# Routing Reverb Sends...



## Riggs (Aug 3, 2012)

Hi,

When grouping a Violin Section to a Sub-Mix... What would be the advantages, or disadvantages of routing either Serial or Parallel Aux Sends... for two or three different Reverbs... Such as Early Reflect Reverb, Tails, etc.

Any Routing Suggestions would be Appreciated.

Best Regards,
Riggs


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 3, 2012)

This is how I do it:

1. Violin Track send to three separate FX(aux) channels.

2. Aux Channel 1 = ER - Aux Channel 2 = LR - Aux Channel 3 = Master Algo Verb.

3. Set the stereo output (dry signal) to another group channel called Violins Dry.

4. Set the output of Aux Channel 1 and 2 to a separate Violins Wet aux channel.

5. Create a new bus called Violins Bus. 

6. Finally set the output of Violins Dry + Wet to Violins Bus.

This way, you have complete control over all parameters with just faders. 

If done with each section of the orchestra, this method offers immense flexibility to automate and balance levels on the fly.

This also allows to mix somewhat on the fly as you are writing. 

Of course, a final mix is necessary but you can have a balanced gain staging and manage dynamic levels between each section.

This also allows for special effects in terms of reverbing out certain instruments or busses.


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Riggs (Aug 3, 2012)

Tanuj,

This was exactly what I was trying to achieve but couldn't get. 

You're so Right about the Flexibility to be able to Balance Levels, and to Automate.

Thanks for the Help...

Riggs


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Aug 5, 2012)

Hi Riggs

Instead of AUX-channels you also can create 3 Group channels or perhaps called Bus-channels within your DAW for this matter. 

Groupe channel 1 without effect (Dry)
Groupe channel 2 with the reverb with the ERs (total wet)
Groupe channel 3 contains the reverbfor the tail (total wet)
Route the signal through all these Group Channels. Don't use the send function.
Maybe this leads to more success...

As the ER-Reverb I recommend to use a Convolution Reverb (~ first 30ms of the IR)
The reverb for producing the Tail can be an Algo-Reverb...

That Tanuj's recommendation works shows my example here:
Listen to the Result different depths by changing the ER and the Dry signal
(For ERs I used the Schumann-Saal of the convolution Reverb VSL-SUITE (first 30ms), for the Tail I used the Roomworks-Reverb of Cubase (Church-Preset) with a constant level) 
From Solo to farthest away - all positions ar possible.

*How to use the technique for an orchestra mix?*
An aim could be to create 3 or 4 such different depths (fix) which makes you able to route instruments either to a close or to a farther depth for getting a virtual and depth orchestra. For example: Brass instruments sound normally in front of the orchestra...

All the best
and a lot of success!
Beat


----------



## Riggs (Aug 6, 2012)

Hi Beat,

Thanks for all your insight . . .

The audio attachment was Great! Very clean and crisp, which made it easy to hear the varying Reverbs.

Below is a Screen shot of my Reverb Routings simplified down to one Violin Channel.

Channel Strip One, Vienna Instr. Routed Out to Bus 5... Dry.

Bus 1... Early Reflect, and Bus... 2 Reverb Tail, Routed out to Bus 4... Wet. 

In turn they go out to Bus 6... Master Violin Bus. 

Master Violin Bus... 6 is Routed to Bus...7 my Final Reverb, which is the Depth Reverb.

Bus... 7 is Routed out to Stereo Out.

That said . . . I’m a little confused. 

If you don’t use Sends at all on either the Instrument Channel, or the Dry Bus Channel, for the Early Reflect Reverb, and the Tail Reverb... How would you bus them? 

Between You and Tanju’s suggestions... This is the set up I have now.

Best Regards,
Riggs


----------



## kclements (Aug 6, 2012)

vibrato @ Fri Aug 03 said:


> This is how I do it:
> 
> 1. Violin Track send to three separate FX(aux) channels.
> 
> ...



Great Thread, guys - Thanks so much. I am updateing my template and this info is so helpful. 

