Where's the beef, I mean Reverb?

[Dylan]

It seems that a lot of new rock/pop productions are going for a more "in your face" sound by using less or no reverb in the mix. Maybe it's just me, but I happen to love a good reverb in the mix. I don't care what the style of music is, but almost all of my favorite CD's have a kick-ass verb somewhere, whether it's Sting or Guns N' Roses. Most oldies tunes circa 60's/70's use tons of reverb (usually a plate), and I still find many of these songs to be incredibly nice to listen to. In fact, if I A/B the oldies station to a current pop station it's not uncommon for me to prefer the sound of the oldies station overall. Am I alone here? Granted, if you use a room with great acoustics then you might not need to use any reverb. But for the rest of the world who works in places with less than pleasing sound I usually find reverb to help the overall mix in general.

 

-Dylan

[stanner]

and your point is...?

[dansouth]

I like reverb. I've been spending a lot of time in the last year listening closely to the reverbs on great records, new and old. I don't think you have to omit reverb to get and "in your face" sound, but the tails have to be shorter, and you have to cut some lows to keep the verb from sounding too "soupy." The "in your face" sounds seems to be the result of creative use of compression.

[Lee Flier]

Dylan, I think (as usual) that everything depends on the song. Some songs seem to demand a lot of reverb. Others sound goofy with it.

 

I actually am kind of enjoying the trend away from using too much reverb on stuff (which is good considering there's damn little I enjoy about the quality of most current stuff on the radio) because frankly, not that many people get great sounds out of digital reverbs anyhow. Yeah all those plates and live chambers in the 60's sounded great, but not many people have those anymore. I'd rather hear natural room sound, or a very dry overcompressed sound like a lot of what you hear these days, than a cheesy sounding digital reverb.

 

That said, considering that I do like lush reverb for some things, I HAVE learned quite a few ways to tweak digital verbs so they sound less harsh even when laid on pretty thick. Probably the biggest mistake people make is to leave all or most of the high end in. Sounds very metallic and nasty. I always roll off everything above 6K or so in the verb returns and sometimes go even lower. I also use quite a bit of predelay most of the time so the attack doesn't get washed out. And yeah, shorter reverbs tend to do it for me more so than longer ones, unless for some reason the song really demands it for a cool effect.

 

Another trick I really like on lead vocals is to put a delay on the vocal and add reverb only to the delayed signal, not the original. That's kinda the best of both worlds. Backing vocals, I still do like to hear lots of reverb on those. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

--Lee

 

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 04-09-2001 at 04:56 PM

[Dylan]

Originally posted by stanner:

and your point is...?

 

Sorry for not being more specific. Didn't mean to rant on and on and on... The jest of this post is to get feedback on how people are using reverb in their mixes today and why it seems like that most rock productions are avoiding it in general. Like Lee pointed out, it's nice to see people use reverb more efficiently today unlike in the 80's where everything had a huge gloss over the mix (i.e., Power Ballads). Still, I think that reverb usually enhances the mix regardless of the style of music that is used. Of course how much of it and what type is used is subject to debate. Thanks for the feedback so far!

 

-Dylan

[ChrisJ]

I HAVE learned quite a few ways to tweak digital verbs so they sound less harsh even when laid on pretty thick.

 

Probably the biggest mistake people make is to leave all or most of the high end in. Sounds very metallic and nasty. I always roll off everything above 6K or so in the verb returns and sometimes go even lower.

 

I also use quite a bit of predelay most of the time so the attack doesn't get washed out.

 

shorter reverbs tend to do it for me more so than longer ones...

 

Another trick I really like on lead vocals is to put a delay on the vocal and add reverb only to the delayed signal, not the original.

 

--Lee

 

Lee,

 

Thanks for the tips!! I have a Lexicon MPX-1 (their lower mid-range unit) which allows a fair amount of tweak-ability. That's the good news. The difficulty is that with 12 adjustable parameters (to say nothing of the EQ and delay effects that can be combined with the reverb effect) the combinations of parameters are endless. Where does a beginner start?

