Where to go from here?

[coreyshields]

I'm using Reaper and the REAverb plug-in inside the software. I'm pretty sure what Kev said is exactly what i need.

So you guys are saying, instead of adding the verb directly to the vocal tracks, add it to the entire project once everything is recorded, right?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by coreyshields

I'm using Reaper and the REAverb plug-in inside the software. I'm pretty sure what Kev said is exactly what i need.

So you guys are saying, instead of adding the verb directly to the vocal tracks, add it to the entire project once everything is recorded, right?

No not exactly . (You could do it that way) but that is not what we are talking about. Because you may often want a different percentage of wet /dry blend on the vocal then what you might want say the guitar tracks or even Back Ground vocals (for example I often have the lead vocal going to the verb but not the BG vocals)
SO
We are talking about is setting up the reverb plugin on it's own track (not the master output) and sending the signal from the vocal track and or the guitar tracks to that track.

So for example for the vocal.
You can then just leave the wet/dry mix setting on the the reverb plugin itself at 100 % wet and instead adjust the amount of send from the vocal track to the verb track as the means of controlling blend percentage . This is a better solution for two reasons

#1 by not putting the reverb on the vocal track you are getting a 100 % dry unprocessed vocal signal going to the master output. To which you are adding a blend of reverb via the separate reverb track based on the amount of signal being sent to it.

#2 you can send multiple tracks each with their own specific amount of send, to the same reverb. This give you the advantage of having all the instruments and vocal in the same space (same reverb) but still control the exact amount of verb for each instrument and vocal separately via the send level.

Make sense ??

I do not use Reaper but here is tutorial of how to do it in Reaper

http://www.audiorecording.me/reaper-...mpression.html

[coreyshields]

Wow. Thank you Kev. That tutorial is awesome! I have never tried that. Time to start playing around.

[MikeBmusic]

Yes, exactly what Kev said. Depending on what impulse file I am using in ReaVerb (you are using one, I assume), I'll usually have a little more guitar sent to the reverb buss than vocal, with the vocal send around 18-21 and guitar around 15-18.

If you're not using impulse files, let me know and I'll dropbox you a huge batch of them!

[coreyshields]

Impulse files? Oh man. This is a whole new world to me. I would love it if you could post them!

[MikeBmusic]

Originally Posted by coreyshields

Impulse files? Oh man. This is a whole new world to me. I would love it if you could post them!

I'll try to remember to do it tonight from home. Read the Reaper manual section about ReaVerb and impulse files. Without them, your reverb is just a lifeless preset - that explains a lot about your sound.

[MikeBmusic]

The impulse files are HERE - there are over 500 of them, so it'll take you a while d/l! I'll leave them there until the end of the weekend.

[coreyshields]

You are the man! Downloading now. I know what I'm doing with my weekend.

[KevWind]

Couple more quick thoughts

While understanding there are always viable exceptions to any general rules. Another general rule is while time domain FX's like reverb and delay are often best set up in parallel ( except for the express purpose of featuring them as a noticeable effect) FX's like EQ and compression are often best placed directly on the audio tracks themselves.

[MikeBmusic]

Originally Posted by coreyshields

You are the man! Downloading now. I know what I'm doing with my weekend.

Enjoy, but don't go nuts! I've yet to explore much of this batch, but have used some of the 'room' files for a long time, I particularly like the La Scala Milan Opera House one - I use it on many tracks for the overall reverb buss that everything gets sent to (but I will often use it 3 times on a song - one buss for drums, one for other instruments and one for vocals so that any breaks/silence points don't get filled with some ambience I don't want there.)

Originally Posted by KevWind

Couple more quick thoughts

While understanding there are always viable exceptions to any general rules. Another general rule is while time domain FX's like reverb and delay are often best set up in parallel ( except for the express purpose of featuring them as a noticeable effect) FX's like EQ and compression are often best placed directly on the audio tracks themselves.

One exception is when using parallel compression, of course! Most often used for drums, parallel compression - meaning sending the original signal to another track (buss) and then adding that (at 100% wet) to the mix can achieve certain things like boosting the OOMPH of a kick drum or hit of a snare.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

One exception is when using parallel compression, of course! Most often used for drums, parallel compression - meaning sending the original signal to another track (buss) and then adding that (at 100% wet) to the mix can achieve certain things like boosting the OOMPH of a kick drum or hit of a snare.

