Stereo vs. Mono vs. Panning of reverb=Plate vs other Reverbs?

[Glennwillow]

Hi DupleMeter,

Fascinating information!

Regarding a stairwell as an echo chamber, years ago while I was a student at Purdue, I lived on the 3rd floor of a dormitory there and when everyone had left for vacation, I would sometimes sit at the top of the stairwell and play and sing. I have always thought that a stairwell like that would make a great echo chamber!

- Glenn

[Bob Womack]

That was my senior college picture, shot on the second-and-a-half floor landing in the north stairwell of Carter Hall, Covenant College. It is an open-plan stairwell with an open well that goes all the way up, five floors. The acoustics are fantastic. The floor landings have eight-foot ceilings and the half-floor landings have sixteen-foot ceilings. Choose your reverb!

There's a picture of me playing my acoustic on the second floor landing lying around here somewhere. My daily routine included about an hour of practice in there. The above situation was the ONLY time I wore that buckle with a guitar. I still have the guitar.

Bob

[runamuck]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

Looks like you have to buy a package of stuff and can not just get the Plates by themselves with Acoustica Ebony?

Can you describe what is the difference in Characteristics between your Plates in Acoustica Ebony and Sunset Chamber?

Yes I know what you are talking about considering that Metallic sound...Do you think Liquid Sonics Sunset Chamber is void of that?

Sunset Chamber is one of my favorite presets and I don't hear any metallic sound in that.

Yeah, you need to buy Ebony, which includes EQs, a compressor etc to get the reverb. But the EQ is one of the best EQs you'll hear in a sampled plugin and much better compared to most of the algorithmic stuff. I don't use it myself because I have other EQs from Acustica that I prefer.

The difference between the Ebony reverb and the Sunset Chamber is that Ebony is thicker and more lush, which is wonderful for some things and not so good on others.

You can download a trial of Ebony for free and if you have access to the Sunset Chamber compare for yourself. I like having both Ebony and Seventh Heaven as longer reverbs. For short reflections and rooms I use the Lexicon plugins.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

I That was most likely a Lexicon 224 digital reverb. It was revolutionary and was the most popular top-end unit in the U.S. The huge sound on the vocal is caused by a long pre-delay, likely within the 224 unit itself. The reverb sounds like the plate - set quite bright. It isn't very long. What pre-delay does is separate the reverb from the source, allowing deep, long reverb without turning the foreground to mush. Pre-delay is the last fader on the right below:


That was recorded at Decca Studios, West Hampstead. They had two reverb rooms but the engineers preferred to use their EMT plates because they were easier to tweak. Once again, the vocal reverb has pre-delay, probably created by routing the reverb feed through a tape deck. The delay is really long - perhaps 7 1/2 IPS, while, again, the actual reverb is short. Notice how much darker the reverb is than Bryan's. The reverb is quite diffuse, though. Notice that the snare at 1:59 has NO pre-delay again.The idea was that the reverb stayed geographically with its assigned source to prevent cluttering the whole mix. There are two schools of thought here:
1. the reverb stays geographically with the source to prevent mush and clutter.
2. Pan the reverb to the opposite side from the source in order to spread the mix across the stereo field.
Bob

Originally Posted by nightchef

1. The single biggest thing that helped me use reverb better was learning to use EQ. If you Google “Abbey Road reverb trick” you’ll learn one common (and pretty effective) approach to this, but you’ll find that each mix/source/reverb algorithm or IR may require a slightly different approach. For instance, you’ll likely want to be much more aggressive with both highpass and lowpass filtering on a reverb that’s being used in a busy rock mix. For a simple guitar and vocal mix, you might end up using the reverb with little or no filtering. (In fact, when an acoustic guitar is the only instrument, some extra low end fullness from the reverb may be highly desirable.)

Also, it’s worth experimenting with the effect of applying EQ to either the reverb send or the return; I’m finding that it can work nicely to apply highpass filtering to the send (so the low frequencies are reduced before the algorithm is applied) and lowpass filtering to the return (so the high frequencies are included in the reverb algorithm, but then reduced in the mix).

