(How) Do you use reverb/depth?

[PippaPumpkin]

Hello,

since I have heard 'Adrian Manise - Bustle In The Hedgerow' (which is a very sweet song), I was thinking about the use of reverb in mixes. I would have mixed this song with alot more reverb, and asked why Ama kept the mix so dry:

Well, to me dry vocals always sound more like they are right close to your ear - or even inside your head because there's no 'space' around them - so that helps with intimacy. I hope.

Doing some research not using reverb at all is actually not that uncommon. On the other hand there are mixers that have quite sophisticated approaches to reverb. One mixer I've read about is called Chris Lord Alge. Alge uses serveral FX channels to feed multiple sources to them. I did not understand how he routes things but it sounds way to complicated to me anyway.

My first song, I did with reverbs on particular tracks and that's it. There were no FX channels used at all.

I want to try to implement something like this to add depth to my second song. My idea is to keep it as simple as I can. A small room reverb with little diffusion, that spreads out wide and one that is more center with more roll off on the highs. My idea is to use the wide one to pull things up front and the darker center one to pull them away. this way I can send different tracks to them to create depth. I'd like to use Valhalla supermassive for that since it is free, stable, low CPU and sounds awesome.

Since I have had the pleasure to listen to the works of a few of the audio engineers on this forum I'm excited to read about how you feel and think about depth in your mixes.

[The Elf]

Front-to-back depth is not just about the type of reverb chosen.

A while ago I explained on these fora how I use multiple delays into a single reverb to place instruments at different distances within one space. This can be effective, and avoids the congestion that using multiple reverbs can generate.

Try setting up a single Hall reverb with minimum pre-delay, then feed it from a number of single-repeat delays, set to varying delay times (maybe 10ms, 50ms, 100ms...). Now send to each delay in turn from your source. As the pre-delay increases you will notice that the source seems closer, and as it decreases the source will recede, especially if LF/HF EQ is also applied to the source - reduce LF/HF to help the illusion of the source being further away.

Panning and stereo width also enhance the sense of distance. In general, the more distant you want a sound to seem, then keep it more central and apply effects with less stereo width.

That should get you started.

A lot of this is just down to considering how things work in the real world.

[PippaPumpkin]

A lot of this is just down to considering how things work in the real world.

I wonder what a mix with my conception of the world would sound like.

Thank you for sharing this, I don't have the brain to come up with things like this.

Is this how you mean it:

[The Elf]

Looks like it. Just use a mono delay and no widener (I never use wideners) for starters.

[Matt Houghton]

Good tips from Elf.

One issue with aux sends is that if you automate them, then the wetter the sound becomes the louder it gets, because it's an additive process.

You can automate the dry channel too, of course.
But another option, if you want to be able to automate one parameter to bring things back/forward, is to configure some sends as 'echo mixture' controls, whereby the dry sound gets quieter as the wet sound gets louder. So it's like using a wet/dry control but with channels sharing the same reverb.

Details here: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques ... re-control

Not a conventional approach but it works well for me and you could easily combine this with some of Elf's tips.

[Drew Stephenson]

We have talked about this before on the forum, here's a post that shows my template for implementing a sort of combination of The Elf, Mike Senior and Chris Lord Alge's techniques.
https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/view ... th#p787471
There's more in that thread too.

[R_A]

Try two FX busses:

1) reverb that is the size of the room / hall that you want (with dialled down early reflections)
2) reverb that mostly consists of early reflections that feel right for that space.

Blend the send for each instrument channel between the two. If you want the sound closer to the listener dial in more 2 and less 1. The reverse if you want the sound source to appear at the back of the sound stage.

If you have Exponential Audio Nimbus I'd be happy to send you screenshots of a couple of my typical presets.

[Lostgallifreyan]

I like what Elf said because it's like how visual artists use a 'vanishing point'. Remember that it doesn't have to be literal, playing with perspective can be useful.

Instead of a widener (whatever that is exactly) I'd start with a wide spaced reverb and narrow it by panning its stereo pair. One interesting way that might get used, is if you wanted a trumpet off stage left in a theatre, you might find a corridor-like reverb, narrow it and pan it so it's all on one side, then feed the output into the main reverb (and mix in a little of the first without the second too). It's an easy thing to imagine, so it's probably easy to try too. It might sound cool even if it ends up not being what you hoped it might be. EQ can help, but not as much as choosing the right reverb. Too much EQ just makes it sound unnatural, as does swamping the sound with too much reverb..

For close sounds, a very short plate reverb or impulse response based on stone or wood can help. An 'intimate' sound usually works better if it's not trying to worm its way into your earhole. Short reverbs can be very useful to set the amount of 'personal space' you want in close sounds. When I try them I aim to use as little of it as gets the effect I want, and no more.