Just so I understand and if I use the setup above for the V1. Then for the V2 I would follow #1 & #2. 

#3 would be a different bus called Violins 2 Dry, #4 same, #5 same #6 same.

Duplicate for rest of the string section.

Then, For the WW's/Brass/Percussion - same setup. Do I use the same Aux Chnls for #2 or do I set up additional sets for ER, LR and Master Algo Verb for each different section? My guess is they would all go to the same aux as the 1st Violins - certainly the Algo verb, yes?

Thanks - 
kc


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 6, 2012)

WAY over-thinking this for samples IMHO, since as Piet often says, at the end of the day, they will still sound like samples.

All strings channel strips send to Aux (bus) for your strings verb. Inside the plug-in, set the ERs and tails the way you like them.

Assign the output of the vlns & vlas to another aux named i.e. Hi Strings and the cellos and basses to another named Low Strings, or alternatively output them all to one. 

Do the same for brass, winds, synths, percussion, etc. You should end up with about 6-12 auxes for automating your mix. (Personally I like to bounce to audio and work with stems for my final mixing.)

(Opt) if you are using a convolution for your sectional verbs, open a send on each of the auxes to send them to an algorithmic verb for overall gloss.


----------



## kclements (Aug 6, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Aug 06 said:


> You should end up with about 6-12 auxes for automating your mix. (Personally I like to bounce to audio and work with stems for my final mixing.)
> 
> (Opt) if you are using a convolution for your sectional verbs, open a send on each of the auxes to send them to an algorithmic verb for overall gloss.



Thanks Jay - so man options and opinions. 

Hey Jay - I don't want to hi-jack the thread, but is there a way in Logic to bounce all the midi tracks to audio at once - all on separate Tracks? I am starting to bounce my midi stuff to audio, but selecting each track and then Bounce In Place for each of my 20 or so tracks takes a long time. Is there an easier way I haven't found? Maybe this is covered in your book - I will get it out again and check.

Thanks
kc


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 6, 2012)

kclements @ Mon Aug 06 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Aug 06 said:
> 
> 
> > You should end up with about 6-12 auxes for automating your mix. (Personally I like to bounce to audio and work with stems for my final mixing.)
> ...



Create as many audio tracks as you will need for your stems assigned to ascending bus inputs. Arm them and hit record.


----------



## Riggs (Aug 6, 2012)

Ah Simplicity . . .

Jay Thanks.

Best Regards
Riggs


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 6, 2012)

Riggs @ Mon Aug 06 said:


> Ah Simplicity . . .
> 
> Jay Thanks.
> 
> ...



You are most welcome.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 7, 2012)

Jay,

The set-up may seem complex but once you do it, its very simple to use. And it offers a lot of flexibility.

I agree with Piet in principle but it does not mean that we should not push ourselves just because samples will sound like samples in the end. I take making my sampled mock-ups sound as good and realistic as possible.

I dont think we have achieved the highest standard possible in programming - there is a lot more to be done (certainly for myself). I am always looking to do better and I dont like to put down the process of creating music with samples to - 'well, it just sounds like samples'.

I like to remain inspired and push the boundaries. I hope, some of my work reflects the complex routing system that I have developed over the years.

The clear advantage is flexibility and on-the-fly control of parameters without going into each reverb instance.

When you have over 200 tracks, it does get a bit confusing. 


But of course, as always the music in the first place has to be good. No amount of processing etc will make it sound good.


@Beat - you have been extremely generous over the years in helping young composers and programmers (I have absorbed some of your concepts years ago at the VSL forum). Thank you as always for sharing your experiments and knowledge.


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## kclements (Aug 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Aug 06 said:


> kclements @ Mon Aug 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Jay - I don't want to hi-jack the thread, but is there a way in Logic to bounce all the midi tracks to audio at once - all on separate Tracks? I am starting to bounce my midi stuff to audio, but selecting each track and then Bounce In Place for each of my 20 or so tracks takes a long time. Is there an easier way I haven't found? Maybe this is covered in your book - I will get it out again and check.
> ...



