# Creating depth with Mic Positions, Reverb ER‘s and Tails



## Bluemount Score (Aug 26, 2019)

Yes, another thread about this topic! But I‘m still missing something, after reading through lots of older posts.

A popular method to create realistic depth for orchestra is to take only the ER‘s (convolution reverb) for distance of groups / busses or individual instruments and the tail from another reverb plugin (algorythmic), which glues everything together nicely and provides the illusion of room size.


*My question:*
Where in all of this do you see the task of different mic positions? And: Can a „far“ mic setting replace the ER‘s function of creating distance? Or how do you combine both?


I‘m still limited when it comes to different reverb plugins. As far as I know, RC48 doesn‘t allow to seperate ER‘s from tail.
That‘s why I‘m used to creating depth with mic positions, and a single reverb plugin with wet / dry knob for the different instrument groups of strings, woodwinds, brass and percussion.


----------



## Iskra (Aug 26, 2019)

With the sole exception of the close mics (and not really, because they do have an included ER - although smaller/less prominent than other mic positions), any mic position will add the ERs of the particular room/hall on which the samples have been recorded.
In other words, if you are using libraries with some ambience baked in, any mic position you're using will have ERs (and also tail, for that matter), so just a beautiful tail should do the job. If you add another ER from the reverb plugin you're using on top of that, it's more likely that the end result it's going to be worse, muddier, weird sounding, etc, as you are duplicating two different ERs (the real, recorded one, and the one from your reverb plugin/plugins).

Using ERs / tails to simulate different 'depths' the way you mention will work when using super-dry samples with very little or no ambience at all baked in the samples. 

With tails it's easier to get away with duplicating it, as it will give another layer of 'glue', as you correctly pointed out. If your libraries have ambience, just playing with a reverb tail (no ERs!) and different send amounts to your busses will be perfectly fine and you can get great results.

With reverb settings, like with a lot of other things, I'm more and more convinced that 'less is more'.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Aug 26, 2019)

Hi Meetyhtan
I'm sorry if I do some advertising first. If you read my tutorial "*Mixing an Orchestra*" most of the questions you will ever ask about the topic will be answered. Of course, the topic of "creating spatial depth" will also be dealt with. Further: The tutorial contains more than 15 suitable room impulses (ERs) that can be directly used for the purpose "depth". This tutorial will cost you half the price of a good plugin, but it will help you 100 times more than any other new EQ or Compressor plugin for which you will probably not hesitate to pay 200 EURO.

If I may do one more little advertising right now: The combination of Precedence and Breeze2 can easily solve your problems of position and pan without any problems. The good thing about it compared to MIR and other complete solutions: You still stay in your DAW anyway. So the use of all other effects, track-automation, effect-automation etc. is still possible.

That was the "possibly useful" commercial block 

--------------------------------------
*Little theory behind your questions and on the topic*
In order to be able to set a good distance as well as a reverb (tail), it is not crucial that the tail and ER can be separated, but that ERs are generated at all that allow the instruments to be "pushed" into the room depth. Unfortunately, most Reverb-PlugIns are already out of the running. So I'm not sure that RC48 is suitable for creating room depth without a lot of reverb. RC48 is as much as I know an emulation of a digital reverb from earlier times. At that time one was already glad to get a beautiful reverberation without hearing echoes.

Because convolution reverbs have room impulses from real rooms, for a long time such reverb types were best suited for creating room depths.
*How do you find a suitable room impulse to generate room depth?*
One loops such a convolution reverb into an instrument channel, sets it to 100% wet and plays through all impulses one after the other. If an impulse is present that represents the instrument extremely far away, this could be a suitable room impulse. Then shorten the impulse to 100m-300ms (suppress the tail), so that mainly the early reflections remain. If you find a good impulse, https://www.beat-kaufmann.com/mixing-an-orchestra/downloads/timpani_close-depth_nur_er.mp3 (the result could sound like this) (ER from the tutorial). Unfortunately, an RC-48 won't be able to do that.

*How do you apply these impulses?*
One method is to use 3 bus channels to offer 3 different room depths in the mixer. If an instrument is to be played far away and more to the right, you loop the instrument through bus 3 (for example the onne BUS for the distance "far") and withe the balance in the instrument channel you adjust the instrument itself so that it sounds more to the right as well.
*--------------------------------------*
To come back to the creation of "spatial depth":
In addition to good convolution impulses for the creation of room depths, there are also a few algorithmic reverbs with which you can create quite natural room depths nowadays. As I said Breeze2 is one, but also Eaverb 2 by Earecon for example.