Small amounts of highpass cut on long delays are good for getting a 'distant' echo. Small 'early relection' reverb added to a delay helps if you want the sound to act as if it's reflecting back across open land from the edge of woodland or a cluster of small buildings. Small moves like these can make huge spaces.

[Sam Inglis]

I almost never think about 'depth' as a factor in mixing.

I don't often use reverb with the aim of making things sound more distant, either.

For me, reverb is a tool for filling out the sound and making it bigger. I'll often use a ton of reverb on a snare drum, for example, but the aim is to make the snare more noticeable and larger than life, not to push it into the distance. That goes for lead instruments and vocals too.

I'm not a big user of delays, but when I do use them it's often for the same reason: to make a lead instrument wider and more impressive.

[sonics]

Big, important topic!

For music I think a creative approach is best, but for audio post placement and realism are more important.

Some knowledge of how we hear, coupled with understanding direct sound and reflections, and the type of reflections, is essential. Some software helps with this. SSL FlexVerb has nice balance controls and the Overloud Rematrix reverb allows balancing of multiple reverbs, to name a couple. As you seem to be doing, creating your own early reflections is good experience.

Don't forget that Waves has a CLA effects plugin. You could try a demo of that to get a sense of his methods.

[RichardT]

PP,

Have a look at Mike Senior's book Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio.

It covers the different functions of reverb and also covers depth issues.

[PippaPumpkin]

Looks like it. Just use a mono delay and no widener (I never use wideners) for starters.

I see, but how do you get the stereo sound for the upfront elements? You said panning and stereo width, what does this mean in practice?

Not a conventional approach but it works well for me and you could easily combine this with some of Elf's tips.

Interesting. I hope I am smart enough to pull it off.

We have talked about this before on the forum, here's a post that shows my template for implementing a sort of combination of The Elf, Mike Senior and Chris Lord Alge's techniques.
https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/view ... th#p787471
There's more in that thread too.

Thank you Drew. I'm going to read it later.

Try two FX busses:

1) reverb that is the size of the room / hall that you want (with dialled down early reflections)
2) reverb that mostly consists of early reflections that feel right for that space.

Blend the send for each instrument channel between the two. If you want the sound closer to the listener dial in more 2 and less 1. The reverse if you want the sound source to appear at the back of the sound stage.

If you have Exponential Audio Nimbus I'd be happy to send you screenshots of a couple of my typical presets.

It sounds easy enough for me to figure out. Unfortunatly I do not own Nimbus. Thank you anyway.

I like what Elf said because it's like how visual artists use a 'vanishing point'. Remember that it doesn't have to be literal, playing with perspective can be useful.

Literal? I don't understand.

Instead of a widener (whatever that is exactly)

Something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2_4UM2tIQk

I'd start with a wide spaced reverb and narrow it by panning its stereo pair. One interesting way that might get used, is if you wanted a trumpet off stage left in a theatre, you might find a corridor-like reverb, narrow it and pan it so it's all on one side, then feed the output into the main reverb (and mix in a little of the first without the second too). It's an easy thing to imagine, so it's probably easy to try too. It might sound cool even if it ends up not being what you hoped it might be. EQ can help, but not as much as choosing the right reverb. Too much EQ just makes it sound unnatural, as does swamping the sound with too much reverb..

For close sounds, a very short plate reverb or impulse response based on stone or wood can help. An 'intimate' sound usually works better if it's not trying to worm its way into your earhole. Short reverbs can be very useful to set the amount of 'personal space' you want in close sounds. When I try them I aim to use as little of it as gets the effect I want, and no more.

Small amounts of highpass cut on long delays are good for getting a 'distant' echo. Small 'early relection' reverb added to a delay helps if you want the sound to act as if it's reflecting back across open land from the edge of woodland or a cluster of small buildings. Small moves like these can make huge spaces.

Thanks for the explaination. This is alot to take in. I'm looking for a simple setup to get a basic idea first.

I have a short question:
Is the YAMAHA GS-1 basically a DX7? Do you recognize this patch and is it available somewhere? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeqy7wix39s

I almost never think about 'depth' as a factor in mixing.

I don't often use reverb with the aim of making things sound more distant, either.

For me, reverb is a tool for filling out the sound and making it bigger.

That's how I looked at it as well in my first song.

Some knowledge of how we hear, coupled with understanding direct sound and reflections, and the type of reflections, is essential. Some software helps with this. SSL FlexVerb has nice balance controls and the Overloud Rematrix reverb allows balancing of multiple reverbs, to name a couple. As you seem to be doing, creating your own early reflections is good experience.

Yes, I hope to get a better understanding of how dimension in mixes work.