 

Here are a few details of my setup so you have some idea of what I am working with. I am trying to record live to two track a small combo doing jazz ballads and some 70's era pop tunes. I want a smooth, lush sound without sacrificing clarity. I use a plate reverb a lot since I like that sound on lead vocals. I've been using longish pre-delays (40-70 msec), medium size rooms (45-60 ft.), I keep the diffusion high (70-100%), decay times 0.8 to 2.0 sec depending on the song tempo. I tend to keep the bass reverb time a bit shorter than the mid-range in order to keep things from sounding washed out in the low end. I tend to roll the high frequency content of the decay off at about 7.5 to 12 kHz.

 

Sometimes I have problems with the sound coming out harsh and metallic so I will try your idea of lowering the high frequency content.

 

There are also "shape" and "spread" parameters for controlling the attack-decay-sustain-release (ADSR). Have you explored variations of these type parameters? Basically they control whether there is a sudden build-up or a more natural ADSR curve.

 

I also tried a suggestion to compress the output of the reverb as a way to get longer sustain on the reverb without turning the level up. Perhaps I didn't do it correctly, but I was rather dissatisfied with the results.

 

I would also like to combine the reverb with the MPX-1's (internal) echo/delay in order to get a more spacious lead vocal without making it sound washed out. It seems that there is something of a paradox: more reverb imparts a lush,spacious sound (good) but at the expense of putting the lead vocal farther back on the soundstage (bad). How does one retain an initimate, upfront sound without making it sound dry and lifeless?

 

The added complication is that I have only one reverb for the whole band. The higher priced units like PCM-91 and TC M2000 and M3000 are beyond my budget for now. I decided to get one reverb of "reasonable" quality (i.e. the Lexicon MPX-1) rather than two lower priced units. Am I stuck until I can afford another reverb unit? Would you recommend getting a cheap reverb (few $100) to cover the snare and other instruments so that the vocal reverb can be optimized for vocals without worrying about the rest of the band? I have been going on the assumption that I needed at least a little of one reverb in all the tracks to provide some "glue" forthe mix. I track in a small converted garage (14'x20'x8') and have to close mic for isolation and to keep a poor sounding room out of the mix. Should I just accept my current limitations and start saving for a second "good" (PCM-91? TC M2000? M3000?) reverb?

 

Anyway, you said you've learned "quite a few ways" to improve reverbs so I was wondering if you had any more insights to share.

 

Thanks in advance,

Chris

 

This message has been edited by ChrisJ on 04-10-2001 at 06:45 AM

[Philip OKeefe]

It seems like the "less reverb" approach has been more common for the past few years now. I dunno, I think it's fine as far as it goes... I don't particularly care for the "wash everything in tons of 'verb" approach. However, I do think some songs / styles benefit from some reverb.

 

Certainly it's important to think of the depth / soundstage issues. Cut off a lot of the highs on the Vocal and wash it in verb and you're going to have a hard time getting it to sound "forward" in the mix. I agree with Lee - I usually bandpass my reverbs - I kill off everything over 6 KHz, and usually everything below 100 - 250 Hz. Killing the highs gets rid of some of that buzzy quality that everyone hates about digital reverbs, and cutting the bottom seems to help keep things from getting too mushy.

 

I prefer getting ambience from the room and mic technique instead of from a box, but I do miss the era when reverbs and effects were used as "effects" and not just slathered over everything in the mix for the entire song...

 

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA

http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by ChrisJ:

Thanks for the tips!! I have a Lexicon MPX-1 (their lower mid-range unit) which allows a fair amount of tweak-ability. That's the good news. The difficulty is that with 12 adjustable parameters (to say nothing of the EQ and delay effects that can be combined with the reverb effect) the combinations of parameters are endless. Where does a beginner start?

 

Hi Chris! The MPX1 is a nice unit!