By the way: Where the individual instruments should be located in the concert hall can be determined by yourself or you can use the usual orchestra settings, which can be found everywhere in the net.
However, it is a good recommendation to draw a plan where the individual instruments should sit before you start with the mix.

All the best
Beat


----------



## Bluemount Score (Aug 26, 2019)

@Iskra
Thanks a lot, that proves my theory of the baked in ER in professional libraries. In fact, how could you get rid of it, without going super dry, which I don't really like whatsoever. 
That being said, having multiple mic positions is and will always be the best way to create realistic depth. Too bad you don't always have them. 

@Beat Kaufmann
No worries for the advertisement, even though it might not be necessary in my case  I just went through your website yesterday and know about your tutorial. As I'm convinced you know lots about this topic and am very thankful for your regular free support in this forum, I'm definitely considering to get into it. 
Thank you for your answer!


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 26, 2019)

Beat, I totally respect you nod you know your stuff. But I have yet to hear a "before and after" where after all that effort it sounds substantially better to me than just choosing the right mic positions, sending the instrument to a quality reverb with a good IR and tweaking the ERs and the amount sending to it, etc.

I think people overthink this stuff. But I could be wrong.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Aug 27, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> Beat, I totally respect you nod you know your stuff. But I have yet to hear a "before and after" where after all that effort it sounds substantially better to me than just choosing the right mic positions, sending the instrument to a quality reverb with a good IR and tweaking the ERs and the amount sending to it, etc.
> 
> I think people overthink this stuff. But I could be wrong.





For all readers of these articles we should perhaps mention once again that the spatial distribution of the instruments alone does not guarantee a good an transparent mix. That requires a lot more. This suggests that there are many many ways that ultimately lead to an exciting and interesting mix.
In the end the result counts and not how you achieve it.

That's why it would be great if you, Ashermusic, would show us how you solve the problem. Also a 1:1 audio demo showing the advantages would be great, of course. 
Then everyone can set it up and experiment for themselves. In the end, everyone has to choose the system that meets their own wishes and specifications.
The more such reverb concepts everyone knows, the better.

So I'm looking forward to getting to know your concept.


All the best
Beat
-------------------------------------
Let's be clear, this is the concept I'm talking about (no Sending): 






And that's one possible sound you can get: 
Example of an old folk song from Switzerland.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 27, 2019)

Beat, well stated. But I don't solve the problem because I don't think there's a problem. They're samples and no matter how many reverbs you put on them, No matter how you try to place them regarding the stereo field, depth, etc. no matter what you do they're still samples and the improvements will be marginal and not worth all the effort and resources. You still are putting lipstick on a pig.

The sample based compositions that I have heard and enjoyed have almost always had more to do with the writing, orchestration skills, performance, and mixing. Some of them have to send more complex schemes of dealing with spatial placement and reverb than others. So I have concluded that in the end, it’s possible without all that.

But my mind is open. If someone posts a sample based piece that is well composed, well performed, and well as orchestrated that sounds pretty darned good wth fairly simple reverb and placement techniques but then posts another version with more elaborate techniques and the latter is clearly considerably superior enough to justify the time and resources, then I will immediately concede that I did not know what I was talking about. But I have yet to hear that.

But when I am back at my computer I will give your example a listen and maybe I will be the blind man who finally sees 

EDIT: OK, I listened and it _does_ sound wonderfully wide, clear, and everything has its place. So maybe I am wrong and it is worth the effort.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 27, 2019)

I use almost 100% mics for depth hit depends on the library and ram


----------



## Bluemount Score (Aug 28, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> The sample based compositions that I have heard and enjoyed have almost always had more to do with the writing, orchestration skills, performance, and mixing.


Isn‘t the musical main idea, for example the writing and orchestration of a catching and beautiful melody _always_ the most important thing in music, no matter which genre and no matter if recorded live or created with samples?



Ashermusic said:


> EDIT: OK, I listened and it _does_ sound wonderfully wide, clear, and everything has its place. So maybe I am wrong and it is worth the effort.


Fair enough  Seeing (or hearing) of what is possible got me very interested in this topic in the first place. Without that and comparison to what it would sound like without these space techniques, it‘s hard to judge what we are talking about. But I guess that‘s what you stated before as well.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Aug 28, 2019)

ProfoundSilence said:


> I use almost 100% mics for depth hit depends on the library and ram


Therefore if you run out of RAM because of too many active mics loaded, you go with another technique for depth? Which one?