Ahh, yes. It is all so clear now. Thanks Jay. Makes total sense to me - don't know why I couldn't come up with that.

Cheers
kc


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 7, 2012)

vibrato @ Tue Aug 07 said:


> Jay,
> 
> The set-up may seem complex but once you do it, its very simple to use. And it offers a lot of flexibility.
> 
> ...



I tried all that with the libraries I use years ago. Complexity does not bother me in the slightest when it makes an appreciable difference in the end result, but IMHO it doesn't with anything other than perhaps VSL. And now with VSL, MIR Pro is the better solution.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 7, 2012)

vibrato @ Tue Aug 07 said:


> (...) I dont think we have achieved the highest standard possible in programming - there is a lot more to be done (certainly for myself). I am always looking to do better and I dont like to put down the process of creating music with samples to - 'well, it just sounds like samples'.(...)


Tanuj,

It has never been my intention to spread the idea _“samples always remain samples, no matter what, so you might as well not bother trying to do the best you can with them”_, and when I keep saying that reverb doesn’t really matter, I only do so because I believe that there are much more essential things to consider when working on a mock-up. Things like: performance, dynamics, colour, balance, arrangement, etc. … all of them A LOT more important to the well-being of a mock-up than reverb.
So, in short: I just think that many people could invest their studio-time much more wisely and productively (and enjoyably) than by going on a never-ending quest, trying to find that ultimate reverb-setup which will, at long last, bring more realism to their mock-ups. Because: such a thing doesn’t exist. That’s been my point all along.

VSL — or LASS, Trilogy, Westgate or whatever — doesn’t sound fundamentally more convincing (or less so) whether you choose MIR, Softube TSAR, LexiconPCM, Altiverb, SPAT, Aether, QL Spaces or Logic’s SpaceDesigner to spatialize its instruments. People who tell you that they can make a more believable VSL-stringsection with 3 Bricasti’s than with, say, 3 instances of Aether, are talking complete nonsense, in my opinon.

If I want, or should the need arise, I can spatialize The Trumpet entirely satisfactorily (to my ears and for my music anyway) with just a basic delay unit, a panner and a modest, decent reverb. Sure, I prefer to use SPAT for the job, but if an international law were passed tomorrow prohibiting all uses of SPAT across the globe, I wouldn’t start crying in utter despair. I’d simply revert to doing what I used to do before SPAT arrived on the scene, and the results wouldn’t sound significantly worse. I actually doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference.
See, you don’t breath life into The Trumpet (or any other virtual instrument) by using some fancy reverb (or a very intricate reverb set-up), you do so first-and-foremost by playing/programming the instrument so that it _performs the music_, rather than have it just generating the notes it is being triggered to play. And after that, simply see to it that your reverb (whichever reverb, or combination of reverbs, you choose) adds a musically sympathetic space. Quite simple, really.
One of the first things that often bothers me listening to a mock-up, is the performance (or, more likely: the absence of it): articulations that struggle with the musical content, programming decisions which are at odds with flow of the music, phrases which are sloppily shaped, envelopes which are neglected,… things like that (and there are many, many, many). But never the reverb. Reverb either works or it doesn’t (and if it doesn't, it is easily remedied). Reverb is either applied with taste or not. But, unlike performance, it never-never-never-ever contributes to the _musical_ success of a mock-up.
Besides, any mock-up can work equally well with a hundred, even a thousand completely different reverb configurations. A piece of music, on the other hand, has only a few ideal performances. In other words: there is no 'best reverb', there is however (and very much so) a 'best performance'. All the more reason, I should think, to spend as much time as you have on perfecting the performance, instead of wasting it on something as trivial as reverb. 

