and listening to what effect different settings have. Honestly, I think some people get side-tracked by a cerebral approach to mixing. Obviously, as this discussion has shown, one needs a factual understanding of the issues. In the end, though, you need to hear what is going on, and no technical figures can help you with producing a decent mix.

Reverb is a funny one, you hear all sorts of opinions. There was a time when convolution reverbs were all the rage, and it looked as if hardware boxes were soon going to be a thing of the past. That is, until you actually put them side-by-side, and *listen*. What do you hear? Do you like what you hear? Which sounds "better", i.e which is more supportive of the music? Which sounds more engaging, exciting, which makes you want to go and buy the album?

Only a few days ago, I decided to pull out my crusty Alesis Microverb V1, which was cheap and cheerful even when I bought it 20 odd years ago. I sat down and compared it with upmarket convolution reverbs from Waves, and also with some of the free stuff from Noisevault - you know, sampled TC M6000s and the like. You know what? There is no contest. My laughably outdated Alesis sounds so much more alive, and effortlessly creates a sense of excitement. By comparison, the computer reverbs sound dead and uninspiring. So, after sitting in the drawer for about a decade, I am going to use it again alongside a TC M3000.

Quote Tui:

---

Reverb is a funny one, you hear all sorts of arguments. There was a time when convolution reverbs were all the rage, and it looked as if hardware boxes were soon going to be a thing of the past. That is, until you actually put them side-by-side, and *listen*. What do you hear? Do you like what you hear? Which sounds "better", i.e which is more conducive to the music? Which sounds more engaging, exciting, which makes you want to go and buy the album?

Only a few days ago, I decided to pull out my crusty Alesis Microverb V1, which was cheap and cheerful even when I bought it, 20 odd years ago. I sat down and compared it with upmarket convolution reverbs from Waves, and also some of the free stuff from Noisevault - you know, sampled TC M6000s and the like. You know what? There is no contest. My laughably outdated Alesis sounds so much more alive, and easily creates a sense of excitement. By comparison, the computer reverbs sound dead and uninspiring. So, after sitting in the drawer for about a decade, I am going to use it again alongside a TC M3000.

---

hey Tui.

I like my old Alesis Quadraverb. I think that with some of these units they have a quality that is associated with the texture of a certain style of music in the same way that slap back tape echo is associated with Elvis' voice for example.

If it sounds good it is good - but it takes experience and talent to really recognise this.

On reverb and pre delay. I have no professional experience to speak of beyond getting my mates to contribute to my home studio costs in return for recording a tune for them.

However, something that I have found works is setting the length of the pre-delay so the reverb hits in time or where you feel it grooves relative to the BPM of the tune....ie the length of the pre delay may set to a 16th note for example. Also keeping the length of the reverb short enough so the tail does n't combine with the next hit of the dry sound stops the reverb taking clarity away from the sound. This is especially useful for a snare backbeat sound but for a vocal you may want more of a wash of reverb to add body to the vocal.

Hey thefruitfarmer, long time no see. How are you, mate?

Yup, there are many nice effects one can create with pre-delay.

There are quite a few pros who have enough dough to buy anything they want, but they still use old Lexicons (L300, for example), EMT250s, or even Alesis boxes. You are right, there is something about the sound that just works. Mind you, newer reverbs are much cleaner sounding and technically accurate, in particular the more expensive ones. But do they always sound better in a mix..?

Hey Tui

Am good thanks - I trust you are well.

Great thread. Good to see so many opinions and perspectives about reverb. I've learned something here!!

Quote Ariosto:

---

Can I take the heat out of this argument and ask of Liz a simple question. I ask this as someone who has still a fair bit to learn about reverb.

If I have a track or tracks without reverb, and I copy these - is it a good idea to put reverb on the copies - and then play (say all two stereo tracks) in sync and then adjust the mix using the sliders between the two stereo tracks until I get the right mix of wet/dry?

Actually, a second question. Do you think it best to get the right amount of reverb in the hall/studio on the original recording by mic placing and distance, rather than adding it later? I'm talking here of small classical ensemble groups - usually 2 to 4 performers.

---

Sorry Ariosto, I hadn't noticed your post earlier. The answer to the first question is, it depends. It depends on what sounds "right". There have been times where I've taken doubled tracks, for example, and run them both through a reverb and it worked out fine. There have also been times where one take is dry and one is run through a reverb and it worked out well but it sounds different from the first example. As far as copying tracks I don't prefer that to actually having the same part performed multiple times.

With classical ensembles I almost always prefer to use natural acoustics and mic placement to get the reverb. That being said it's not always possible to achieve the ideal. Once again, it depends. It depends on the characteristics of the live room and the placement of the instruments and mics in that room that will ultimately determine the ambiance.

