# Wet / Dry relationships of a Close / Mid /Far IR setup........



## SvK (May 11, 2007)

Question:

Wet / Dry relationships of a Close / Mid /Far IR setup........


OK,

My setup : 3 Altiverbs on busses

Alti1 = Disney Hall 06m (strings)
Alti2 = Disney Hall 14m (winds)
Alti3 = Disney Hall 24m (brass)


My question is:

On Altiverb1 the wet dry relationship of the verb and the strings should be 50 / 50 (ie: you should hear 50 % of the close miked strings and 50% of the 6 meter IR.)

Now for Altiverb 2 stuff (winds) would that wet / dry relationship "change" to a 40 /60...whereas you would dial in LESS dry and MORE wet? Or also just leave at a 50 / 50?

thanx,

SvK


----------



## Hannes_F (May 11, 2007)

SvK @ Sat May 12 said:


> On Altiverb1 the wet dry relationship of the verb and the strings should be 50 / 50 (ie: you should hear 50 % of the close miked strings and 50% of the 6 meter IR.)



Hmm ...

when using one instance of a verb as a send it would make sense for my understanding to use different dry/wet relations for roughly simulating different distance.

But when using something exquisite like different instances of Altiverb for different instrument groups I did never really understand why there should be a dry part all. I would rather set it to 100 % dry and if it should be too wet then reduce the distance, reverb time or room size. Having a dry part would reduce the effect of all other parameters than the mix ratio because they have to work on a constant apron of non-processed audio.

The only motivation for keeping a small fraction of direct sound would be if there had been a certain distance between the instruments and the microphones for the recording. Which sample makers probably use for strings for avoiding an all-too- harsh tone that would be physically correct but provoke unwanted user reactions. A recording done 5 cm from the violin is very different to a recording done 1.5 m distance, and this is different from a recording done with 3 m distance. This distance should either be subtracted from the Altiverb distance or be compensated by a small direct part.

But what do I know LOL. I hope it makes a little sense anyway.


Hannes


----------



## Jack Weaver (May 11, 2007)

Hi SvK,

Hope I'm not simply stating the obvious here. But reading your question as written leads me to offer this. I'll use Logic terminology. 

In traditional mixing, a Bus is sent from the input channel (in this case most likely with an audio instrument instantiated) to an Aux return with a reverb on it. The reverb mix level is almost always set to 100% 'wet'. 

The level of the Bus from the input channel is automated to get the amount of reverb you want at any one moment for that specific instrument. That level is sent to the 100% Wet reverb. 

Additionally the Aux return channel fader level can be automated to change for the dynamic requirements of the composition. 

So the elements that go towards reverb/direct balance in traditional mixing are created by the differing amounts of:
- Input Channel Fader level of the direct instrument
- Bus send level from that input channel
- the type of setting on your reverb plug-in
- Aux return fader level

My guess is that 99% of all records are mixed in this fashion. It allows for very dynamic mixing techniques. 

To the best of my knowledge the concept of mixing with percentages of direct/wet signals has really only become common place since more musicians have been mixing in the MIDI 'environment' (not a Logic term here). It wasn't until Lexicon and some others in the late '80's and early '90's started putting 'Mix' knobs and outputs on their MI gear that we even saw this technique happen. And for the longest time it was mostly for live PA work. Eventually musicians took their PA rigs home and started making home studios and this technique migrated with that trend. 

Now, you don't have to do it that way I mentioned... I mean after all, your stuff sounds real good as it is. 

Hope all is well.


----------



## SvK (May 11, 2007)

Jack,

Thanx , I understand all of that.........I am not making myself clear.........

All 3 of the Altiverb instances listed above are of course set to 100% wet.......

What I am asking is that when "sending" to the altiverb 2 (farther away then alti 1) I sould also on that stem pull down the fader (it's set to pre-fader) hence less direct signal...right??

SvK


----------



## Jack Weaver (May 11, 2007)

Duh, I see...

