Transparent reverbs

[djTequila]

I'm trying to get that transparent reverb sound - the smooth continuation of a sound with minimum colouration.

Short of splashing out £2000+ or so on a Lexicon unit, are there any VST/DX plug-ins (for the PC) that can come close? Or any budget units with surprising qualities?

And what settings would you use to get the effect? My next attempt will be trying to apply the reverb 100% wet to sound that has already been pitched up an octave... Hopefully this should leave the end of the sound clear, while adding that needed space and atmosphere...

Tequila

[DJZeMig_L]

I don't know if this is what u r after but remove everything bellow 2-3 Khz... 100 % wet... also cut some off the top ... add that back 2 the original... try this on a bassdrum till u get only a silky ghost off it...


Z

[djTequila]

Sounds good! I normally try take off a load of bottom end anyway, to avoid clutter in that region of the spectrum, but I'll have a play - especially now I can easily put my favourite EQs inline with Logic!

Trouble is, most of the artifacts that give me a problem are in the upper registers - those 'hard' reverb sounds that make you feel like you're in a sewer (flutter echo type effects), or that fizziness that sounds a little like escaping steam. They're great for claps, snares and other percussion, but I'm looking for units that can generate a smooth sound naturally. The kind of sound you use for atmospheric synths, delayed arps, or vocals.

I'll give your method a try - it could do the trick.

What program do you normally use to start out with? Hall?

Tequila

[DJZeMig_L]

I use this method just for adding sparkle and space... I use the standard default Waves rverb and then addapt ...cut the bass and the harsh tops ...

Z

[Jimfish]

i often run my verb down a stereo into the mackie and eq it from there..

btw. if you eq it about quite extremly and filter it you can get that old skool orbital kinda 'hooting' sound.. er, if ya know what i mean

[audioinjection]

yeah i think to eq your reverb would work fine

[The Divide]

I like the timeworks reverb 4080L (software), theres not many parameters but it sounds good on certain sounds. I use it on my kickdrums and then compress it. Great for those offbeat acid techno reverbs. I wouldnt spend loads of money on a bad ass reverb unit. Esp if you dirty your sounds up. Something like a cheap zoom studio 1201 and some eq would probably do the trick. Also the new ultra funk R3 reverb sounds good.

[djTequila]

I like the timeworks reverb 4080L (software), theres not many parameters but it sounds good on certain sounds. I use it on my kickdrums and then compress it.

Don't you find that just muddies up your bass end something chronic?

Tequila

[The Divide]

Yeah it can, you need to compress the shit out of it and bring the volume right down on the reverb and play around with the colour/damping so tthe low bass is taken out. Try it in Vst, have a chain of say Distortion, reverb compression. It took me some pising around but I found eventauly it worked well. I think the main thing you wanna look for is a way of e.qing the reverb.

[DJZeMig_L]

Try 2 audio tracks with the same Kick...
In one use the verb as send ... use eq 2 remove bass... now use the total wet setting on the verb so u don't get anything from the original... route the kick from ch1 and the clean7 no bass verb from ch 2 to a group now play around with vol. in each channel till u get the right balance... use a comp if u want...

Z

[djTequila]

Trying to work out what you're doing here...

So you're mixing an EQd, completely 100% wet reverb track with the clean one?

I'm guessing the traditional analogue mixer path would be creating a chain of EQ and reverb, and using that as a send.

So why use a send in Cubase? Do you mean insert?

What effect are you trying to achieve here? Is it creating a sense of space with the kick drum (without the obvious loss of bass clarity)?

If that's the case, try this:

Take two kicks, one that's very 'clicky' with lots of attack, and one that's very boomy. EQ out the bass on the clicky one, and the attack on the boomy one. Play them together. Depending on the system you use, resampling may be a good idea here. You may have to take some time finding kicks that work together.

Now you can slap as much reverb as you like on the toppy kick, and your kick will have its own groove, made of the shifting frequencies at the crossover point. Also, as an added bonus you can tune your kick at the attack phase and the resonant phase independantly!

