SOUND ON SOUND

[nickle15]

I'm working in Pro Tools and was wondering what is the most effective way - if there's a way - to capture the reverb from one track onto its own track to be used separately? I am working only with stock plugins. Thanks in advance.

[blinddrew]

Not familiar with pro-tools but can't you just send the output to a new track and set that to record the send?

[Kwackman]

I'm not a PT user either, but it should be possible as Drew says.
But, it probably won't work if you've inserted the reverb into an audio channel.
The reverb would need to be on a separate FX channel (if that's what it's called in PT) and fed by an auxiliary or FX send from the audio channels you want to add the reverb to.
I'm sure there's a clearer way to explain that!

[nickle15]

Thanks guys! That worked very well. I appreciate the feedback!!

[nickle15]

Ok, I jumped the gun and didn't accomplish what I meant to. When I went back to my original question I realized I might not have been clear so I'd like to re-open this topic.

Here's the scenario:

I have a vocal track that has been recorded dry. I will add a reverb plugin to the track to add reverb to the vocal. Is there a way to then have another track that captures ONLY the resulting reverb generated by the plugin without also bringing in the source vocal? I just want to capture the "echo" on its own track.

[desmond]

You shouldn't add a reverb plugin on the vocal channel, as you're just mixing the vocal and reverb at that point into one combined signal - whereas you specifically want them to remain separate.

You should follow more conventional reverb routing, and put the reverb on a bus, and send from the vocal channel to that bus. That way your vocal and the reverb for that vocal remain independent signals, and cab be routed/recorded independently in whatever way you want.

[nickle15]

Thanks for that. I misspoke there. So my experiment the other day involved the use of three tracks.

1. Vocal audio track (dry, with no plugin)
2. Aux track with reverb plugin
3. Blank audio track

My setup was track 1 output to bus 1 - input of track 2 was bus 1, and output was bus 2 - input of track 3 was bus 2.

So I think I might be close, but the result of this experiment was the reverb and vocal both landing on track 3.

[The Elf]

Thanks for that. I misspoke there. So my experiment the other day involved the use of three tracks.

1. Vocal audio track (dry, with no plugin)
2. Aux track with reverb plugin
3. Blank audio track

My setup was track 1 output to bus 1 - input of track 2 was bus 1, and output was bus 2 - input of track 3 was bus 2.

So I think I might be close, but the result of this experiment was the reverb and vocal both landing on track 3.

I suspect you have the wet/dry mix on the reverb set wrongly. It should be 100% wet.

[nickle15]

Thanks for that. I misspoke there. So my experiment the other day involved the use of three tracks.

1. Vocal audio track (dry, with no plugin)
2. Aux track with reverb plugin
3. Blank audio track

My setup was track 1 output to bus 1 - input of track 2 was bus 1, and output was bus 2 - input of track 3 was bus 2.

So I think I might be close, but the result of this experiment was the reverb and vocal both landing on track 3.

I suspect you have the wet/dry mix on the reverb set wrongly. It should be 100% wet.

I'll certainly give that a look. Sorry for my lack of knowledge here but would the wet/dry mix be responsible for removing the source vocal audio?

[The Elf]

Yes, that's the point. When you use a reverb on a send (as you should - not as a track insert), then you want it 100% wet.

I think you're routing the vocal to the reverb track - don't do that. Use a send. In Logic-speak (I don't use Logic) I think that's a 'Aux'.

[desmond]

Sorry for my lack of knowledge here but would the wet/dry mix be responsible for removing the source vocal audio?

Yes, it's the blend between the dry (incoming vocal signal) and the generated reverb signals.

Your dry vocal signal is handled on the original channel - so you should set your reverb to 100% wet to *only* output the reverb signal. You should always do this on FX processors on aux channels used like this.

[desmond]

I think you're routing the vocal to the reverb track - don't do that. Use a send.

+1

In Logic-speak (I don't use Logic) I think that's a 'Aux'.

No, in Logic it's "Sends" to a "Bus" which ends up in an "Aux" channel.

But I think the OP is in ProTools anyway.

[The Elf]

No, in Logic it's "Sends" to a "Bus" which ends up in an "Aux" channel.

Yeah, I find both the Logic and PT nomenclature baffling! Ta! :thumbup:

[nickle15]

I think you're routing the vocal to the reverb track - don't do that. Use a send.

+1

In Logic-speak (I don't use Logic) I think that's a 'Aux'.

No, in Logic it's "Sends" to a "Bus" which ends up in an "Aux" channel.

But I think the OP is in ProTools anyway.

Yes, I'm in Pro Tools but I followed. Thanks!

[nickle15]

So I think part of my confusion resulted from thinking the wet/dry mix was keeping the dry audio signal in place and just adding more and more reverb as you cranked it up. If I understand correctly it's more a matter of adjusting the actual ratio of the source audio to the resulting reverb. In other words, the higher the wet level the lower the dry signal gets.
Do I have that right?