Mixing without reverb?

[swinkler]

This might be a dumb or pedantic question, but is there merit to mixing without reverb?

Steve Winkler

[DPDAN]

merit?


every recording of real musicians have some space.
Dan

[swinkler]

true and I didn't mean the final product be without reverb. I just wondered if it helps hear anything that reverb might mask.

steve

[rbowser-]

Hi, Swinkler - Dan's reply may have been so succinct that you missed the point. He was indicating that the whole point of reverb is to create the impression in a recording that the music was performed in a real life space, either small or large.

And that means that mixing without reverb would result in a track that doesn't sound natural - as if it wasn't a recording of something done in an actual real-life space.

Some people apply a single reverb setting to everything in their mix, with the theory that this is closest to simulating how music is heard in an actual performance space. But that over looks the difference between a recording and the experience of being in a hall where live music is being performed. Satisfactory recordings demand a lot of "fudging" with what actually happens in real life.

To create the semblance of a live performance, it's perhaps ironic that we need to go to great lengths sometimes to give that impression with our recordings. It may call for, as an example, having a different reverb program, or at least a different degree of reverb, to be applied to the various instruments in our project. An easy example is that if we add the same amount of reverb to our bass strings as we do to the violins, we could be adding an unnecessary amount of muddiness to our finished track. And that's because bass frequencies can sound rather ugly bouncing around in the same amount of reverb as the rest of our track.

Whatever we do, the goal is to produce a recording that sounds "right" and "as if" it had been played by musicians in some kind of real life venue.

In other words, a recording devoid of reverb can never sound natural to our ears - even if our ears are relatively unsophisticated. "Laymen" actually have a remarkable acuity for discerning unsatisfactory recordings.

The samples we work with are in large "dry"-- lacking ambience. It's up to us as home studio artists to apply what amount of live ambience we feel is appropriate for a given project.

Randy B.

[rbowser-]

Reply Part Two:

Steve, you also said:

"... I just wondered if it helps hear anything that reverb might mask..."

I take that to mean you're a man after my own heart. I feel that reverb is generally over-used. People tend to add a lot of effect in an attempt to emulate classical music recordings they admire. But they often end up making it sound like their music is being played from a block away - distant and indistinct.

You're right that reverb can mask fine points in an orchestration. That's why I generally prefer recordings that are relatively "dry." I tend to keep the reverb to a subtle level in my own work.

But you do need to understand that there's a big difference between subtle reverb and No reverb. We do need to indicate the semblance of a live performance space in our projects, but there's no reason why we can't create an effect where the spectator (the listener) is in the Front row, close to the musicians, rather than way in the back of that performance space.

Reverb is essential to a good recording. We just need to use it sparingly, like a good spice.

Randy B.

[Hannes_F]

I think editing without reverb has its merits. Mixing not so much.

[rbowser-]

Hi, Hannes - Seems like over the years we haven't interacted very much-HELLO!

I so agree - Mixing without reverb is an important phase of my mixing. After a dry balance is sounding good, I start trying out reverb levels on the tracks, making subtle adjustments to the mix as a result. And then, there we are later on, after much work - The final master has reverb.

We've all heard some projects where reverb was either neglected or dispensed with entirely, and wondered how in the HEck we ever got one inch from the musicians--which is the effect that happens when there's no reverb on a mix.

Randy B.

[DPDAN]

I think editing without reverb has its merits. Mixing not so much.
Agree, editing without reverb is OK sometimes, but reverb should (IMO) never just be added to the mix.

All good comments here. Sometimes when I am editing midi I listen dry, but most of the time I have the instrument where it will most likely end up in the mix. It depends on what we are all comfortable with.

Dan :)

[swinkler]

I so agree - Mixing without reverb is an important phase of my mixing. After a dry balance is sounding good, I start trying out reverb levels on the tracks, making subtle adjustments to the mix as a result. And then, there we are later on, after much work - The final master has reverb.



I think editing without reverb has its merits. Mixing not so much.


This is what I was really asking but didn't use the right terminology.

The specific problem I'm trying to solve is tutti sections that are dense. I thought if I try to balance everything dry it would be clearer when I add reverb when each voice was in it's own "space".

steve

[Skysaw]

I prefer building a piece with a little reverb because it's just easier on the ears. At some point, I do like to check all my parts without the reverb, just to make sure there is nothing hiding in the cracks that needs to be fixed. Sometimes taking a listen dry can complete expose what was muddying up the mix.

When you are doing the final mix, then it is time to start worrying about what type of reverb, and how much to use.