So yes, there is indeed a lot more that can be done if we want to increase the quality of our mock-ups. But me, I simply do not believe that reverb-related affairs are in any way a part of that lot.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 7, 2012)

As usual, Piet goes too far. In between huge difference and no difference is a wide swath. Sure a better reverb may not help the samples sound more "believable" but it helps them sound "better" and that is a more worthy goal to reach for with samples anyway.




.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 7, 2012)

Jay,

Just for fun: you program a HS-phrase and then proces it with the best reverb you have — I assume you'll be picking QL Spaces, but should you have access to a Bricasti, you may pick that as well of course —, and I will program that exact same phrase, also using HS of course, but will process it with Logic's own SpaceDesigner.
I choose SpaceDesigner because, according to you, QL Spaces is the better unit by far, so therefore the result of this excercise should be — if we are to believe what you say about "great reverb making things sound better" anyway — that your version will come out sounding better than mine, right?

What do you say, up for it?

I maintain that it won't make one bit of difference. The only difference that will matter, should there be one, will arise ONLY as a result from a difference in our programming skills/talents: if you're the better (more musical) programmer, your example will sound better, if however I turn out to be the better programmer, mine will. Reverb has got nothing to do with it.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 7, 2012)

re-peat @ Tue Aug 07 said:


> Jay,
> 
> Just for fun: you program a HS-phrase and then proces it with the best reverb you have — I assume you'll be picking QL Spaces, but should you have access to a Bricasti, you may pick that as well of course —, and I will program that exact same phrase, also using HS of course, but will process it with Logic's own SpaceDesigner.
> I choose SpaceDesigner because, according to you, QL Spaces is the better unit by far, so therefore the result of this excercise should be — if we are to believe what you say about "great reverb making things sound better" anyway — that your version will come out sounding better than mine, right?
> ...



I agree that the programming is more important. That to me is obvious. It is just the "won't make one bit of difference" and " Reverb has got nothing to do with it." that I take issue with. 

I throw the challenge back to you. Send me a short Logic project, so that we remove the programming skills issue, and I will bounce it with the Space Designer preset of your choice, and then with my tandem of QL Spaces/UAD Plate 140 and let's see which people prefer. 

I already know the answer because I have been down that road with Logic clients before.

And also, it is cumulative. The more instruments you add, the more help you get from the better reverb.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Aug 07 said:


> (...) so that we remove the programming skills issue (...)


Well no, that's just it, you see. The 'programming skills issue' is in fact the very thing on which my entire argument is built, we can't just remove it. If we remove it, we'll be merely comparing reverbs 'in abstracto' and that, it seems to me, is the subject of an entirely different (and far less interesting) discussion.
What concerns me here is the relationship between programming (the creation of a performance) on the one hand, and reverberation (aiding to improve the overal sound), on the other hand, and establishing how much (or how little) bearing each of these has on the process of producing a decent mock-up.

By the way, I don't agree with you or any of your clients. I refuse to believe that you can create better-sounding virtual strings with a combination of QL Spaces / UAD 140 than with SpaceDesigner. (But this leads us again into the 'comparing reverbs' discussion which, like I said, doesn't really interest me all that much.)

I do agree entirely however with what you say about the impact of reverb being cumulative. It's true that the 'quality influence' of a reverb, whether positive or negative, increases exponentially (and not in a linear way) when the number of tracks increases.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 7, 2012)

re-peat @ Tue Aug 07 said:


> By the way, I don't agree with you or any of your clients. I refuse to believe that you can create better-sounding virtual strings with a combination of QL Spaces / UAD 140 than with SpaceDesigner. (But this leads us again into the 'comparing reverbs' discussion which, like I said, doesn't really interest me all that much.)
> a linear way) when the number of tracks increases.
> 
> _



Once again, send me the Logic project and I will bet you that at last 8 out 10 here will not agree with you.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Aug 7, 2012)

I fear we might enter a meaningless debate.

But, I agree with most of what you guys are trying to say. 

Piet,

Yes definitely choice reverb is not suddenly going to make your music sound good if the composition/orchestration and programming is bad.

I agree completely that they are far more important parameters.