2. About the difference between plates & other sounds—as I understand it, the biggest thing that distinguishes a plate from other types of reverbs is the very high echo density, meaning that the reflections build up so quickly that the reverb sounds like a continuous wash rather than a set of overlapping/interacting echoes. This is particularly good for sounds with sharp transients, like drums, but it works well for many things. The opposite extreme would be hall reverbs, in which reflections build up more slowly and you can often hear discrete echoes in the early parts of the reverb tail. This is great for creating a sense of lush, three-dimensional space, but can be tricky to fit into a busy mix. Room reverbs will generally be somewhere in between these extremes. Chamber reverbs tend to have high density like plates, but sound different because of the way the different media (metal vs. air) transmit different frequencies over time. I don’t understand this terribly well, but Sean Costello of Valhalla DSP explains it well here:

https://valhalladsp.com/2015/11/07/c...versus-plates/

[QUOTE=DupleMeter;6760639]I'm just finishing up an article that will run on Production Expert very soon all about a reverb trick I learned while hanging out with William Wittman (Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osbourne, The Hooters, The Outfield). It's a really cool trick & explains those great reverb sounds of classic albums that seem big, yet not obtrusive...somehow staying completely out of the way.

Originally Posted by runamuck

Sunset Chamber is one of my favorite presets and I don't hear any metallic sound in that.

Yeah, you need to buy Ebony, which includes EQs, a compressor etc to get the reverb.

The difference between the Ebony reverb and the Sunset Chamber is that Ebony is thicker and more lush, which is wonderful for some things and not so good on others.

* I look forward to reading your article DupleMeter. Can you tell us when and where this article will be available for reading?

So much to learn and to study. I sincerely appreciate all the input given. Truth be told, I am sure whom ever mixes my stuff will have great reverbs & years of knowledge that I shall never achieve. Yet, I still would love to have the best reverbs I can afford. This will help me immensely when it comes time to relaying what type of reverb sound I believe I need.

With that being said, What the novice(me) thinks he wants, and what the novice(me) & what he really needs, are often two entirely different things. This has happened to me over and over again. I have changed directions so many times realizing that what I thought was right for me was not.

However, I will say this over and over...some of the best finished products are sometimes created by joint venture between the master and the student. As a past Commercial photographer, some of my techniques I developed became the standard of the industry. As a past Custom knife maker, my knives gained quite a reputation for their uniqueness, accuracy and they way they fit into the hand. Regardless of what ever I contributed to my products, I always found the customers input to be extremely valuable. If we don't try new things then nothing new gets invented. If we don't listen to the customer then they might not get what they needed. On the other side of the coin A little bit of knowledge is often a dangerous thing. ha ha..The worst words you can ever hear as a manufacturer is " ALL YOU GOTTA TO DO." Rarely is "all you got to do", an easy venture.

Anyway...with that in mind...I would like to know what you Bob Womack and you DupleMeter, think are the best plug ins for the type of sound I have mentioned? Several great replies that Seventh Heaven and Ebony are of excellent quality.

As a side note: When searching for youtube videos of "Nights in White Satin" for my original post...I first found a Re-mastered version. It sounded quite lifeless as to what I had remembered. Then I found the original version..(the one I posted) and the reverb was so much more lush and gave that euphoric feeling that Justin Hayward deserves for this wondrous song. I realize now that I have heard a few other re-mastered songs where the reverb was cut back as well. I Imagine they are trying to modernize it or give it more clarity, but it kills the vibe.

Like Glennwillow & Bob Womack, I too loved playing in a hallway next to a stairway. My brother and his friend...both flutists, would go to the college campus and play in the hallways in the late hours of the night till early morning.