Yeah, well since it's an Altiverb setting that mimics distance (I guess you mean that the little speakers in the GUI are pushed further back) the real question is does Altiverb in that setting also mimic the diminishing of the amplitude the correct amount, besides mixing the direct reflections/tail balance. That might be a good question for their forum. I'd like to know too. 

Usually when sound sources of the same amplitude are twice the distance from the mic they are down 6dB (a halving of the power). For example if you have a clarinet 10' from a mic and another clarinet 20' from a mic - both playing at the same loudness - the one 20' away is 6dB down in level. A similar instrument 5' from the mic will be 6dB hotter that the one 10" away. I think it's called the inverse square rule.


----------



## SvK (May 12, 2007)

Jack Weaver @ Fri May 11 said:


> Usually when sound sources of the same amplitude are twice the distance from the mic they are down 6dB (a halving of the power). For example if you have a clarinet 10' from a mic and another clarinet 20' from a mic - both playing at the same loudness - the one 20' away is 6dB down in level. A similar instrument 5' from the mic will be 6dB hotter that the one 10" away. I think it's called the inverse square rule.



VERY helpful! Thanx alot 

(yeah I'm not using Altiverb......I'm using Space Designer, which does not have the stage positioning feature...so instead I will use pre-fader technique and this rule will be very helpful indeed. Thanx!)

SvK


----------



## midphase (May 15, 2007)

I understood what Steven was saying in his first post....does this make me smarter than you all?


Seriously, I think that trying to turn the different distance ratios into a science defeats the purpose a bit, I would suggest just using your ears to determine what sounds good and realistic.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 18, 2007)

midphase @ Wed May 16 said:


> I understood what Steven was saying in his first post....does this make me smarter than you all?



This goes without saying LOL.

However I did understand both the original post and your answer, but my feeling is that mine has not really been understood (sorry for being so bold).



> Seriously, I think that trying to turn the different distance ratios into a science defeats the purpose a bit, I would suggest just using your ears to determine what sounds good and realistic.



This is always true but some knowledge does not hurt. It has taken a time and good monitors until I realized that for orchestra it does not make sense to mix something like 50 % of the dry signal with 50 % of the reverbed signal. This is OK for pop music but for orchestral music it gives you half an oboe right in your face and half an oboe way back in a big room. Once one knows this one hears it.


----------



## SvK (May 18, 2007)

Hannes,

I have to disagree here,

since in film-music there is a lot of close-miking going on, depending on score, style and mood.

SvK


----------



## Hannes_F (May 18, 2007)

SvK @ Fri May 18 said:


> since in film-music there is a lot of close-miking going on, depending on score, style and mood.



OK that is true, it can be seen at every "making of" :D . 

I supposed they would use those tracks to emphasize the solo instruments but run their sound fully through a reverb nevertheless in the most cases. So substantial percentages of these closely-miked tracks are directly mixed in?

The thing that I notice is that mixing in more direct sound makes the space flatter, and also the room information given by the early reflections is more confusing. But that may just be me.

I see that I have only got one aspect of the whole thing and need to think more about it.


----------



## synthetic (May 18, 2007)

I was reading a book called "Mix Masters" the other night, and one of the interviews was with Shawn Murphy, who recorded ET, Star Wars Ep 1, 2, 3, most of John Williams' and James Newton Howard's scores, etc. At the time of this interview at least (they were recording JNH's The Pelican Brief), he says that he hates close mics. He was close miking the strings and percussion, but says he rarely uses them. He might use close mics on the low strings for definition. He especially hated them on percussion. Most if not all of the sound comes from the Decca Tree and the outriggers. 

I've always liked the sound of his recordings, so I thought that was really interesting.


----------



## hv (May 18, 2007)

That's interesting but I've never used a decca tree array myself so I did a little research. Found a good paper on it over on DPA's site:

http://www.dpamicrophones.com/Images/DM01467.pdf

Curiously, it outlines 5 different possible decca tree configurations with from 3 to 5 mics, some or all being omnis. The suggestion is to use directionals for some of the mics when there's a need to put some focus on one of the sound sources.