Tequila

[DJZeMig_L]

Man U didn't get what I was saying.. It was just a simple tip 4 any1 working on a soft. seq. 2 get a clean rev. with messing the mix with a bassy reverb...

Insert is fine but u'd b removing bass from a bassy verb... instead of cutting the bass b4 sending 2 verb... but hey depends on what U want and what workz 4 ya... :wink:

Z

[Jimfish]

dude - those zooms sound absolutly diabolical - if you use a decent verb such as a TC or good Lexi you can bring out much more tone, and then when you dirty it up you have much more tonal scope.
tose cheap verbs just sound nasty, plus you can hardly hear the effect on those zooms due to all the ****ing unwanted noise!

[Jimfish]

the timeworks one is v nice too though..
but my favs are my TCMone, TC native and waves rcomp

[djTequila]

Man U didn't get what I was saying.. It was just a simple tip 4 any1 working on a soft. seq. 2 get a clean rev. with messing the mix with a bassy reverb...


Yeah I know... I just thought I'd share the double kick tip anyway. ;)

Logic (5.3 onward) and Reason both allow chaining of sends and complex signal routing of the returns. Cubase still doesn't as far as I know - hence the need to jump through so many hoops to get a chained send style effect. In my opinion it's appalling that you can't use chained sends without having to use two identical instruments and tracks - or sampling down and doubling up. This really should have been addressed in SX!
:x

At the moment, my Logic autoload has send#1 from all my audio objects patched to bus#1, which is loaded up with the Waves Renaissance EQ 4 and the Waves Renaissance Reverb in the insert slots. The EQ is set up to kill the bass end of sent sounds and the result is quite nice!

I may replace the EQ with the Waves standard... I found out that the Renaissance set of plugins was developed as 'virtual vintage' kit, so there's probably far more processor headroom being taken up by it. I'll save that EQ for stuff that's more up-front.

I'm still getting a little mid-range ringing and a speckly top from this set up, so I often kill a little top end as well. This kinda removes the lushness and separates out the reverb from the rest of the sound... But it's good for adding a little atmosphere without losing clarity.

Still trying to find that 'clean' sound. I'll give Timeworks a go.



Insert is fine but u'd b removing bass from a bassy verb... instead of cutting the bass b4 sending 2 verb... but hey depends on what U want and what workz 4 ya... :wink:


Surely that depends on which way round you put them in the insert chain? Besides, on Cubase I could never find a way to 'catch' the return from your send before it goes to the output bus, so you're stuck with that sound. Say you wanted to put a phaser or something on it to add a little movement? ;)

It's a little odd to use a send at 100% - seems to me you'd get no level displayed in the channel mixer. (Is this the case? I haven't tried it). It's definitely a good way to use one reverb for several different tracks though... Pity you can't do that with the EQs as well.

I've often wondered what the actual difference is between EQing before or after a reverb... Is there a difference in the frequency distribution, or would the difference simply be in the number and type of phasing/flanging artifacts from the reverb process?

Does anyone know? I'll get experimanting later, see what I come up with!

:)

Tequia

[Jimfish]

an absolultly massive difference dude..
good lord, have you never tried post verb eq? try it!
if you use a good verb you can find really nice tones to bring out - you are eqing the whole tail of the reverb as well as the original sound so it is very different indeed.
if you want a larger sound try taking a loop, verbing it lightly and distorting POST reverb
play with your gear man!

[DJZeMig_L]

Logic (5.3 onward) and Reason both allow chaining of sends and complex signal routing of the returns. Cubase still doesn't as far as I know - hence the need to jump through so many hoops to get a chained send style effect. In my opinion it's appalling that you can't use chained sends without having to use two identical instruments and tracks - or sampling down and doubling up. This really should have been addressed in SX!



Man U don't even get a simple side chain 4 the comp/limiter :( Also somethin similar 2 Freeze track would b nice... Does it work well in Logic??