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 28, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> Beat, well stated. But I don't solve the problem because I don't think there's a problem. They're samples and no matter how many reverbs you put on them, No matter how you try to place them regarding the stereo field, depth, etc. no matter what you do they're still samples and the improvements will be marginal and not worth all the effort and resources. You still are putting lipstick on a pig.
> 
> The sample based compositions that I have heard and enjoyed have almost always had more to do with the writing, orchestration skills, performance, and mixing. Some of them have to send more complex schemes of dealing with spatial placement and reverb than others. So I have concluded that in the end, it’s possible without all that.
> 
> ...




considering mic placement takes like no time at all to set up/tweak if you have a controller, this is an ideal method.


Meetyhtan said:


> Therefore if you run out of RAM because of too many active mics loaded, you go with another technique for depth? Which one?


swipe the credit card and buy more ram


no really one day I'll get 512 GB, mark my words

I can't forsee ram requirements getting much higher(editing time) and scripting will hopefully become more advanced but CPU power will continue to get better. 

I will probably die before truly synthesized realism is remotely pheasible.

eventually our phones will be able to carry these monstrous templates with ease


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Aug 28, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> Beat, well stated. But I don't solve the problem because I don't think there's a problem. They're samples and no matter how many reverbs you put on them, No matter how you try to place them regarding the stereo field, depth, etc. no matter what you do they're still samples and the improvements will be marginal and not worth all the effort and resources. You still are putting lipstick on a pig.
> 
> The sample based compositions that I have heard and enjoyed have almost always had more to do with the writing, orchestration skills, performance, and mixing. Some of them have to send more complex schemes of dealing with spatial placement and reverb than others. So I have concluded that in the end, it’s possible without all that.
> 
> ...



Ashermusic, thank you for your more specific explanations. It's true, of course, that it's incredibly difficult to make music with the dead samples and always the same tones over and over again. So if you don't constantly change the articulations, the dynamics, the tempo, etc., then you've actually already lost. And as you say, you haven't mixed at all until then.
So of course everyone has to decide for himself whether he wants to make the effort or not.
Nevertheless, I understand if someone is satisfied with the fact that he can already get a pretty good idea of how his composition would sound with samples. But someone else says that he'd rather compose the next piece than lose the time to put the first one into action.

Personally, I used the sample first of all to make more natural sounding playbacks than with midi, to which I could sing or play. Having a whole orchestra at my side - even at 02:00 in the night - was obviously worth every effort for me back then. Today I'm honestly more and more afraid of the time I had to spend for a new piece as well.

My offers of help are therefore for those who say yes to this effort, knowing that the result will never reach absolute realism.

Best
Beat


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 28, 2019)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> Ashermusic, thank you for your more specific explanations. It's true, of course, that it's incredibly difficult to make music with the dead samples and always the same tones over and over again. So if you don't constantly change the articulations, the dynamics, the tempo, etc., then you've actually already lost. And as you say, you haven't mixed at all until then.
> So of course everyone has to decide for himself whether he wants to make the effort or not.
> Nevertheless, I understand if someone is satisfied with the fact that he can already get a pretty good idea of how his composition would sound with samples. But someone else says that he'd rather compose the next piece than lose the time to put the first one into action.
> 
> ...


realism shouldn't be the goal anyways, music is about empathy, and communicating emotion and ideas through sounds... 

a realistic orchestra takes back seat to effective music. Mike vertas adventure strings demo doesn't sound realistic at all, but it's absolutely effective at creating the intended emotions. 

his adventure brass demo is incredibly unrealistic, but effective music


----------



## Bluemount Score (Aug 28, 2019)

ProfoundSilence said:


> realism shouldn't be the goal anyways, music is about empathy, and communicating emotion and ideas through sounds...


Agreed. Many composers however have a passion in creating extremely realisting sounding mock-ups, based on real recordings. Either the empathy was there before, or you are doing something wrong by adding something that wasn‘t. Learning and understanding realism can definitely be a „fun challenge“ that can enrich your future compositions in many ways. I think there is no doubt about that.


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 28, 2019)

@beat , here is one thing I am sure of: if anybody studies what you have to teach they will learn something very worthwhile, however far they decide to take it.

@PF, make that "realism sg\hould not be the primary goal< and I agree.

That said, apparently some working composers here say that they actually have clients who demand a result they consider uber-realistic and since the man or woman who writes the check makes the rules, so be it. I don't have any of those clients.