However, this is a reverb thread after all, so a microscopic view of that department is valid.

Jay, sure MIR may sound great but currently, I am not able to use it because SPAT fits better into my existing set-up.

The reverb thing is important for both VSL and LASS which are very dry compared to other products and I have no problem making them sound good with Vienna Suite and SPAT with FORTI.


Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 7, 2012)

Jay, 

I don't understand: if all we are going to do is simply comparing reverbs, and nothing else, why do you still need a Logic project of mine? Why not simply show us the alledged difference with one of your own tracks? Much easier and quicker, no? You probably have these files already available, since you appear to have offered your clients the choice and have evaluated the differences with them.
So, just post a version of some track with your favourite reverb combination, another version with SpaceDesigner, and preferably also a dry one (so that I or someone else can maybe have a go at it as well).

We'll know soon enough then. No?

_


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Aug 7, 2012)

> ...Bus... 7 is Routed out to Stereo Out.
> 
> That said . . . I’m a little confused.
> 
> ...



Hi Riggs
There are always a lot of possibilities. All the answers here show this matter once more. This can confusing sometimes.
Because I'm currently writing on a tutorial called Tutorial FX I can give you a bit more support (out of it).
See the following Image. It shows you a possible routing (as I explained my version above above - not those of Tanuj)





Hope you can see the routings because of the max 480pixels :( 
Othertwise here as Download: Reverb Concept 1280 pixels

As an example
The following piece is mixed with this concept: http://www.musik-produktion-createc.ch/downloads/cre_karg_elert_praise_the_lord_vipro.mp3 (Praise the Lord with Drums and Cymbals, Sigfrid Karg-Elert, 1877-1933)
(Arr. for Symphonic Orchestra Kf)
Take into account that all samples have been dry before the mix (VSL).
For giving an image of the virtual stage for this piece:





And a final word
We are composers, arrangers, conductors, players, mixers... so we are able to do 
what we want and to turn all the matters to our taste. So there are an infinite number of final results possible... Choosing a certain depth for a section is just one parameter... that makes the fascination even if I'm working now for more than 10 years with samples. 

Have fun and success
_Beat_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 7, 2012)

re-peat @ Tue Aug 07 said:


> Jay,
> 
> I don't understand: if all we are going to do is simply comparing reverbs, and nothing else, why do you still need a Logic project of mine? Why not simply show us the alledged difference with one of your own tracks? Much easier and quicker, no? You probably have these files already available, since you appear to have offered your clients the choice and have evaluated the differences with them.
> So, just post a version of some track with your favourite reverb combination, another version with SpaceDesigner, and preferably also a dry one (so that I or someone else can maybe have a go at it as well).
> ...



Because if we use mine, typically you will say "well this is not programmed well so I cannot tell, etc"  

This way, the onus is on you


----------



## Riggs (Aug 7, 2012)

To All In This Discussion . . .

All I wanted was a Great Reverb Routing to use in my mixes.

Tanju and Jay make very Legitimate Points on how to go about doing it.

Beat Kaufmann, You’re the Greatest. 

But, Re-Peat... I Totally Disagree With You about Reverb.

A Great Sounding Reverb Will Make or Break a Great Piece of Music in a Mix, Sampled or Live recordings . . .

Fine Reverb not only makes the samples or recordings sound great, but lets you feel the Space that you enter it into. 

For me, Dimensional Reverb skillfully programmed is Ear Candy for that piece of Music.

Best Regards,
Riggs


----------



## re-peat (Aug 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Aug 07 said:


> (...) Because if we use mine, typically you will say "well this is not programmed well so I cannot tell, etc" (...)


You overestimate my evilness, Jay. 
But as I'm beginning to sense that you're quite unable to demonstrate what you bet _"at least 8 out of 10 people will agree with"_, let's leave it at that.