I also agree with the sentiment that reverb is often overused, though often it only seems like too much because there are other factors muddying the reverb sound. I (as many do) put my reverbs on their own bus in my sequencer. I set them to 100% of the wet signal, and use the individual track send levels to control the amount of reverb for each track. I am personally a fan of putting an EQ on this bus input to cut the low end sharply. Typically anything around 55hz or lower, but it depends on the material. These are frequencies that can add serious mud to a mix without you really knowing why. Removing them will not make the mix sound too light on the bass end -- if done properly, it can actually focus the bass quite nicely.

[rbowser-]

Excellent advice, Jamie - Thanks for bringing the bass EQ up, and explaining what you do and why. I still use the S.I.R. free convolution reverb a fair amount. Very nifty EQ right there in the plug-in's GUI which I keep sharply dropped off from 55 on down.

Steve - Your new post was clarifying, thanks, and also something you said inspired me to drop off another tip:

"...The specific problem I'm trying to solve is tutti sections that are dense..."

Not everyone does this, but I assure you that when done with a careful touch, it can help out a lot:

--Automate the fader on your Reverb Bus. You should have the settings on your instrument Sends sounding the way you want with the Reverb Bus's fader up there at Zero. BUT, there's no reason the reverb level has to stay there in one place through an entire piece.

For thick Tutti sections like you're talking about, you can record automation (or draw it in) so the global amount of reverb being applied to the whole mix is lowered for those sections. Ears will not detect that change if you don't go over board with the dip. Over all volume of your mix isn't changing, just the percentage of reverb being applied has changed. Works great. And similarly, you can automate that fader to go Up at the end of a piece, to give a bigger, nicely fading reverb tail.

And of course automating the Sends on individual instrument tracks can be useful too. That can really add pizazz to things like momentary spotlighted moments - a clarinet swooping up, a horn shooting up for a forte passage - if you automate the instrument Send just momentarily on those big notes, you're simulating what happens in concert when those big, high, loud notes bounce off the walls more brightly.

And so forth.

Randy

[GRB53]

What an enlightening thread...I would have never thought manipulating reverb in these ways could make a recording not only cleaner but sound more realistic...can't wait to try it....thanks very much guys!

Randy

[rbowser-]

What an enlightening thread...I would have never thought manipulating reverb in these ways could make a recording not only cleaner but sound more realistic...can't wait to try it....thanks very much guys!

Randy
Yeah, this is/was a good thread discussion. If you just think of reverb as adding back the acoustical properties of sound/music occurring in a real space, then experimenting with it in your recordings becomes more intuitive.

Some libraries have the reverberant sound of live music recorded on the samples. The recordings were made in a hall, so all those natural effect of sound bouncing off of walls is built in. The problem with that is the user can't control the amount of reverb in their recordings - they're stuck with that one room size and amount of reverb.

When using "wet" sound sets like this, I've seen people ask on various Forums, "How do I get this darned reverb off of my samples??!"--and of course the answer is, they can't.

That's why for the most part the Garritan instruments are recorded "Dry," devoid of reverb. It's up to the user to decide what size room their music is theoretically playing in, and how close the audience (listener) is to the instruments. The more reverb is applied, the farther away the instruments are. --This can be carried to extreme, like when people add 100% reverb to their mix and it ends up sounding like the music is being played down the block.

That's why it's very helpful that in the Aria player, there's a built in, good sounding reverb, and on the main front screen there's a mixer for adding different amounts of reverb to each instrument. That's handy for people who don't set up complicated mixing configurations in their music software where reverb is usually added.

A track recorded with Garritan Libraries with no reverb added makes it sound like the music was recorded in an Anechoic chamber. (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-anechoic-chamber.htm) As it says on that site I've linked to, "...An anechoic chamber is a room with special walls that absorb as much sound as possible. Anechoic means "without echoes..."

And that sound of instruments totally devoid of reverb is completely unnatural. In real life we never anything devoid of reverb, the sound happening in some kind of space - even if it's a room a small as a closet.

So, go forth and reverberate!

Randy

[GRB53]

Sometimes the entire room even rests on shock absorbers, negating any vibration from the rest of the building or the outside.

Now that's an iso booth!

