SOUND ON SOUND

[The Elf]

I'm struggling to see, assuming the same ER patterns are chosen, how this method differs from using a few simple delays.

[Gone To Lunch]

I'm struggling to see, assuming the same ER patterns are chosen, how this method differs from using a few simple delays.

I don't know for sure. I am hoping Uncle Hugh will be along shortly.

But as a guess, could it be that since Aether creates the reverberation in realtime, the four differently delayed ER algorithms create four different reverberations which are then combined via the shared LR algorithm, not least because the four ER algorithms are supplied by different sound sources ?

Eg, in my track :

F = front - strings
FM = front midddle - winds
BM = back middle - horns
B = back - percussion

In contrast to the four discrete delays going into the one ER + LR combined.

Thus in the four ER + one LR set up, there is more variation in source, and therefore in output, which I then optimistically perceive as 'better' and 'more realistic' ?

[Gone To Lunch]

But surely Gone To Lunch is actually in his description using one reverb (and Aether is my go-to choice as well), but inserting its early reflections at different times from the different delay taps, before sending all of them into the late reflections of that same reverb.

I have now gone back to using just one single reverb instance, but changing the amount sent from each instrument. Because I found that changing the frequency profiles available in Aether actually gave better results. In other words, I hadn't yet understood what this function is in Aether, but when I explored it in more detail, it is very powerful, and works much better than doing EQ on the reverb aux output.

The down side is the ultra-tiny rev send controls in DP, too small to be seen with the naked eye, and no useful numerical display.

Another up side is that it is much easier to trawl through all the presets at the beginning of the process.

[Moroccomoose]

I Have a question about how pushing the sound further back affects the panning.

Using my Rompler (Proteus 2000), I have 3 stereo pairs for outputs. So I have these set up with delays prior to sending to the reverb for near middle and far distance.

I am now in the process off arranging the orchestra using the MIDI panning and the front to back outputs to place the instruments in the pit.

As an element is pushed further back from the listening position, (not) using the delay, then sending to reverb, do I also need to pan out further. eg 1st violins near the front go to the longest delay with a paning of say L48 and the 1st violins towards the middle go to the next shorter delay with panning to L63. Or do I give both front and middle instruments the same panning.

I get if it sounds good, its good etc and that this is probably a second order effect to the overall sound, but I model physics in my day job and wondered how might be the most accurate way to model the orchestra panning when the instrument is given depth.

Stu.

[The Elf]

Massive generalisation warning...

Source signals further away will exhibit less stereo 'width'. Sources closer to us (imagine your head inside a piano!) will exhibit more stereo 'width'. Their reverb is agnostic.

So to make something seem more distant I would typically use less overt panning and narrow (if not simply mono) source material.

[Hugh Robjohns]

I guess it depends on what orchestral layout you're trying to model.... ;)

Really, I understand you want it to 'be right' but there is no 'right' because every orchestra is different and their seating plans change with different venues and different repertoires.

So just fiddle with the panning until it sounds right to you... but as the Elf says, the image width tends to decrease the further away things are...

H

[Moroccomoose]

Thanks, that settles the argument in my mind! I was torn between visualising panning as an angle in the sonic field, or as a distance to the right or left from the listening position. By visualising as an angle, no need to push things further L or R as they radiate away from the listening position.

Right - now to set up all the articulations :headbang: :beamup:

Cheers!

[Peterlkarl]

I always set up 3-4 reverbs in DP, though not usually to simulate an orchestral performance environment. If I'm understanding what you're trying to, you could just set up 4 stereo Aux sends and returns, each with similar Proverb impulse responses employed, but varying pre-delay settings, (and maybe progressively longer decay times). Have a ball!

[The Elf]

I always set up 3-4 reverbs in DP, though not usually to simulate an orchestral performance environment. If I'm understanding what you're trying to, you could just set up 4 stereo Aux sends and returns, each with similar Proverb impulse responses employed, but varying pre-delay settings, (and maybe progressively longer decay times). Have a ball!

As I explained above, one reverb produces a less cluttered, less phasey and more convicing result that simply adding the same reverb multiple times.

Try it yourself and see.

[Zukan]

Good technique Elf. I like.

[tadghostal]

This is an excellent source of info! Thanks Elf and co. I've learned a lot just by reading this and trying it out. I'm going to incorporate it into my newbie work and see how it pans out

[Martin Walker]

This is an excellent source of info! Thanks Elf and co. I've learned a lot just by reading this and trying it out. I'm going to incorporate it into my newbie work and see how it pans out

Of course you get extra SOS forum points for managing to slip in a pun there tadhostal :clap:


Martin

[ManFromGlass]

Pantastic ;)

[Wonks]

Don't fader way.

[ManFromGlass]

the constitution of an aux

[Gone To Lunch]

As I explained above, one reverb produces a less cluttered, less phasey and more convicing result that simply adding the same reverb multiple times.

Try it yourself and see.

Indeed I did try this and that is exactly what I found, it is less cluttered and more convincing.

But I also grouped some of the sends thus, because it is such a PITA to use microscopic send controls in DP, I send individual instruments to a shared reverb aux bus thus

Strings - Vln1, Vln2, Vla, Vc, DB
WindsL - flute, oboe etc
WindsR- clarinets
Perc - all of them
Horns
Trumpets
Tbones
Piano, Mallets remain individual

However the indiv instruments are panned individually, they just share a common reverb

The reverb sends from the aux bus are varied to fake distance thus

B - Perc = 0
BM - Brass -4
FM - Winds -8
F - Strings - 12

Keys and Mallets in between BM & FM - 6

This is the best so far, but of course I am now drowning in the hell of infinite editing opportunities without a deadline to meet.

[Sam Spoons]

That looks as if you are delaying the strings and not the percussion, surely the percussion, who are at the front of the orchestra, would need more delay than the percussion who are at the back?

[Wonks]

That looks as if you are delaying the strings and not the percussion, surely the percussion, who are at the front of the orchestra, would need more delay than the percussion who are at the back?

Percussion front and back? Obviously a severe case of 'more cowbell'.

[Sam Spoons]

Bugger :blush: , changed my mind on the phrasing but buggered up my edit (in my defence it was well past beer-o'clock).......

Percussion at back, long delay, strings at front short or no delay.

[jimjazzdad]

As I explained above, one reverb produces a less cluttered, less phasey and more convicing result that simply adding the same reverb multiple times.

Try it yourself and see.

Indeed I did try this and that is exactly what I found, it is less cluttered and more convincing.

But I also grouped some of the sends thus, because it is such a PITA to use microscopic send controls in DP, I send individual instruments to a shared reverb aux bus thus

Strings - Vln1, Vln2, Vla, Vc, DB
WindsL - flute, oboe etc
WindsR- clarinets
Perc - all of them
Horns
Trumpets
Tbones
Piano, Mallets remain individual

However the indiv instruments are panned individually, they just share a common reverb

The reverb sends from the aux bus are varied to fake distance thus

B - Perc = 0
BM - Brass -4
FM - Winds -8
F - Strings - 12

Keys and Mallets in between BM & FM - 6

This is the best so far, but of course I am now drowning in the hell of infinite editing opportunities without a deadline to meet.

Wow. Reading this makes my small but orderly brain hurt! This is exactly why I like to capture orchestra as simply as possible - an MS pair or maybe spaced omnis - and add a bit of Bricasti dust on the stereo bus as required. A well placed coincident pair will always give a more realistic image with depth than any amount of hocus pocus in post... (just my humble opinion; carry on!)