As a general rule of thumb I prefer natural acoustics to artificial in a great acoustic environment. If however, you don't have that then you have to make it work with a combination of what you have and the artificial effects.

Liz

--------------------
MIRRORMIX STUDIO
blog

Tui, Oswinski is pretty much a standard reference work, even I have it.

Liz has posted a link to one of her mixes because she thinks that will demonstrate more clearly than any number of words what she's on about. There's clearly some communication failure going on here that really isn't worth it. It certainly adding more heat than light to the OP's question!

I'm sure lots of people have opinions about this, and can contribute to (or learn from) the thread, so we're very loath to lock it. But equally they don't need to plough through reams of mudslinging to find the nuggets.

So can we all have a group hug please?

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Tui, Oswinski is pretty much a standard reference work, even I have it.
...
So can we all have a group hug please?

---

Anyone who talks about pre-delays of 100-250 milliseconds in the context of recording music is more than a bit mad, regardless of how many books they might have sold at Amazon. Does anybody ever try these things out, or are they happy with just reading books and quoting from them?

Anyway... We are all free to wreck our mixes the best we can. If you insist, you can have a hug... Mind the sweaty armpits.

Quote moo the magic cow:

---

I keep reading about folks using 3 or 4 reverbs in one mix. I've only had any joy using one reverb and feeding different levels into it from certain instruments (quite a bit from vocals, not as much from guitar or snare)...

---

MOO: Even a casual listener is quite used to hearing a big 80s gated reverb snare, a slapback vocal and an echoey guitar, all on the same song.

So instead of sending varying amounts to the same reverb, try sending each instrument (or group of instruments) to a different, dedicated reverb.

This may well give you the depth for which it is you are seeking!!!

PS This solution does require a bit of experiment, experience and perhaps even pre-delays, but does not involve telling everyone how much work you do for Universal.

Isn't this what you have on your profile?

Quote Evie McCreevie:

---

Reasonably competent pop/dance producer with six international gold/plats, and a few local hits, to my credit. Getting back to songwriting and doing my own stuff, which is more than nice.

---

How is your "PS" comment helpful in keeping peace around here exactly? As I said already I mentioned where I worked twice because I felt that Tui was being condescending and posting a bunch of links to other sources. I decided that to establish some credibility that I would mention it. I also quoted other sources and I explained my position in detail as well as attempted to understand Tui's position.

That's not about me telling how much work I do for any record company. In fact nowhere at all do I mention how much work I do for that company specifically. I'm not sure what the point of your statement was at the end but I am sure that it's much more of a personal attack than a joke and not at all helpful on this thread like the moderators have asked for things to be. Maybe people should stop putting their jobs and studios and pictures of such in their signatures as well. Because those things could be interpreted as arrogance and pretentious according to your apparent standard of etiquette.

In any case I don't think your comment is funny or informative nor do I think that it's been helpful in any way but to cause further conflict. Never mind that your indirect agreement with Tui's earlier accusation that I was being arrogant completely ignores the fact that he very quickly jumped to call me incoherent and rambling without considering that the point that he was so passionately defending was within the realm of what I had stated from the beginning. But have it your way. I must be an a$$ because I said that I worked at Universal. If you can't find fault in the message then shoot the messenger that's fine.

Liz

Well, I haven't worked for anyone or any company worth mentioning, apart from myself and one or two musicians in producing CD's!!

But I would like to thank Liz for a considered and helpful reply about using reverb and also reverb on the source material. I think you have re-assured me that I am maybe on the right track here (no pun intended).

I think my next recording (of a live concert) in a very large London church (violin and piano) will be interesting as I will be fighting the keep the natural reverb down as much as possible, and I only have two omni mics to use this time. I am hoping to get some cardiod mics which also have omni capsules soon, but not in time for this one. (Rode NT55's).

Quote EnlightenedHand:

---

Isn't this what you have on your profile?

Quote Evie McCreevie:

---

Reasonably competent pop/dance producer with six international gold/plats, and a few local hits, to my credit. Getting back to songwriting and doing my own stuff, which is more than nice.

---

How is your "PS" comment helpful in keeping peace around here exactly? As I said already I mentioned where I worked twice because I felt that Tui was being condescending and posting a bunch of links to other sources. I decided that to establish some credibility that I would mention it. I also quoted other sources and I explained my position in detail as well as attempted to understand Tui's position.

That's not about me telling how much work I do for any record company. In fact nowhere at all do I mention how much work I do for that company specifically. I'm not sure what the point of your statement was at the end but I am sure that it's much more of a personal attack than a joke and not at all helpful on this thread like the moderators have asked for things to be. Maybe people should stop putting their jobs and studios and pictures of such in their signatures as well. Because those things could be interpreted as arrogance and pretentious according to your apparent standard of etiquette.