Riggs,

Mark my words, before long I think you will agree with me. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not next year, maybe not even next decade, but one day, you will. The power you ascribe to 'a great reverb' simply doesn't exist. A great reverb doesn't make or break anything (if it breaks anything, it's not the reverb's fault, but the user's), the only thing it does is provide space for greatness to exist in (assuming we're talking about great music, great sound or a great performance). Good reverbs are better at this than bad reverbs, sure, but the fact remains the same: reverbs can't do what you claim they can.

If that greatness (in sound, music or performance) isn't there to begin with, reverb is completely powerless to do _anything at all_ as far as great sound is concerned. Add the best-sounding reverb to a mediocre sounding mix, and you end up with ... a mediocre sounding mix. Add the most dimensionaly rich reverb to any virtual stringsection, and you'll always end up with a fake, flat and poor-sounding stringsection in a nice sounding space. But _never_ with a great-sounding result. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. I mean, that's not even an opinion, it's a simple, easily verifiable fact.

It is musically, physically, scientifically, psychologically and technically totally impossible to create a great sounding mix with reverb when you haven't got a great-sounding dry source to work with. And as mock-ups aren't exactly known for their 'great sound', forgive me if I seriously doubt the importance of reverb in this particular niche of music-making. Hence my axiom: in mock-ups, reverbs don't really matter all that much. Simply slap some on, I say, preferably in a tasteful and idiomatically correct way, and be done with it. It really is that simple.

There is no music recording, mix or production on earth that is made to sound 'great' solely by its use of reverb. If you think differently, as your enthusiastic use of capitals seems to indicate, please give me one example of such a recording — it doesn't even have to be a mock-up. One example of a production where reverb is shown to have the power that you believe it has. 
I say: any recording that sounds great, only does so if there are other great-sounding elements in there, apart from the reverb. With only a great-soundng reverb (and no other ingredients of equal sonic quality), you can never have a great sounding mix.

Look, I'm not saying that (good) reverb has nothing to contribute. Far from it. I'm saying that reverb can only contribute something good if there's already something good-sounding to begin with.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 7, 2012)

re-peat @ Tue Aug 07 said:


> Look, I'm not saying that (good) reverb has nothing to contribute. Far from it. I'm saying that reverb can only contribute something good if there's already something good-sounding to begin with.
> 
> _



Well, that us all ANY OF US are saying! NOBODY said either "if everything else is crappy, great reverb fixes it.". NOBODY said, "Reverb is the most important element when working with samples."

:roll:


----------



## re-peat (Aug 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Aug 07 said:


> Well, that us all ANY OF US are saying!


You seem to have lost your capacity to read, as well as to type, all in one go, Jay.
Unless I'm completely blind, Riggs clearly states: _"A Great Sounding Reverb Will Make or Break a Great Piece of Music in a Mix, Sampled or Live recordings . . . Fine Reverb not only makes the samples or recordings sound great, but lets you feel the Space that you enter it into."_ Let's maybe read this bit again, just to be sure that you get it: "Fine Reverb not only makes the samples or recordings sound great ..."

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 7, 2012)

re-peat @ Tue Aug 07 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Aug 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that us all ANY OF US are saying!
> ...



He does not say "instead of everything else" does he?

Anyway, if you had just started with the sentence you ended up with, it would have saved us about 6 posts.

To maintain that good reverb is a cure-all is silly, To maintain as you did EARLIER when you wrote:"that it won't make one bit of difference" is equally silly.


----------



## re-peat (Aug 7, 2012)

Jay, excuse me, but it is not for you to decide which posts have merit and which don’t. Proclaiming which posts have reason to be written and which don’t, is something which — regrettably for you, I suppose — falls entirely outside your authority. And outside your capabilities as well. You don't represent the entire membership here, not even the majority, you only represent your isolated, insignificant little self. Just like I do. And everyone else here does.
Maybe my six posts were a waste of time to _you_ (you seem to have happily participated while it lasted though, I can’t fail to observe), but that doesn’t mean that someone else might not find something of use in them, even if it is something they strongly disagree with.