PP,

Have a look at Mike Senior's book Mixing Secrets for the Small Studio.

It covers the different functions of reverb and also covers depth issues.

I'm going to take a look at it, thanks.

[amanise]

I almost never think about 'depth' as a factor in mixing.

I don't often use reverb with the aim of making things sound more distant, either.

For me, reverb is a tool for filling out the sound and making it bigger. I'll often use a ton of reverb on a snare drum, for example, but the aim is to make the snare more noticeable and larger than life, not to push it into the distance. That goes for lead instruments and vocals too.

I'm not a big user of delays, but when I do use them it's often for the same reason: to make a lead instrument wider and more impressive.

^^^
This is exactly my approach to using reverb PP. However, I do think its very dependent on which genre of music you are working in too. The type of music I do lends itself to this approach described by Sam, but other genres require more in depth delay and reverb techniques like the others have described. The book recommended above is also almost required reading for this kind of work. It's fun experimenting - so good luck - but I'd recommend not releasing anything experimental until you are sure you are happy with how it sounds first. Its all out there on the Internet for a very long time once its released.

[RichardT]

Front-to-back depth is not just about the type of reverb chosen.

A while ago I explained on these fora how I use multiple delays into a single reverb to place instruments at different distances within one space. This can be effective, and avoids the congestion that using multiple reverbs can generate.

Try setting up a single Hall reverb with minimum pre-delay, then feed it from a number of single-repeat delays, set to varying delay times (maybe 10ms, 50ms, 100ms...). Now send to each delay in turn from your source. As the pre-delay increases you will notice that the source seems closer, and as it decreases the source will recede, especially if LF/HF EQ is also applied to the source - reduce LF/HF to help the illusion of the source being further away.

Panning and stereo width also enhance the sense of distance. In general, the more distant you want a sound to seem, then keep it more central and apply effects with less stereo width.

That should get you started.

A lot of this is just down to considering how things work in the real world.

Yes, these are the key techniques for getting depth. Pre-delay, EQ and stereo width.

[The Elf]

Looks like it. Just use a mono delay and no widener (I never use wideners) for starters.

I see, but how do you get the stereo sound for the upfront elements? You said panning and stereo width, what does this mean in practice?

You don't 'get a stereo sound'. You simply add stereo elements, such as reverb. The reverb will create the illusion of space and depth. Take a mono sound and send it to a parallel reverb and that mono sound will now live in that stereo space. Remember that we are dealing with send effects here, not inserts - mono sources sending to stereo FX channels.

Think about a singer in a cathedral... That voice is going to be 'mono', but the reflective space around the singer will produce different reflections to the listener's left and right ears - so 'stereo'.

In your diagram above you are using a 'widener' on the delay output. That's OK, but not necessary. Of course you could balance some of the delay into the mix, but then you could simply offset the L/R delays, or modulate them in some way, rather than using a 'widener'...

...But we are getting quite abstract by now. Start simple.

[The Elf]

The 'stereo width' I mentioned in my original post was in reference to the reverb. Reducing the L/R width of the reverb will make the reverb seem to be coming from further away, and hence seem to push the source further away. Reduce the L/R spread of the reverb return to achieve this. Though, of course, you would need to use more than one reverb if you wanted to do this in an actual mix situation.

[The Elf]

As an aside...

It's interesting that some mixers favour reverbs over delays, or vice-versa.

If I was pushed I'd probably say that I favour delays over reverb, since I feel that I can create a 'sharper' mix that way. But I'm not trying to avoid reverb either. I do a lot of cross-pollenation with effects, so my delays will often send to a reverb or two.

And I create my own stereo 'widening', with pitch/delay/chorus effects, but I'm extremely subtle with this, merely looking to 'smudge' sounds from being paper-thin mono - if it's noticeable it's probably too much. The further away I want the source to appear to be, the less likely I would be to use this technique.

And yes, I understand the 'reverb-for-impact/larger than life' consideration. The most obvious is probably drums, especially snare, though I have my own pet methods for that...

Lots to consider in this aspect of production much like any other, and it's always interesting to hear how others approach their craft.

[amanise]

As an aside...

It's interesting that some mixers favour reverbs over delays, or vice-versa.

If I was pushed I'd probably say that I favour delays over reverb, since I feel that I can create a 'sharper' mix that way. ...
...
Lots to consider in this aspect of production much like any other, and it's always interesting to hear how others approach their craft.

I feel the same way about delays over reverbs - but I find delays much harder to get right for some reason. I don't like it when they gang up on you and you end up with a stubborn clip and you end up spending ages searching backwards for the source to control it.

