The "Reverb" thread

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

This is so... "niche." You guys realize, I hope, that if the realm of reverb possibilities runs from A to Z, all the clips posted here are in the range of L to M. Most normal people wouldn't be able to tell them apart.

Then again, this is me talking. You can give me a glass of really expensive wine and I'll say, "yep, tastes like grapes."

I find Brent's comments interesting because his thoughts reflect my thinking, as well.

I use reverb, probably too much sometimes, and I rarely use any other effect. I just don't care for the clutter of too much stuff in the recording.

My son has given me several Valhalla reverb plug-ins. For vocals I tend to mix a little of a plate reverb and a little of a vocal hall. For the guitar I tend to mix the same plate reverb with a little of a program for acoustic guitar.

I don't experiment too much with all this stuff since as Brent says, with the amount I am adding I can't hear the difference anyway. It all sounds good to me.

- Glenn

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Glennwillow

I find Brent's comments interesting because his thoughts reflect my thinking, as well.

I use reverb, probably too much sometimes, and I rarely use any other effect. I just don't care for the clutter of too much stuff in the recording.

Me, too. For the most part, I'm just looking to create a recording that conveys to the listener what I hear when I'm playing. Since it's just solo guitar, there's not much going on compared to a big production, and I don't want to clutter it up. I assume Brett's A-Z means all the various spacial effects that tend to get added to pop music. Tho interesting in its place, I don't find that kind of stuff very useful for solo guitar. I like the raw dry recording to sound pretty close to start with, but then there are lots of little touches that ideally are barely noticeable by themselves that sort of put back what's lost in the recording process. I have often wondered what a solo fingerstyle guitarist would sound like if produced like a pop tune, tho, and there are now a few guitarists out there who seem to be doing just that.

[min7b5]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

..
My "taste test" for reverb is really more about what it sounds like when the playback is stopped. I can get a pretty good idea of what the reverb sounds like from the tails. Generally speaking, if I can tell there's reverb while the track is playing it's too much for my tastes..

I agree. And of course one can use automation for abrupt stops in the tune if don't want the tail to be so obvious

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

That's really quality. The playing and the sonics are beyond lovely.

I've spent the last month or two demoing reverbs to replace my Lexicon bundle. I suppose I'm old school but there is a verb sound in my head. It probably distills to my history with the 244 and onward. I don't really strive for realistic room emulations, but more the smooth (sometimes animated) sounds of those early Lex verbs with the modulation that followed. I'm guessing that's why some of the convolution reverbs hit me (in a bad way) like a ton of bricks.

Thanks Joseph, I also mixed the reverb a little more realistically on this one. The earlier demos were a bit hot so the reverb could be heard. Of the Lexicon verbs, I like this "Random Hall" algorithm the most as it seems to have some subtle movement to it. The UAD 224 and 480 emulations are also nice, tho not having experience with the physical units, the interface is less intuitive to me than the modernized native bundle UIs.

[Aimelie]

I’m popping by to say that this has been a very informative thread and it’s greatly appreciated. I’m just beginning to scratch the surface of reverb plugins and I’m not sure it would have ever occurred to me otherwise to make a parallel track with the reverb EQ’d separately (although it now seems so obviously a good idea).

I also really appreciate seeing the screen captures of parameter settings. It gives me, a complete newbie, some idea of where to start. (And any prior posters who might like to share their screen captures of how they set things up would be pretty great, too.)

In any case, thanks so much to the OP and thread participants for this. I’m loving the music posted here and the subtle, almost-not-there reverb.

[lkingston]

I use Klevgrand’s Kleverb more than anything else. I like a very light, but good sounding reverb. My normal thing is to turn it up until I can barely hear it, then back it off a notch. It’s there, but not at all obvious.

Kleverb has a ducking feature which I really like. It pushes the reverb back a little bit at loud spots. You can do this with any reverb and sidechaining, but Kleverb makes it easy by having the controls within the plugin. The result is that the reverb muddies the track less while still giving you a nice tail.