----------



## AndyP (Aug 28, 2019)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> -------------------------------------
> Let's be clear, this is the concept I'm talking about (no Sending):
> 
> 
> ...


One question. I use buses + FX channel for the instruments + VCA for the grouped instruments. NO Effects on the bus channel. Does the same (not really sure about that), but I can adjust the reverb for each instrument in a group.
The reason I am doing it this way is, that the instruments in my groups are from different libs, and they are not all recorded in the same hall. Maybe its more useful to group instruments from the same source when using effects on the bus?


----------



## Iskra (Aug 28, 2019)

Meetyhtan said:


> Therefore if you run out of RAM because of too many active mics loaded, you go with another technique for depth? Which one?


In my case (but I don't run out of RAM often), I just freeze the heaviest tracks to free up some RAM (plus purge everything unused, etc). That's it.


----------



## Iskra (Aug 28, 2019)

Ashermusic said:


> I think people overthink this stuff. But I could be wrong.


After all the previous posts, I still agree with you on that people overthink this stuff. I could also be wrong, but as you, I have heard (and have made myself) tracks with either systems, or a mix of the two, and the improvement (if any) have been marginal. Good mixes seem to be possible the two ways, that's why I choose the less time consuming and simple one. But it might as well be my lack of ability to make better mixes and music with one system or the other.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Aug 28, 2019)

AndyP said:


> One question. I use buses + FX channel for the instruments + VCA for the grouped instruments. NO Effects on the bus channel. Does the same (not really sure about that), but I can adjust the reverb for each instrument in a group.
> The reason I am doing it this way is, that the instruments in my groups are from different libs, and they are not all recorded in the same hall. Maybe its more useful to group instruments from the same source when using effects on the bus?



Yes, your approach can be the solution for different libraries.
With my presented mixing concept I actually produce with the different depths exactly what other libraries have already integrated: The position in space.
So if you use samples that already contain this information, you can route them directly to the output, where everything is glued together with the "tail reverb". 
Beat


----------



## Bluemount Score (Aug 28, 2019)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> With my presented mixing concept I actually produce with the different depths exactly what other libraries have already integrated: The position in space.


Thanks again for the clarification, Beat. And that sure is interesting to me. I really like using instruments from the Kontakt Factory Library from time to time. It's pretty dry and up front however, no mic positions, which sucks, especially when using things like the harp patch. Always sounds in your face and I like my harps to be drowned in space and reverb. Without correct mixing, it just doesn't fit at all.


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Aug 28, 2019)

ProfoundSilence said:


> realism shouldn't be the goal anyways, music is about empathy, and communicating emotion and ideas through sounds...
> 
> a realistic orchestra takes back seat to effective music. Mike vertas adventure strings demo doesn't sound realistic at all, but it's absolutely effective at creating the intended emotions.
> 
> his adventure brass demo is incredibly unrealistic, but effective music



Hi ProfoundSilence
Maybe we mean the same thing. Music sounds realistic to me when you don't notice that it's played by samples. That's exactly what Mike Vertas does: Music. He manages to let the strings play realistically... as if they were real strings. That has nothing to do with the mix at first, as you say. A good mix can of course support the result afterwards.

At this point I would like to mention again that it is not necessary at all to always want to place all music in a "real room". One that always combines different "rooms" is Hans Zimmer. His music might sound so interesting because of these combinations of different rooms.
Example: Hans Zimmer Planet Earth 2...

All the best
Beat


----------



## Ashermusic (Aug 28, 2019)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> Hi ProfoundSilence
> 
> 
> At this point I would like to mention again that it is not necessary at all to always want to place all music in a "real room". One that always combines different "rooms" is Hans Zimmer. His music might sound so interesting because of these combinations of different rooms.
> ...



That's because Hans doesn't worry seemingly about realism. My understanding is that he mixes real instruments with samples that he mangles and truncates until it's something he likes. He isn't John Williams and he isn't trying to be.


----------



## constaneum (Aug 30, 2019)

For me, at the end of the day, music is a form a art. It's really up to you to decide how you like it to be. It's all about personal preference when approaching art. 

Did everyone say you have to draw using crayon, water color or oil? No right ? Of coz, there's still a fundamental stand where instruments like strings front, woodwinds behind strings, brass behind woodwinds and percussion behind brass. 

Not unless you're talking about specific sound design which you wanna make it more unique, interesting and sound different from orchestral instrument placement.


----------