See, we don’t have to agree to make progress here. The fact that most of the participants in this thread strongly disagree with me, is an equally positive outcome to this discussion, in my opinion. The matter is scrutinized, thought about and opposing viewpoints are argumented (well, mine are, anyway). All of which I think is very good and useful. Maybe some of it is ‘silly’, could be, but even so, it might inspire a new approach, a fresh way of looking at things with, hopefully, a pleasantly surprising and maybe even satisfying result. 

I’m not in this thread to win an argument, or act all gloatingly superior as you seem again keen to do as usual, no, I’m only in here to make people maybe reconsider, even if just for one second, some of the established myths regarding the use of reverb, and its use in mock-ups in particular. That's all.
But if everyone, including your clients, carry on believing tomorrow what they believe today, I don't care. I've said what I felt needed saying. And this time, it took seven posts to do so.

_


----------



## Riggs (Aug 7, 2012)

Hi Beat,

Thanks for taking the time out to prepare and send these images.

They were a Big Help . . . 

I understand now, what you meant when you said to bus the signals to another bus.
Especially the Early Reflections. Also, to hear how it all applied in your audio file was Great...

All the Best to You,
Riggs


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 7, 2012)

Piet:

First you wrote:"that it won't make one bit of difference"

Then you wrote: "'Im not saying that (good) reverb has nothing to contribute."

It took you 7 posts because of your lack of clarity, not the depth of your contribution. :lol:


----------



## Tino Danielzik (Aug 7, 2012)

Talking about Reverb settings...

I'm testing the demo version of Valhalla Room reverb in combination with Altiverb TODD AO ER, but don't get a convincing result out of it. 

Is there anybody who would share some patches or settings from Valhalla he/she is using. 

Regards,
Tino


----------



## Riggs (Aug 9, 2012)

Between You and Tanju’s suggestions... This is the set up I have now. 

I'm reposting this because I don't think I uploaded it correctly the first time...

Best Regards, 
Riggs


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Aug 9, 2012)

Riggs @ Tue 07 Aug said:


> Hi Beat,
> 
> Thanks for taking the time out to prepare and send these images.
> They were a Big Help . . .
> ...


Hi Riggs

It was a pleasure. 
Thanks for your kind feedback.
Go on your successful way...

Beat


----------



## Arbee (Aug 9, 2012)

This thread is very informative, and mostly because of the disparate views, so thanks to you all.

I'm still a complete re-born novice in this area but I stumbled blindly into a reverb arrangement that is showing promise for me (apologies for no examples yet, still fumbling). I use MIR PRO to set the stage with a smaller room/venue, then send the mixed output through a subtle Vienna Suite Hybrid Reverb to put a clean and very sweet tail on it. The reverb "layering" seems to add a lot of depth to dry samples. Those of you with more experience may be rolling your eyes at this but I just hear what I hear.


----------



## Tino Danielzik (Aug 10, 2012)

Tino Danielzik @ Tue Aug 07 said:


> Talking about Reverb settings...
> 
> I'm testing the demo version of Valhalla Room reverb in combination with Altiverb TODD AO ER, but don't get a convincing result out of it.
> 
> ...



Anyone? 


Thanks in advance! 

Regards,
Tino


----------



## jleckie (Aug 10, 2012)

Regarding the ER's. Is there a good reference for reverb times on release settings?


----------



## jleckie (May 15, 2014)

That was quite the read... Why do I do this to myself?

Piets absolutely correct regarding reverbs. You can test all day long with different verbs on your project. i.e. take a string line, throw a Bricasti at it or throw on your SPACES. Neither will sound better, just different. (assuming of course your setting are similar)


----------



## Dan Mott (May 15, 2014)

Tino Danielzik @ Wed Aug 08 said:


> Talking about Reverb settings...
> 
> I'm testing the demo version of Valhalla Room reverb in combination with Altiverb TODD AO ER, but don't get a convincing result out of it.
> 
> ...



A lot of people love Valhalla room, but I quite like the Vintage one better. Have you tried that?


----------