 

It sounds like most of the things you're doing are right on, except that I would definitely lower the high frequency content a lot more than you're doing. That alone will probably help tremendously. If you're having problems with washout, the trick of using a delay and adding verb only to the delayed signal should help a lot - you won't lose the initial impact or intimacy, but you'll still have plenty of verb if you want it. Also, you may want to experiment with lowering the diffusion a bit if you have too much wash. But in general, combining the delay with the verb like that will give you that paradox that I think you're looking for: the singer is in a big room, but you're standing 6 inches from his nose.

 

The best way to familiarize yourself with each of the parameters is to spend some time time sweeping each one all the way through its range and see what it does. You should sometimes solo the verb return so you can hear exactly what it's doing, then pop the source back in there and see how the verb changes the character of the sound. I always do this when I buy any new piece of gear. Only by seeing what it really does at extreme levels can you begin to know what it's going to do at subtler levels.

 

As for the ADSR curve, I usually prefer a slower attack with few early reflections, if what you want is a nice lush verb that doesn't interfere too much. You can can increase the sustain if you want. I personally don't like the sound of compressed reverb either, in most cases.

 

The added complication is that I have only one reverb for the whole band. The higher priced units like PCM-91 and TC M2000 and M3000 are beyond my budget for now. I decided to get one reverb of "reasonable" quality (i.e. the Lexicon MPX-1) rather than two lower priced units. Am I stuck until I can afford another reverb unit? Would you recommend getting a cheap reverb (few $100) to cover the snare and other instruments so that the vocal reverb can be optimized for vocals without worrying about the rest of the band? I have been going on the assumption that I needed at least a little of one reverb in all the tracks to provide some "glue" forthe mix.

 

Two reverbs is what I normally go with. You're going live to 2-track, so if you want two reverbs, you'll need another unit. I generally have two verbs going on sends: a short, natural, fairly bright room or plate, and then a longer hall verb or the delay/verb combo for things like vocal effects. If I need a verb on the snare I tend to print that separately, but then I've got multitracks. I agree that usually one verb going across most of the tracks makes for a mix that sounds more like everybody is in the same room, and makes mixing easier.

 

If you do want another verb, by all means pick up a Lex MPX-100 for $200, which will give you two independent channels of effects and you won't have to be nearly as paranoid about it being ripped off at the gig. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif It sounds surprisingly good for the price too. Or for $400 you can get the MPX-500, also dual channel and even better sound. This unit is definitely nothing to sneeze at.

 

I track in a small converted garage (14'x20'x8') and have to close mic for isolation and to keep a poor sounding room out of the mix. Should I just accept my current limitations and start saving for a second "good" (PCM-91? TC M2000? M3000?) reverb?

 

I dunno. What are your goals? Is this just for your band or are you trying to make a commercial venture of it? In either case, I am guessing that if the room sounds bad and you are seriously thinking about spending that much money on a reverb unit, you might better spend the money on fixing up the room so it sounds good. In my opinion good acoustics trumps gear any day - especially for live to 2-track stuff! If the room sounds good, the band will be more inspired, the performances will be better and the whole process will be easier. I would say that the MPX1 is certainly something I'd be happy to live with until your room sounds good and then you can re-evaluate whether it's worth the money for a better effects processor. In fact, I'd be ecstatic to have an MPX1 right now - all I've got besides the internal reverbs on my Yamaha AW4416, is a couple of ancient Lexicon LXP1's - the cheapest of the cheap. And you know what? They really aren't that bad, if you dig into 'em with the MIDI controller and tweak 'em. It's all about perspective. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

BTW I'll bet you could easily score an LXP1 for $100 on eBay or some such thing.

 

I hope that helps.

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 04-10-2001 at 04:22 PM

[Anderton]

>>Yeah all those plates and live chambers in the 60's sounded great, but not many people have those anymore. I'd rather hear natural room sound, or a very dry overcompressed sound like a lot of what you hear these days, than a cheesy sounding digital reverb.<<

 

BINGO. You used to put some chamber on a voice, and go "oooooh, that sounds great!" Now you put digital reverb on a voice, and the reaction is "well, uh, I guess we can live without it..."