I'm a big fan with lead instruments of panning the delay or reverb to the opposite channel just a tad, but not so much as it makes it obvious whats going on, but sometimes I like making a delay march off stage left - depends on the instrument.

Very powerful tools when skillfully wielded - but easy to make a complete incoherent mess There are some real masters of it out there. Lately, I'm trying to concentrate on getting as much depth as possible in mono through careful choice of instruments and EQ - before considering the sides and reverb/delay. You can suddenly discover a lot of space that way when you eventually start panning - and it's quick.

[Kwackman]

Reducing the L/R width of the reverb will make the reverb seem to be coming from further away, and hence seem to push the source further away.

Everyday is a school day!
Thanks Elf.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Is the YAMAHA GS-1 basically a DX7? Do you recognize this patch and is it available somewhere? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeqy7wix39s

I don't know, but the DX7 and descendents may have been capable, so if you start with the standard 'ROM cartridge' patch sets to see if they offer anything like a sound you're interested in, that's a quick guide as to whether deeper exploration with phase modulation synths is a way to get there. There are usually better sounds out there but many of the best tricks were established early.

About wideners, I think Elf covered the base well. Though he also emphasised, as I did, a narrowing of a standard width of reverb to get it how you want it. It's always easier too. We can make stereo into mono, can't make mono into stereo. Therefore, widening always involves some kind of loss we can't restore. Narrowing is easily undone if we have the original wide sound available.

While it can get confusing, one thing I will say: never underestimate the 'early reflection' reverbs. I did when I got my first reverb unit, and when I finally understood how good things can sound with the early reflections, with less clutter and sounds swimming in soupy spaces, I realised I should have started with the early reflections and ignored the big stuff! Those are the ones that create a real sense of space, because they're what we hear most often in the 'real world'.

[Lostgallifreyan]

I like what Elf said because it's like how visual artists use a 'vanishing point'. Remember that it doesn't have to be literal, playing with perspective can be useful.

Literal? I don't understand.

What I mean is, we don't have to emulate an exact space for realism. It's like using microphones slightly further apart than human ears, for larger-than-life effect. How we use EQ, reverb field width, to shape a 'space' can be done for effect, just as 'focus pullers' in making film and video work with depth of field to guide a viewer in where to look. There's a moment in the movie 'Heat' where Robert DeNiro and Amy Brenneman are looking across Los Angeles at night, and we get their faces in focus as well as the horizon in focus. That's a nice trick because it lets us look where we want even though it's impossible for a single lens or image to do that. We can use similar tricks to shape a sound field to give the impression we want, rather than trying to create one literal space.

How much, or how little, we explore this, is down to how we want to go, I'm just pointing out some stuff that can viably be done. Often the results are very different from how we imagine they are achieved.

[Hugh Robjohns]

The GS-1 was Yamaha's first foray into FM synthesis, so can be thought of as the DX7's grandparent. It looked like an electronic piano, and had very few user controls, but it was quite a capable instrument with a wide variety of preset sounds on offer.

[Lostgallifreyan]

The GS-1 was Yamaha's first foray into FM synthesis, so can be thought of as the DX7's grandparent. It looked like an electronic piano, and had very few user controls, but it was quite a capable instrument with a wide variety of preset sounds on offer.

Thanks for that. I wondered if it might be but didn't post because all I could think of was those 'Electones' and it wasn't one of those..

[sonics]

Is the YAMAHA GS-1 basically a DX7? Do you recognize this patch and is it available somewhere? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeqy7wix39s

Four-operator FM, but had a lovely keyboard with poly-aftertouch!
I'm sure an FM synth VSTi with some early patch banks would get you there.

We can make stereo into mono, can't make mono into stereo.

I can!
There are various techniques, depending on what sort of stereo signal you want to achieve.

[Lostgallifreyan]

We can make stereo into mono, can't make mono into stereo.

I can!
There are various techniques, depending on what sort of stereo signal you want to achieve.

I was politely sealing off the Northern Line of the rabbithole. It runs fast and deep... I actually do this mono-to-stereo in one way, for faint AF signals after radio tuning. It uses a finely tunable microdelay, which amounts to a static phaser, panned hard right while the original is hard left. I follow it with a control that narrows the L/R field width. It's not great as a musical thing, but its purpose is to help ears and brains focus on a weak signal at some limited audio frequency range, by picking it out from an apparent location in a stereo field that is mostly mush. It can really help, especially when fatigue would long ago have set in otherwise! I considered other techniques but settled on that one because it was easy to code..

A strictly mono variant of the above makes a great notch or comb filter. Plenty of obnoxious AF pitched noise in radio signals can be reduced that way, but the 'stereo' is the most useful after that because it helps make good use of ears and brains to do things to improve the SNR that I could never code for.