I love reverb and echo. My Chamberlain I owned for many years(the first Melotron) was nothing without reverb. That is also on my chain of lists to buy...a midi keyboard and symphonic program.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

As a side note: When searching for youtube videos of "Nights in White Satin" for my original post...I first found a Re-mastered version. It sounded quite lifeless as to what I had remembered. Then I found the original version..(the one I posted) and the reverb was so much more lush and gave that euphoric feeling that Justin Hayward deserves for this wondrous song. I realize now that I have heard a few other re-mastered songs where the reverb was cut back as well. I Imagine they are trying to modernize it or give it more clarity, but it kills the vibe.

I've had a similar experience multiple times in recent months. I've always been one to buy an album (later cd) rather than a single but I've taken on an endeavor that forced me to alter that philosophy. I've been trying to build up some iPod playlists. For personal reasons, one of them is titled "1964-1976" and I'm collecting songs I remember and liked from that period. That playlist is now nearly 1300 songs long but in the process of putting it together, I've often had to decide between multiple versions of the same songs and many times there would be a remastered version among the choices. More often than not, I rejected the remastered versions because they sounded terrible.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

And what really peaked my interest of recent is listening to the Steely Dan engineer saying that he used Three EMT140 plates.

The AGF ACG thinks you should buy THIS!

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by jim1960

I've had a similar experience multiple times in recent months. I've always been one to buy an album (later cd) rather than a single but I've taken on an endeavor that forced me to alter that philosophy. I've been trying to build up some iPod playlists. For personal reasons, one of them is titled "1964-1976" and I'm collecting songs I remember and liked from that period. That playlist is now nearly 1300 songs long but in the process of putting it together, I've often had to decide between multiple versions of the same songs and many times there would be a remastered version among the choices. More often than not, I rejected the remastered versions because they sounded terrible.

I am so glad to hear that this is not just in my imagination.

So the big question is...why do you think this is happening? Is it because the new engineers want to put their thumb print on it by making it radically different and thus claiming more as theirs?

Or is it a case of a new generation of of differently trained ears? Ears that like their music with different eq and reverb?

What ever the case, I find this horrifying. Its like altering a former masterpiece. However, I did hear a remaster Zepplin piece that I thought was excellent. So there must be some remastered stuff that is better than the original. I hope anyway.

A have a friend who is an accomplished engineer. Comes from the younger generation. Loves much of the old music. But claims he can not listen to a lot of it cause he does not like the quality of sound. An example is the Beatles. Loves their music but says he can't listen to it cause he does not like how it was recorded. I do have some understanding in this. After all, the quality was not particularly great then.

He also has slightly different tastes than myself in microphones. For instance he said he never liked KM84's and when he heard my Schoeps he wasn't too impressed as well. Yet, I have heard his stuff and it is excellent quality.

I think some of it has to do with what we are use to, and how we learned to listen to music. But that still does not negate the fact that when I listen to my guitar through Schoeps, it sounds very realistic. I do very much value his opinion. I think he is right on in certain areas.

As a lover of old classic movies...I love many of the colors of films in the 30's and 40's. They use a form of additive positives back then. a Kodachrome like film. Later they moved to a subtractive positives of Ektachrome. The Colors of Kodachrome are not true to life, high contrast with lots of reds. But I love them. I like the colors condensed. In many ways it is a form of compression...just with colors. So I do know that part of my likes comes from what I grew up on.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

I am so glad to hear that this is not just in my imagination.

So the big question is...why do you think this is happening? Is it because the new engineers want to put their thumb print on it by making it radically different and thus claiming more as theirs?

Or is it a case of a new generation of of differently trained ears? Ears that like their music with different eq and reverb?

I think there are a couple of things at play in this...
First, there's little in remastering if the remaster is going to try to duplicate the sonic footprint of the original. It has to be noticeably different if it's going to sell.
Second, we live in a time when much of music is hyped in the upper frequencies, so I think they're attempting to place that music in more familiar territory for newer listeners.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

* I look forward to reading your article DupleMeter. Can you tell us when and where this article will be available for reading?