Which brings up another question in my mind about Murphy's aversion for close micing. He doesn't mention if he's talking omnis or directionals for that either. My usual reason to mic in close is when I need to minimize the room ambiance in the recording. Or to get a mix component to simulate pre-delay and manipulate perceived intimacy. But If I do that with a directional, the proximity effect could make natural sounding eq impossible given their inherent tendency for variable off-axis frequency response. Close micing with an omni is a whole different ballgame, however. Just makes me wonder if he's ever tried that.

Howard


----------



## synthetic (May 18, 2007)

I'm sure he's tried everything. He says in the interview that they experiment with every recording. In this one he had a pair of B&K mics on the tree, and was running them through some mic pres. They did this on an extra set of tracks to try out during the mix. 

The standard for film score recording is to use three Neumann M50s for your Decca Tree, placed over the conductor's head. There's your L, C, R, and you can balance them to taste. This is true for 99% of score recordings made. The M50 is "mostly" omni, the pickup pattern is like a circle with a chunk sliced off the back. 

The "outriggers" can be any other mic, and they are usually further back and farther out to either side. Many recordists now have even further-back mics that they may use as surround mics. 

Close mics are typically cardiod mics. They could be Neumann U47, U67, KM84, Shoepps, Royer ribbons, you name it. They're used to bring out a part that's getting lost, like a marimba pulse or French Horn figure that's getting lost when the orchestra plays. 

But the M50s in Decca Tree is like an SM-57 on snare and guitar amp, it's practically the law.


----------



## SvK (May 18, 2007)

Ok....

I'll give an example.......


Let's say....

I want a BIG orchestral sound with fairly long tail (like disney hall) BUT it's an action cue.......with lots of short, fat low brass hits (like minor thirds ) rumf, rumf (ala goldsmith)

now on those low bone/tuba/horns hits ...you will NOT want that big tail (but you do want it on your strings, etc)


Would this not be an example of putting close mics on the brass section?

SvK


----------



## synthetic (May 18, 2007)

The recording stages in Hollywood are relatively dry compared to a concert hall. So you're not getting a long tail being 30 feet away from the brass. 

In your example, yes you would use the close mic on the brass if you wanted it to be more defined. 

I don't think that mix engineers use the close mics as a wet/dry mix. Instead they favor the Decca tree and then use the close mics to add definition or to bring out a part that's getting lost. Then more reverb gets added in the mix, through Altiverb, Lexicon 480 or TC M6000 boxes.


----------



## Hannes_F (May 18, 2007)

synthetic @ Fri May 18 said:


> The recording stages in Hollywood are relatively dry compared to a concert hall. So you're not getting a long tail being 30 feet away from the brass.
> 
> In your example, yes you would use the close mic on the brass if you wanted it to be more defined.
> 
> I don't think that mix engineers use the close mics as a wet/dry mix. Instead they favor the Decca tree and then use the close mics to add definition or to bring out a part that's getting lost. Then more reverb gets added in the mix, through Altiverb, Lexicon 480 or TC M6000 boxes.


 
Side thought: I think that many concert halls are toooooo reverby. This makes a polished, smooth sound but takes much of the emotion away because everything sounds soo glassy perfect. Since film music is all about emotion it makes sense to have less reverb than in a big hall. Nevertheless I suppose they had to minimize studio area even more than what would be needed for the ambience of choice and rather invent echo chambers at some phase of the film music history.

Now if one would want to simulate that with samples one way would be to run the sounds completely (100 % wet) through Altiverb but with the impulse response of one of those recording spaces ... and then add an instance of a Lexicon IR on it.

I have tried this before but it was a bit confusing that I did have the direct reflections of a relatively small scoring stage in it that did not really go away with the master reverb. Maybe because I used the IR of a studio that was too tiny. But the depth differentiation was stunning. And overall much better than a dry/wet pop mix IMHO.


----------



## SvK (May 18, 2007)

Synthetic....


Thanx,

SvK


----------