In any case I don't think your comment is funny or informative nor do I think that it's been helpful in any way but to cause further conflict. Never mind that your indirect agreement with Tui's earlier accusation that I was being arrogant completely ignores the fact that he very quickly jumped to call me incoherent and rambling without considering that the point that he was so passionately defending was within the realm of what I had stated from the beginning. But have it your way. I must be an a$$ because I said that I worked at Universal. If you can't find fault in the message then shoot the messenger that's fine.

Liz

---

Yes exactly, it's in my profile - where it should be. Not in posts relating to the use of reverb.

As to Tui's accusations of incoherence and arrogance, he really should've added long-windedness to the list.

This is starting to get tedious.

Liz's contributions have been helpful and civilized, even if one or two people want to disagree with her: it would be a dull forum if everyone agreed with everyone all the time.

She does not deserve any further baiting.

I have no problem with people making reference to their own professional achievements and background if it helps them reinforce their argument. It is generally helpful to members to understand where people are coming from, and with what level of experience/credibility.

We're not going to let an unmoderated, undebated rule evolve on the fly that says otherwise.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

I'd just like to further state that Liz' understanding of pre delay is somewhat inaccurate and misleading to anyone reading this forum who does not have a firm grasp of using reverb already:

The pre delay function is the length of time between the original source sound and the first reverberences of the acoustic space reaching the listener. So in basic terms,if someone hits a snare drum in a room, the pre delay is the time that it takes from the moment of impact for the sound to travel to a boundary of the acoustic space (wall,floor, roof, or in fact another object in the room) and then travel back to the listener.

The shorter the pre delay (which in real terms means that the reveberations of the acoustic space are reaching the listener quicker) the less distinction there will be between the original sound and the reverberant sounds.

On the other hand......

The longer the pre delay (which in real terms means that the reverberations are taking longer to reach the listener) the more distinction there is between the original source sound and the reverberant sound. This is no way means that the sound is pushed further back in a mix, that is determined by the the AMOUNT of reverberant sound you use versus the amount of dry sound.

But using a longer pre delay (30-60ms) and keeping the reverberant sound at a moderate level WILL keep the sound source up front while still having a nice ambience coming in after the pre delay time has elapsed.

I hope this has helped, I'm not having a go at anyone for previous posts but I just wanted to clear this up before anyone else got confused.

Cheers, Mark.

That depends on how you decided to look at it. Reverberation can be broken down into three parts really. There is the direct sound, the early reflections and then the actual reverberation.

According to David Miles Huber and Robert E. Runstein co-authors of Modern Recording Techniques:

Quote Modern Recording Techniques:

---

The reverberated signal itself can be broken down into three components: Direct signal, Early reflections, reverberation. The direct signal is made up of the original, incident sound that travels from the source to the listener. Early reflections consist of the first few reflections that are projected to the listener off of major boundaries within an acoustic space; these reflections generally give the listener subconscious cues as to the size of the room. The last set of signal reflections make up the actual reverberation characteristic. These signals are composed of random reflections that travel from boundary to boundary in a room and are so closely spaced that the brain can't discern the individual reflections. When combined, they are perceived as a single decaying signal.

---

Now what you're describing sounds to me like the early reflections. Which I am saying are not what predelay actual represents. I do admit that it can be used that way which is what I said earlier here:

Quote EnlightenedHand:

---

However, if you are applying the reverb effect in parallel then the dry portion of the sound will stand out more if you use a longer predelay and turn the level of the wet sound down till it's beneath the dry. I think this might be what Mike and the others that you're referencing are talking about. That's not the same as saying that "predelay gives an up front sound". What it seems they're referring to is a certain way to manipulate a reverb effect in parallel using longer predelay. Two different things.

---

As an example of a manufacturer of an artificial reverb not intending predelay to be the early reflections here's a screen shot of an artificial reverb with different controls for each parameter predelay and early reflections. If they were one in the same why would one need a control for each?

Liz

--------------------
MIRRORMIX STUDIO
blog

Here is another instance in which the manufacturer clearly doesn't think that Predelay is the same as early reflections.

Universal Audio "Dream Verb" screen shot

Here there is no term "predelay" used at all. There are only the terms "direct" and then "early" and then "late". And just so as not to confuse the issue further there is also a mix control for wet and dry so that no one can say that the "direct" control is the toggle for the dry sound. It seems my understanding is quite consistent with the understanding of some very prominent artificial reverb manufacturers.

Liz

--------------------
MIRRORMIX STUDIO
blog

Quote EnlightenedHand:

---

Here is another instance in which the manufacturer clearly doesn't think that Predelay is the same as early reflections.