I am not entirely sure when it will run on the site. I'll try to remember to let everyone know. They have the article & just need to process it for the site. I assume it will get pushed out sometime over the next week. When it does run it will be on www.production-expert.com - they also typically post on social when new articles hit the site, if you're on Facebook or Instagram.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

As a side note: When searching for youtube videos of "Nights in White Satin" for my original post...I first found a Re-mastered version. It sounded quite lifeless as to what I had remembered. Then I found the original version..(the one I posted) and the reverb was so much more lush and gave that euphoric feeling that Justin Hayward deserves for this wondrous song. I realize now that I have heard a few other re-mastered songs where the reverb was cut back as well. I Imagine they are trying to modernize it or give it more clarity, but it kills the vibe.

So true. Did you hear the remix of Stairway To Heaven that was done at Sunset Sound? It may be "technically" cleaner...but it's just a disaster of mix. Some things just don't need to be improved.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

I am so glad to hear that this is not just in my imagination.So the big question is...why do you think this is happening? Is it because the new engineers want to put their thumb print on it by making it radically different and thus claiming more as theirs?

You should understand that the real power in the process is the producer, not the engineer. In the recording process the producer lives in a world between the artist and the record company. In the remastering process, there are all sorts of power lines. Most of the "remasters" of the 1980s were accomplished by sending an office assistant down to the archives to fetch whatever miserable copy came first to hand. When he heard His albums were to be remastered around 2003, Tom Scholz, leader of the band Boston, demanded authority to remaster them. When The Allman Brothers Live at Fillmore East was to be remixed in the '90s, Capricorn brought back the original producer/engineer, Tom Dowd. These days there is a certain push to "clean up" old recordings. It can really muck things up, as you've found. I ended up having to buy remasters from "subscription remastering" services like Audio Fidelity (RIP), Mobile Fidelity, etc. because they show a lot more respect for the original intent. Even then, one of Joe Walsh's albums was mucked up with too much bass and too little high end because that was the signature of one of the people involved with the remastering.

I watched as reverb philosophy and taste went from very natural at the beginning of the '80s to extremely unnatural by the mid-'80s. For instance, gated reverb came in and it is highly unnatural. Then in 1996 T-Bone Burnett was in his ascendancy and lo-fi was on the rise, including reverb. T-Bone actually had his engineers apply a grainy distortion to his final mixes, reminiscent of the multitrack distortion induced into all the early Queen recordings by their producer Roy Thomas Baker's technique of using a Stephens 32 track 2" tape machine (with its reduced track width compared to a 24 track and resultant lower threshold of distortion) and pushing the recording levels so far that distortion was intentionally created. Both sounds set my teeth on edge. I expect someone has probably goobered around and tried iZotope De-Clip on Queen. However, lo-fi is now the trend in Americana music as a result of T-Bone's influence.

All that to say that I've witnessed many fads in recording taste. There was a time when the AKG 414 mic was heavily used in classical recording because it was quite "literal." Somewhere along the line people decided they preferred pretty to literal. For the literal gang the Schoeps mics came into favor. But you know, they keep coming back to pretty and Neumann. Funny, huh?

Bob

[nightchef]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Even then, one of Joe Walsh's albums was mucked up with too much bass and too little high end because that was the signature of one of the people involved with the remastering.

And of course it's easy to forget that the original versions of classic records were also the product of people with specific tastes, preferences and habits; they weren't handed down on stone tablets from Mt. Sinai.

Even as an 8-year-old kid, when I listened to Revolver, I remember thinking how wildly different it sounded than any previous Beatles records. It didn't have the smooth, elegant texture of Rubber Soul. It sounded present and insistent and a bit disturbing.

At the time, I was totally unaware of the role of engineers and producers; I just thought the Beatles had changed their sound--which was certainly part of it. But I know now that a great deal of the difference was directly attributable to a cocky 20-year-old who had been newly promoted to the engineer's chair and wanted to push the envelope.