Yes indeed a parallel comp is often used for drums and for the kick especially to add weight or thicken. And also often (as you may know) it is in addition to a comp being on the kick track itself and usually when this is done the comp on the kick track is set with a slow attack and less ratio and the parallel comp is strapped down pretty hard, fast attack and high ratio. to as you say get some extra oomph.

Here is another routing trick I just found about in regards to using a comp and a reverb for a vocal track, that I have yet to try but sounds interesting.

And that is instead of putting the comp on the vocal track itself, do put it on another track ( like parallel) BUT instead of sending to it from the vocal track . Actually route the "Output" of the vocal track to the input of the comp track, this unlike "parallel" means entire vocal gets put through the comp . Then do "send" from vocal track to the reverb. ( parallel)

What this does (signal flow wise) is allow the reverb to react to the unprocessed dynamics of the original vocal (via the send) before the vocal signal goes to its output and to the comp track, where the entire vocal gets dynamic processing .

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by coreyshields

Wow. Thank you Kev. That tutorial is awesome! I have never tried that. Time to start playing around.

I forgot to mention another advantage of doing the reverb that way and having both and unprocessed dry vocal going to the main outputs and the additional parallel reverb processed vocal going to the main outputs.

The advantage is That you retain the air, clarity and forward nature of an unprocessed vocal and you get the the more diffuse depth effect of the reverb.
Sort of the best of both worlds

Because one thing a reverb will definitely do (especially if used too heavy handedly) is pull the sound backward in the soundstage and make it more diffuse and less clear. Buy doing the reverb in parallel you get the effect of verb but retain the nice presence and air around the vocal.

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I forgot to mention another advantage of doing the reverb that way and having both and unprocessed dry vocal going to the main outputs and the additional parallel reverb processed vocal going to the main outputs.

The advantage is That you retain the air, clarity and forward nature of an unprocessed vocal and you get the the more diffuse depth effect of the reverb.
Sort of the best of both worlds

Because one thing a reverb will definitely do (especially if used too heavy handedly) is pull the sound backward in the soundstage and make it more diffuse and less clear. Buy doing the reverb in parallel you get the effect of verb but retain the nice presence and air around the vocal.

Techniques like this are one of the reasons to use sends instead of inline reverb. You could also do the opposite, compress what's sent to the reverb, for a smoother reverb effect. Or you can EQ the reverb send. For guitar, I usually put a de-clicker in the send path, so that the guitar is unaffected, but I don't get a click or squeak being exaggerated by triggering a reverb "ping".

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I forgot to mention another advantage of doing the reverb that way and having both and unprocessed dry vocal going to the main outputs and the additional parallel reverb processed vocal going to the main outputs.

The advantage is That you retain the air, clarity and forward nature of an unprocessed vocal and you get the the more diffuse depth effect of the reverb.
Sort of the best of both worlds

Because one thing a reverb will definitely do (especially if used too heavy handedly) is pull the sound backward in the soundstage and make it more diffuse and less clear. Buy doing the reverb in parallel you get the effect of verb but retain the nice presence and air around the vocal.

No difference using with a send if your reverb has a wet/dry control. There are other routing/flexibility advantages to using reverb on a send however.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

No difference using with a send if your reverb has a wet/dry control. There are other routing/flexibility advantages to using reverb on a send however.

I'm not exactly clear as exactly to what you are saying. But if you are saying there is no difference between putting a reverb (with a wet dry control) directly on the audio track and putting that same reverb on a parallel track and sending the audio to it. I have to respectfully disagree .

There is a distinct difference , with the send method you get a 100% dry sound signal going to the audio track output and you also get the sound of 100% wet reverb effect going to it's output, (reduced by level, not by wet/dry mix percentage) thus you get both going to the master outputs
With the verb on the audio track itself you are not getting a 100% dry signal, going to the output, wuth the wet/dry mix control you are getting the percentage of dry signal reduced by the percentage of wet.--- i.e. 85 %dry 15% wet going to output. And with the verb on the audio track itself and using the the wet/dry control what ever percentage of wet you set will there will be a relative amount that output signal will be drawn backwards into the mix, increasing dramatically with the the increase of wet being applied . Where as with the send method, this tends not to happen as relatively quickly giving you more % of usable blended effect with less reduction in forward presence, particularly with a vocal track.