Universal Audio "Dream Verb" screen shot

Liz

---

Is n't the 6.5 ms before the reflections sound the bit that could be referred to as the pre-delay? ie the time before the early reflection sound.

Probably but I don't know for sure as I don't use that particular reverb. If it were then it still wouldn't be the early reflections which is what the other poster was saying the predelay was.

Liz

--------------------
MIRRORMIX STUDIO
blog

If you look at the screenshot you'll notice the time delay before the first reflection appear in the "reflctions -edit" window. That delay is the early-reflections pre-delay and equals the difference in time between the original source and the early reflection. In the edit window for the late field reflections you'll also notice a small node for the late field envelope.
That node is draggable, and delays the late field reflections.
UAD refers to these as early reflection predelay and late field start.

Predelay is simply delaying the onset of reflections.(Both Early and late)

What exactly gives you the impression he's talking about ER and not predelay.
How does this describe early reflections
"The pre delay function is the length of time between the original source sound and the first reverberences of the acoustic space reaching the listener

--------------------
Phatcat Studios--"I love the smell of Genelecs in the morning"


Edited by Celsius (15/06/08 08:58 PM)

That might very well be so. And I'm inclined to agree with that. That would mean though that predelay isn't the early reflections themselves. That is what I think keeps coming up at issue here.

I guess the point that I've learned in this thread is that the official definition of predelay is rather unclear. What really matters is how one decides to work with a particular reverb and it's control parameters to create the effect that one desires.

I personally would like to see a reverb unit's controls consist of what is actually involved in the reverb phenomenon and that is the direct sound,(labeled as such), the early reflections and the reverberation as well as the other controls that don't inspire arguments like diffusion, size etc...

Upon further review I think that's what Valjean was saying earlier although I'm not sure if that's what he meant or not.

Liz

--------------------
MIRRORMIX STUDIO
blog

I suspect we might be talking semantics here.

I think you're right.

Liz

--------------------
MIRRORMIX STUDIO
blog

on my most recent mixes im using as little reverb as i can get away with

i tend to either automate it to create a feature in particular sections

or have it on a bus and EQ out un-necessary muddying elements

in logic 8 i will quite often use space designer/small warped spaces/rotor cabinet

on guitars and sometimes bass just to add a touch of air to close mic'd or di'd instruments

i will usually solo the drum stem and the element im treating with reverb and try to place them in the same room closing my eyes and just visualising the group, i find this a really helpful technique

reverb on vocals im finding it helpful to automate wetter in sparser break down sections or choruses (more energetic long note values) so it sounds as if the singer is backing away from the mic a little

hope some of these tips might help...

generally dont like a single reverb on the whole mix, although it can work in the right genre

OK, I'll give it one more shot, in the name of clarity and the sanctity of good mixing.

The timeline is as follows:


Original signal.

- followed by

*Optional* pre-delay, during which time the electronic reverberator produces *no* sound at all. This holds true for every reverb on the market, whether hardware or software.

- followed by

Early reflections.

- followed by

Main reverb and reverb tail.

The components that make up modern digital reverb are always present, they are not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. Pre-delay is optional, and some reverbs may not feature a dedicated pre-delay function. An easy workaround is delaying the dry signal before it reaches the reverb unit.

audioartist, you have made some very useful suggestions.

Quote Tui:

---

audioartist, you have made some very useful suggestions.

---

Indeed he did- I'll only add that slapping a compressor over the reverb, side-chained by one or a combination of different parts, can have very interesting results- if on a vocal, say, with the compressor side-chained by the drums (gentle compression, slow attack and release), it'll keep the reverb down during busy sections, then let it back up when things get a little sparser. Takes a little experimentation to get it right, but can really work nicely... and with more 'radical' settings sets up some pretty wild fx as well, if that's your bag.

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk

Back to the pre-delays - here's another useful tip - assuming your track is locked to certain tempo.

Just as you calculate your echo/delays to sit rhythmically, do the same for reverb pre-delays.

For example, at 120bpm your straight delays are 500, 250, 125 milliseconds. Continue dividing by two to give 62.5 and 31.25 and 15.63 milliseconds, and use these as your reverb pre-delays.

I know this may seem a bit microscopic and anal, but it does make a difference - esp with dance music, or anything with a dominant beat. It has a very pleasing, almost subliminal effect of keeping things super-tight.

If there's going to be a delay, no matter how small, it may as well be in time with the music.

Quote Evie McCreevie:

---

Just as you calculate your echo/delays to sit rhythmically, do the same for reverb pre-delays.

For example, at 120bpm your straight delays are 500, 250, 125 milliseconds. Continue dividing by two to give 62.5 and 31.25 and 15.63 milliseconds, and use these as your reverb pre-delays.

---

Interesting stuff. What reverbs do you use, if I may ask?