BTW, nothing happens when I click on "multi-quote" (using the newest IE)....wonder why...and how does one add a post with no quotes?
Thanks,
Randy

[ejr]

FWIW - Not being an expert in these matters, or finding hard and fast rules on when and how to use reverb, I did a lot of experimenting with my sample libraries and this is what I have settled on (so far):

I don't use reverb on the master mix. I use it just to make individual instruments sound less flat (or to make them sound more "realistic"). Since I notice the lack of reverb on wind instruments and percussion most, that is where I generally add it. I use in on JABB brass and some of the reeds from GPO and DD Solo WW Lite. And I find that most percussion instruments need it. It's the best way I've found to keep the volume of this section down to a reasonable level and still have it sound like percussion. I use the convolution reverb in Kontakt 2 (with minimal reflections -- just enough to give the instruments some breathing room) as a group effect for each section and then set the levels with the sends for each instrument.

I don't use it on Westgate sample libraries, however, because I find that they sound just fine without it. Nor do I use it on GPO strings, harps or keyboards. I don't use it on NI Akoustic Piano either, even though it has some rather nice ones, because they muddy up the mix when a lot of instruments are playing. When the piano is playing solo or with a small number of other instruments, and the tempo is slow, I use the patches "with overtones", rather than reverb.

The end result is the final mix doesn't sound like reverb has been added, or that it has been recorded from the back of hall or with the mics right on top the instruments. It just makes the music sound more realistic without calling attention to itself (which is the effect that I am after.)

I will continue to try new things and modify this strategy if I find something that will improve the end result. I like the comment on reducing the reverb on bass frequencies and will definitely try reducing or eliminating reverb from the bass winds (especially the bass reeds) because it seems to very easy for this range to get muddied up.

[rbowser-]

Nice, ejr - Thanks for the description of some of the routines you use.

Your post underscores the whole point of reverb. Instruments sound more "realistic" with it since, as I said earlier, we never hear anything out here in the "real world" without some coloration added by the room we hear the instruments in.

So obviously the reason some instruments you use sound "just fine" without reverb, is that they have some already added to the samples.

It's rare for an experienced home recordist to simply strap a reverb on the master fader. People who do that have the theory that this is the most realistic approach since in life we hear a band all sitting in the same room - But most people, myself included, feel that is taking the re-creation of reality too literally. The results just don't sound good in a recording. Some instruments are going to sound awful with much very much reverb added to them, mostly those with a lot of bass frequencies. Others are going to sound like we're inSIde them if some reverb isn't added.

The whole point is to add some semblance of what happens when music is played by a group of musicians in a live performance. But there are all sorts of "unnatural" things we can do to make our recordings sound pleasing to our ears. A good example of something that isn't natural but sounds better in a recorded track is in pop music when the kick drum and electric bass sound best when extremely little reverb, if any, is added to their tracks.

I feel the Garritan team made an excellent decision when they kept most of the samples dry - It gives the user so much more flexibility.

GRB53, I've never used the "multi-quote" option, but to add a post without quotes, you just use the "post reply" button at the bottom left of a thread. It's what I use most, relying on C&P if there's a phrase I want to refer to:

"...and how does one add a post with no quotes?..."

Randy

[GRB53]

"...you just use the "post reply" button at the bottom left of a thread"

Now I see it...thanks Randy.

So, are you all ready for the dumb question of the day?
I just went to the Aria player, selected my patch (lush cello), selected effects, tried different pre-sets but hear no difference when I hit a key....
drum roll please.....how come?

Thanks for your patience amigos,
Randy

[rbowser-]

tried different pre-sets but hear no difference when I hit a key....

That's where Aria's mixer comes in. On the first screen, one of the knobs in the upper part of each instrument's channel strip is the Send knob. That determines how much signal is split off and sent to the reverb. That mixer is a stripped down version of what you see in the virtual mixers in programs like Sonar.

Randy

[GRB53]

That's where Aria's mixer comes in. On the first screen, one of the knobs in the upper part of each instrument's channel strip is the Send knob. That determines how much signal is split off and sent to the reverb. That mixer is a stripped down version of what you see in the virtual mixers in programs like Sonar.

Randy

Very cool...thanks again Randy!

[rbowser-]

Very cool...thanks again Randy!
You bet, Randy - ---I feel like I'm talking to myself. :p

Have fun, Randy.
Randy

[swinkler]

This post has been extremely helpful. Much thanks to Randy and others. I've got a piece I'll be posting soon in the Listening Room where I've incorporated nearly all of the suggestions and it makes a huge difference. Up until this point I figured it was hopeless for me to perform any audio engineering functions convincingly but after this I now have renewed hope. Different stages are tedious but I think the results are worthwhile. I just need to convince my family of that when they hear the same snippet over and over and over again :)

Thanks again to all. I'm sure I'll have a few more questions as I explore this further.

Steve Winkler

[GRB53]

This post has been extremely helpful. Much thanks to Randy and others......

Why thank you ....oh...I see, you mean the other Randy....never mind ~|