I may replace the EQ with the Waves standard... I found out that the Renaissance set of plugins was developed as 'virtual vintage' kit, so there's probably far more processor headroom being taken up by it. I'll save that EQ for stuff that's more up-front.



right but it soundz sweet :) why not use that freeze track .. bastar* (jus kiddin m8 ;) )





I'm still getting a little mid-range ringing and a speckly top from this set up, so I often kill a little top end as well. This kinda removes the lushness and separates out the reverb from the rest of the sound... But it's good for adding a little atmosphere without losing clarity.



try BBE maximizer even without much of it (in fact better if almost untouched) .. it does a little linear freq. correction clears and softens yer mid-range .. I don't really know 4 sure why but I have a feeling this will help... let us know





Still trying to find that 'clean' sound. I'll give Timeworks a go.




I never really got much into timeworkz myself ... I guess I could get away with a Rverb by waves or somethin' by TC Works.. I think there is a new lexicon reverb plug in but I haven't tryed it







Surely that depends on which way round you put them in the insert chain?



I feel ya m8 but I was addressing SX, which means insert processors step first in the chain...
Hardware mixer u get pad cut - gain - direct out - insert - phase inverter - Eq/ sends (this depends a bit on the mixer)... this was the way I've seen most mixers but hey there is no absolute rule, I certainly know a lot of brands do they're own magic ...


Besides, on Cubase I could never find a way to 'catch' the return from your send before it goes to the output bus, so you're stuck with that sound.



Uhhmm U r right but I think U could spare a channel with the same sound send it 2 the efx send u want, have it in Pre-fade and in 100% wet mode as not 2 clash/ phase etc... with the original.. then send that 2 a group buss .. now just wack the group with what ever.. it's a messy work a round but should work me thinks :!: :?: :idea:




Say you wanted to put a phaser or something on it to add a little movement?


render 2 wave.. new track and do the trick above... damn' u've got my brain in knots mate... ehehhe Luv a tricky subject that makes ya thing



It's a little odd to use a send at 100% - seems to me you'd get no level displayed in the channel mixer. (Is this the case? I haven't tried it).



yes if u don't use anything from the original... (having the send in pre-fade)... but If u've used a eq. as an insert the sound sent 2 efx sound b eq'ed methinks...




It's definitely a good way to use one reverb for several different tracks though... Pity you can't do that with the EQs as well.



U'de send em 2 a group and eq ' em .. maybe even as an insert then a verb if u feel the need for that ... if the verb is 100% wet yer verb level will act as yer "mixing" level as well




I've often wondered what the actual difference is between EQing before or after a reverb... Is there a difference in the frequency distribution, or would the difference simply be in the number and type of phasing/flanging artifacts from the reverb process?



It should b different as all freq interact, moreover on a verb.. still it will probably b very subtil...

Z

[djTequila]

an absolultly massive difference dude..

Just set up a quick test using a housey synth patch on Logic's ESP and Logic's own platinumverb... (I'm at work. No waves plugins here!) Both pre and post 'verb EQ sounded exactly the same. This was using identical reverb settings, synth settings, send settings, harsh EQ settings and midi info on two tracks, then A-Bing them with the mutes.

What kind of sounds show this difference up well?



good lord, have you never tried post verb eq? try it!


Just did! ;)



if you use a good verb you can find really nice tones to bring out - you are eqing the whole tail of the reverb as well as the original sound so it is very different indeed.


I can see that in the case of automated EQs. Reverbs only mirror the frequencies that are already there though, so I can't help but feel that any difference with a static EQ would be very subtle. This is backed up by my research so far ;)

I really want you to prove me wrong here!



if you want a larger sound try taking a loop, verbing it lightly and distorting POST reverb
play with your gear man!

I love running effects over reverbed sounds... (see previous post) ;) Did that a lot in Reason before I moved to Cubase. I'll be doing it a lot more now :D

Tequila

[djTequila]

Man U don't even get a simple side chain 4 the comp/limiter :( Also somethin similar 2 Freeze track would b nice... Does it work well in Logic??


