Transparent reverbs

DJ Ze MigL wrote:

I feel ya m8 but I was addressing SX, which means insert processors step first in the chain...


Yeah yeah, but if you ONLY want the verb on yer drum, then an insert chain of EQ->Reverb will do ya! Especially if you're going to burn it down later. It's much easier to control.



On the subject of clean silky reverbs... I would add an eq as insert, thus killing all unwanted freq... from then u can go different ways... use send and depends on the verb u use.. U might have one with eq. options.. if not use verb after eq and eq again if needed .. u just have 2 make sure the verb has a facility 2 control input and output.. so u can choose 2 have a 100% wet sound ...

the result should b silky, thin, phat, muddy, ... depending on the settings u use...



The trick with groups is name them propertly so u don't get the mistaken .. also move then 2 the top track of the sequencer and the tracks route 2 the groups move them 2 the very last bottom of the project.

Z

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimfish

are you inserting or using a verb on a send?

because if you are using send reverb then it is more than likely coming into a different channel/bus to the original sound innit - in which cas eof course it will be the same.

I assumed you were talking about either inserted verb or bounced down stuff (when you talk about pre & post fx/eq you are very rarely talking sends, unless you are discussing fx chains). In this way it is completly different pre & post. I fail to see how it can be anything else. reverb changes the waveform and eq on a different waveform will sound different.

---

I tried *sending* the sound to two different effects *chains*. (Sorry, that's what I meant from the beginning! Maybe I didn't make it clear).

So the EQ was very definitely working on the reverb!!!

I'll try the insert method... But I did use 100% send, which does the same thing!

>I fail to see how it can be anything else. reverb changes the waveform and eq on a different waveform will sound different.

Hehe! How about this:

Dividing 6 by 2 changes its value, so the effect of multiplying by 3 will change depending on you multiplying pre or post division.

6/2 = 3, 3*3 = 9
6*3 = 18, 18/2 = 9

Oh! :oops:

;)

Or this:

Normalising a sound changes the waveform. Normal+verb = verb+normal though.

Stop thinking 'waveform' and think 'frequencies'. An EQ changes the *overall* frequency balance, and a reverb doesn't... Which is why I was interested in the result...

What's the difference between not sending bass frequencies to a reverb, and EQing out the bass frequencies in the whole signal after reverb? Is there any? I suspect it'd just be subtle differences in the phasing of the frequencies...

Hmm... A dynamic effect will change pre or post verb, like compression or expansion. Post reverb compression is radically different to pre!

EQ is a constant process though.

The only case where I can think of any kind of a big effect happening is where the reverb has a built in EQ. This'll screw with the proprotions of different frequencies expressed in a combined reverb+dry sound, which may cause odd differences in the frequency makeup with a pre or post EQ. I'll have a play, but my hungover brain can't cope with modelling that right now!

That wasn't what I was asking originally though... I was talking about send effect chains.

Could you describe the exact set-up that gives you these radically different effects... If I'm wrong about all this, it could be incredibly useful!

;)

Tequila

Know how a bass sounds really powerfull by itself... right now u add a hihat .. and surprisingly the sounds changes a bit ... even if u cut bass form the hihat there will b a diferent sound 2 it...

it's the same... it's not just one freq.. but the overall balance.... trust me on this make if u eq b4 and compare 2 after there will b diferences... sure they can b minimal most of times... but isn't all about minimal differences with good verbs, silky verbs, etc...

personally I would go 4 ...

insert eq cut bass---- insert reverb 100% wet... insert eq cut bass...
this should create a really controlled reverb ... U got tha power ;)

Z

ok well maybe i misunderstood slightly..

why did i get into this one?

its too nice a day to bother

I really will have to set aside a few hours to explore this!

Cheers, guys!

Tequila

anyone ever tried compressing reverbs?
i'm sure you probably have
personally i'm really into having kik and bass and a long reverb return going through a subgroup with a compressor inserted with quite a vicious setting.
when you pull out the low end stuff the reverb goes wahey! right up there!and settles back down when you drop the kik and bass back in.
very andreas kreamer sounding
obvously best done in the analogue domain but you can get a similar effect using software it's just trickier to set up.
anyway the tc plugs for vst are great but my all time favourite is the reverb from the effects card in my s1100 sampler???
not very transparent perhaps but wicked nontheless.
tell you what though just remember the rules of reverb before you use it.
reverb is designed to create the illusion of space in sound basically giving instruments "distance" therefore the more you use ,the further away things will sound. sometimes creating more "release" in a sound by resampling or looping will get the same effect without any muddiness

That doesn't sound hard to set up at all in Logic. Or indeed Reason. I'm having trouble picturing the signal flow there though - if you sub-group the BD, BL and the reverb return, then compress it, you'll get mud. If you suck out the bass from all of this, you'll lose all your power in your track.

Obvious, perhaps! :wink: I'm just wondering where you're inserting your EQ? Is this inline with the reverb? (This would make sense!)

:)

Tequila

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by djTequila

if you sub-group the BD, BL and the reverb return, then compress it, you'll get mud.
Tequila

---

not necessarily
it depends on your relative levels (and i'm not talking about how tall your grandad is.)

True, and the level of compression, threshold, etc. etc. etc.

I'm just trying to figure out the effect you're going for here.

;)

Tequila

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJ Ze MigL

Know how a bass sounds really powerfull by itself... right now u add a hihat .. and surprisingly the sounds changes a bit ... even if u cut bass form the hihat there will b a diferent sound 2 it...

Z

---

Of course! Any good bass sound has high-end harmonics. It's what gives the bass sound its character... Sweep a narrow EQ spike slowly through the frequency spectrum while a bass sound plays repeatedly (so you get the attack phase in there) and you'll hear these harmonics one by one.

So put in a hi-hat over the bass sound and the harmonics will interact, giving the whole sound a new timbre. This seems to be how a lot of rhythm gets its character...

I used to try to EQ the top end of a bass sound out of the mix... It cleaned up the top end a bit, but the bass then sounded flat and out of tune. These days I'll hunt for specific harmonics that might be causing an issue, and play with their relative levels to get the sound I need.

Tequila

watch out for this one though, did a remix the other weekend for a label who wanted something in the style of a previous record which had this massive rolling reverb as a bass line (compressor and reverb off the kick drum kind of thing).

Anyway so I set up the basics of the mix and finally noticed that the reverb was generating a massive amount of energy below 20Hz which meant whenever the bass kicked in the entire track was ducked by the compressor on the master bus.

Anyway moral of this is if you are using reverb as an effect like this try a high pass filter after the verb even if it sounds alright and see if the overall level of the track sorts itself out...