I am on IOS these days and I appreciate the lower prices of IOS plugins.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Aimelie

I’m just popping by to say that this has been a very informative thread and it’s greatly appreciated. I’m just beginning to scratch the surface of reverb plugins and I’m not sure it would have ever occurred to me otherwise to make a parallel track with the reverb EQ’d separately (although it now seems so obviously a good idea).

I also really appreciate seeing the screen captures of parameter settings. It gives me, a complete newbie, some idea of where to start. (And any prior posters who might like to share their screen captures of how they set things up would be pretty great, too.)

In any case, thanks so much to the OP and thread participants for this. I’m loving the music posted here and the subtle, almost-not-there reverb.

Because I almost exclusively use my Hardware outboard reverb I won't have screen shots of the Reverb settings But I can show what the parallel set up is for this song

I always use PT Routing Folder tracks ( ie. collapsable stereo Bus ,Aux type tracks) on which are the sends to the parallel reverb track (labeled "M7 4th from right)


Because I am sending to reverb from multiple tracks the reverb is set to 100% wet and the reverb track volume fader is set (O) unity gain.

So in this song there are the Acoustic Rhythm guitar ,, the Acoustic Lead guitar ,,,and the Vocal track,,,, all sending to the parallel reverb track "M7"

For organizational reference The folder/bus tracks for those instruments are always named with contractions of those instrument functions ,,,, for example Acoustic Rhythm Guitar stereo Folder track is labeled "A Ry Gtr" (1st track far left mixer channel)

And the Sends are always labeled to reflect the name of the parallel track it is going to ie. "M7 Send" goes to the "M7" parallel reverb track.
The default naming for most DAW s are numbers,,, but I always use user defined templates and all tracks, are named by contractions of instrument function, all send busses aux tracks and I/O s are all named the same
in other words the parallel reverb track is named "M7" the send bus to that track is named "M7" the actual insert is named M7 all for quick and easy identifiable routing reference

And the send levels are adjusted ( reduced fro unity) for the amount of effect I want for each individual instrument and vocal (I'll post another screen shot of the individual send levels shortly. )

[Aimelie]

KevWind—you are a star.

Thanks for the tip, lkingston—yep, a bit pricier for the Mac OS version, sadly.

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

I assume Brett's A-Z means all the various spacial effects that tend to get added to pop music. Tho interesting in its place, I don't find that kind of stuff very useful for solo guitar.

In a general way, yes, all that. More specifically, the choices a mixer might make to take a specific piece of music further.

[KevWind]

Here is the same session and note the "folders" are collapsed


So here are the send level faders Far right = detached/floating from the respective tracks (how Pro tools allows you to do it) but Most DAWs let you adjust the individual send levels in some manner

So the black arrows in the mixer show the sends are all going to the input of the M7 parallel reverb track..
Opps (note, I just realized the black arrows I added are reversed from the actual signal flow,,, my bad )

Then on the send faders themselves you can see
Acoustic Rhythm send is @ -8.7,,,, the Acoustic Lead is @ -5.7 (more effect) and the Vocal is @ also @ -5.7.

BTW the particular M7 preset is the "London Plate" Preset with 32 Ms of pre delay

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

I've spent the last month or two demoing reverbs to replace my Lexicon bundle.

Liquid Sonics Reverberate might do it for you then.

[TBman]

So the question now that is in my mind is: Are all reverb tools/plugins the same and its just a matter of the preset you use/create or is there more to it?

[Doug Young]

Originally Posted by TBman

So the question now that is in my mind is: Are all reverb tools/plugins the same and its just a matter of the preset you use/create or is there more to it?

Different software, different algorithms. Many are similar, tho, if you aren't picky. Basic stuff like decay time, pre-delay and get you in the ballpark, as well as the choice of "type", Spring, Hall, Plate and so on - not that any two products necessarily agree on that those sound like. It's like anything else, guitars, amps, pedals, etc. Different designers make different choices, its not like every OM sounds the same. Of course they all sound like guitars...

[rick-slo]

What Doug said. For example my Waves IR reverb is often warmer sounding with the same IRs than my other IR software.

[Doug Young]

Here's a good example of more dramatic use of reverb (and other effects?), just posted by Dustin Furlow:

https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/....php?p=6686536