Dunno, I'm on a PC with 5.3 - no Freeze. It's a Logic 6 thing.

I DO get sidechains for the Logic compressors, expanders and gates (etc.) though. Which is lovely - you can reinforce sounds (like hi-hats) with gated reverb bursts while eliminating all mush. Apparently. It's on my to-do list, which is now huge! I finally have access to all these wonderful techniques I could only dream about with other soft sequencers. :D





try BBE maximizer even without much of it (in fact better if almost untouched) .. it does a little linear freq. correction clears and softens yer mid-range .. I don't really know 4 sure why but I have a feeling this will help... let us know


Cheers! I'll give it a try... It probably cleans up phasing issues by removing overlapping frequencies, which I think is what causes the ringing problems in cheaper reverbs.




I never really got much into timeworkz myself ... I guess I could get away with a Rverb by waves or somethin' by TC Works.. I think there is a new lexicon reverb plug in but I haven't tryed it


If you find it, let me know!



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.




Hardware mixer u get pad cut - gain - direct out - insert - phase inverter - Eq/ sends (this depends a bit on the mixer)... this was the way I've seen most mixers but hey there is no absolute rule, I certainly know a lot of brands do they're own magic ...

Seldom see phase inverters on mixers. Only time I saw one was on an SSL. But you'd expect that! Budget/project mixers don't normally have 'em...

Don't have much experience with digital mixers though.


>(bored of quotes now.)
>Uhhmm U r right but I think U could spare a channel with the same sound send it 2 the efx send u want, have it in Pre-fade and in 100% wet mode as not 2 clash/ phase etc... with the original.. then send that 2 a group buss .. now just wack the group with what ever.. it's a messy work a round but should work me thinks :!: :?: :idea:

However, the return from the send will go straight to the output bus, with no option to divert it. Unless I missed it! (I was looking for this for ages in Cubase! It's why I switched over).


>>Say you wanted to put a phaser or something on it to add a little movement?


>render 2 wave.. new track and do the trick above... damn' u've got my brain in knots mate... ehehhe Luv a tricky subject that makes ya thing

Yeah, that'll work. But with an insert chain you can simply stack it on! No fiddlin'!

I love these kinds of problems. It's where I live!

>>It's a little odd to use a send at 100% - seems to me you'd get no level displayed in the channel mixer. (Is this the case? I haven't tried it).

Actually I'm probably wrong here. Logic didn't do that.

>>It's definitely a good way to use one reverb for several different tracks though... Pity you can't do that with the EQs as well.

>U'de send em 2 a group and eq ' em .. maybe even as an insert then a verb if u feel the need for that ... if the verb is 100% wet yer verb level will act as yer "mixing" level as well

True! SX really ****ed me over with groups... Kept mixing them up. Suddenly my kicks would be nowhere and my pads would be right at the front of the mix :x :x :x

>>I've often wondered what the actual difference is between EQing before or after a reverb... Is there a difference in the frequency distribution, or would the difference simply be in the number and type of phasing/flanging artifacts from the reverb process?

>It should b different as all freq interact, moreover on a verb.. still it will probably b very subtil...

See, that's what I think! And what I've experienced so far (see above post!) The only other difference would be in the proportional increase in the levels of all frequencies from the reverb and increases/subtractions from the EQ. If these don't match up, you might find your EQ being slightly stronger/weaker on cuts and boosts, overall, depending on position.

:?: :?: :?: :?: :?:

Any other takes on this?

Tequila

[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.

[DJZeMig_L]

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

[djTequila]

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

[DJZeMig_L]

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

[Jimfish]

ok well maybe i misunderstood slightly..

why did i get into this one?

its too nice a day to bother

[djTequila]

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

Cheers, guys!

Tequila

[davethedrummer]

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

[djTequila]

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

[davethedrummer]

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.)

[djTequila]

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

[djTequila]

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

[Basil Rush]

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...