 

Actually I find this thread interesting because I too don't use reverb too much these days, and I used to use a lot. I think that part of this is that music has become more percussive and insistent; reverb diffuses that impact. On the other hand, by really reigning in the reverb, when you DO use it, the impact is far greater. There's one tune I did recently where there's no reverb on the drums, but then there's one breakbeat section where everything drops out except one snare hit. I drenched it in reverb, and the effect is sooooo cool.

[Anderton]

Okay, I'm going to give you my favorite digital reverb trick. Laugh if you will, but those who have tried it agree this is killer.

 

First, you need a Hot Springs reverb (I designed this and it's available as a kit from PAIA). Other spring reverbs will do, but without going into detail, the HS has the smoothest possible spring sound because it uses guitar hot rod pickup technology in a weirdass way.

 

Set up your digital reverb normally. Take two sends from the stereo reverb returns and send them into the stereo spring reverb. Take the returns from the springs, and feed them into two more channels (you now have four reverb returns, two stereo digital, and two stereo spring). Mix in the springs at some really low level, like -20. You'll find a "magic level" where the springs act like "sonic caulking" that fills in the cracks in the digital reverb, and diffuses some of the digital reverb's spikiness.

 

Don't laugh until you've tried it!

[dansouth]

Hey Chris,

 

The best advice that I can offer is to listen closely (with headphone) to CD's that you like and try to emulate the application of reverb and other effects from those recordings. Listen at various volume levels to get all the details.

 

I don't necessarily agree that modern recordings are reverb free. Engineers aren't omitting reverb, their applying it differently than they used to. Instead of drowning the drum kit in a big space, some drums are effected while others are completely dry. Some effects are panned, others are modulated by flangers, etc. One of the reasons for this is the quality of playback systems that we have today. In the 60's, you have to load the tracks with reverb in order to make crappy home systems and AM radio broadcasts sound rich. Today, a $70 portable CD player can put high fidelity playback into the hands of just about anyone. Engineers are getting better at putting subtle details into their mixes.

 

So break out the headphones, cue up some good tracks, and start listening. You're in for a real education.

[Lee Flier]

Ha! That's a trip, Craig! Have to try that one.

 

Also, don't rule out the possibility of a small chamber. You can make "natural" verbs in some pretty small funky spaces. Bathrooms and unfinished basements can be good. You can also build little chambers out of plywood and reflective material - build a "box" out of 4x8 sheets of plywood (or two or even three boxes stuck together for one long tunnel). Make the box so that the walls are not exactly parallel of course. Then you can put different reflective surfaces on each side - tile, wood, metal. Put a speaker at one end and a mic at the other, and attach both speaker and mic to a rod that sticks out of the box so you can move it around. Pointing the speaker toward different surfaces will produce different sounds, and moving the mic forward or backward in relation to the speaker will decrease or increase the reverb time.

 

If you are building more of a permanent setup you should insulate the box as much as possible. It won't sound like the echo chamber at Abbey Road, but it's cheap and sounds a hell of a lot better than a cheap digital reverb.

 

--Lee

[Philip OKeefe]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com:

Hey Chris,

 

I don't necessarily agree that modern recordings are reverb free. Engineers aren't omitting reverb, their applying it differently than they used to. Instead of drowning the drum kit in a big space, some drums are effected while others are completely dry. Some effects are panned, others are modulated by flangers, etc. B]

 

Aah, you just hit on a BIG reason why I usually use the "multi - mic / multi - track" approach to drum recording instead of the "minimalist" approach - I like being able to control individual elements of the kit as far as EQ and reverb are concerned. And if I want the sound of the minimalist approach, I just use the overheads / room mics / kick - snare mics (or whatever). There's no rule that says just because you have all those tracks printed you're obligated to use them all in the final mix... I tend to lean towards "subtractive" mixing a lot anyway...

 

BTW, Craig - thanks for the tip. I'll have to try that with the spring reverb - I have used it with dual digital devices before and it seems to help, but doing it with two dissimilar devices is probably MUCH better still....

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA

http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com