# Loss of detail with Reverbs



## Tanuj Tiku (Nov 23, 2012)

Sometimes I struggle with detailing of sound in my mock-ups.

I feel samples react differently in each cue because sometimes, the staccato sounds better with a particular reverb setting but then as soon as I switch to a more fluid legato part, I have to sometimes again change the reverb setting by automating it. 

This sometimes results in loss of clarity. I can achieve the space and distance at times but at the cost of lack of detail.

I am wondering if this is a question of EQ or the dry tracks or reverbs or it is entirely a dry/wet issue.

As an example I am posting two different pieces of music I have done:

1. HRVI - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/HRVI.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/HRVI.wav) - Here I am not entirely happy with the detailing of sound. The reverb seems to mask the detail I would like to get with the sound. I am afraid I have tried the wet/dry approach but then the instruments stick out and it seems the reverb is just hanging around.

2. DFIIVI - http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/DFIIVI.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/DFIIVI.wav) - Here there is more detail I suppose because of the scale and the violins are more prominent, everything is playing in a higher register. But once again, it does sound a little washed out.


Tanuj.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 23, 2012)

1. step: Experiment with the "pre-delay" setting.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 23, 2012)

What Gunther says.

Also, I''d suggest rolling off the low end in your reverb send. That's clouding up the reverb.


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 23, 2012)

As a side note I will add this information:

In short notes recordings there is less baked in room/reverb as is in the recordings of the longer notes. This is the reason for that sound different.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Nov 23, 2012)

When you want to preserve clarity, delays instead of reverbs can be your best friends...


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 23, 2012)

Patrick de Caumette @ Fri Nov 23 said:


> When you want to preserve clarity, delays instead of reverbs can be your best friends...



Also true!


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 23, 2012)

I talked with Joel Revzen during the Lake Tahoe Summerfest, an excellent award winning Conductor, and asked which Reverb plug ins he uses and he laughed.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 23, 2012)

Problem isn't the reverb it's the samples and orchestration. Way to weak for the type of piece you're trying to pull off here.

edit: also the mix. 

It sounds to me like you're trying to use reverb to make it sound "more bigger and badass" rather than letting the music itself do that. So thus, you lose the music.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Nov 24, 2012)

joseherring,

Which piece are you talking about? - Could be both!

The samples are pretty good (they are all from VSL mostly) but I fear my orchestration is not that great as usual.

I did not intend to use the reverb to create a huge sound but I guess, it does sound that way at the moment.

How can I improve this in terms of orchestration and over all balance while still retaining clarity.

Probably the first thing to do is reduce reverb to hear more dry sound and also go back to composition stage.


Tanuj.


----------



## Tatu (Nov 24, 2012)

Hi Tanuj!

Are you using some "epic", "massive", "godlike" space with 6s tail that's closer to Grand Canyon than an actual sound stage / hall? And how many layers of verbs do you have going on there? 

That HRVI sounds like it's just way too washed with it and it sounds as if you'd mixed it so, that it sounds very flat and compressed and the clearest, identifiable sound is that tambourine(?) on the front.. so you've lost the music a bit there. Maybe you should set a different bus/send for the sustains, since they jump very much to the front at the end (what germancomponist said about the baked room).

Much better on DFIIVI, which is also a lot better, though very different in style, composition (IMO). I didn't find any bad there, I'd maybe just cut the low-mid's / low's a bit and use a tail that's more transparent.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 24, 2012)

Not necessarily to contradict what Jose says, I want to say that it's completely possible to use that much reverb without sounding so mushy, in fact that kind of OTT bombastic trailer stuff wants a lot of reverb.

Let me put it this way: if you take away the reverb and your mix sounds the way you want, then the problem is the reverb treatment. That sounds like it's stating the bleeding obvious, but one of the things I learned early on (the hard way) is how easy it is to phaff around endlessly trying to get a mix right, when all you need to do is increase the predelay - especially on the strings - and EQ the reverb send.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 24, 2012)

Dollars to donuts if you solo the reverb you'll hear a big pile of crap, and you'll realize right away that it stinks and isn't something you want to mix in!


----------



## chimuelo (Nov 24, 2012)

Pre Delay might also be delaying the mud.
Some of the better mixes I have heard use AUXs with smallest, smaller, medium and larger Spaces.
Then in the channels the selections can added for wetness and depth.
This assuming there are no real instruments.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 24, 2012)

vibrato @ Sat Nov 24 said:


> joseherring,
> 
> Which piece are you talking about? - Could be both!
> 
> ...



I only heard the first piece so far. 

The lower parts just lack mass. The orchestration is kind of backwards for what you are trying to do. There's a real lack of resonance in the instrumentation.

I'm sorry to be so short, but I'll be more specific later.

I learn my lessons the hard way. And I've been where you are. And I promised myself I would remember as much as I could so that others would have to suffer as much.


----------



## jamwerks (Nov 24, 2012)

I listened to both pieces. Nice writing and seemingly good orchestration. I hear a problem also, and what you're calling a lose of detail, is imo an inherent problem with VSL.

There's lots of build-up. It sounds boxy ("closety") because the samples are recorded in a (too) small reverberant room. And putting those samples through convolution verbs aren't putting instruments on a stage, they're putting those 20-30 boxes on a bigger stage, and the interaction of all the different instruments and frequencies is very very unnatural, thus the lose of detail.

I would suggest to use other samples for some of your sections, especially percussion and brass.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 24, 2012)

I've heard both pieces now.

Jamwerks is right about the first one. But orchestration wise on the first one, I hear a lot of mid range instruments and hardly any lower range instruments so it's giving it an unbalanced sound imo. It would be nice if that rhythm was nice and balanced and resonant throughout the registers. Better brass balance between the trumpets, horns and trombones and tubas. 

The second piece I didn't have a problem with. Personally I would turn down the tail part of the reverb. It's overbearing. But, overall I didn't find anything too upsetting about it.

One trick that I heard Alan Myersen talking about is to have two reverbs, one high passed and the other low passed, then mix the sends to the reverbs, That helped a lot when I did it. YOu can send your higher instruments less low verb and more high stuff and visa-versa.


----------



## ryans (Nov 24, 2012)

jamwerks @ Sat Nov 24 said:


> It sounds boxy ("closety") because the samples are recorded in a (too) small reverberant room. And putting those samples through convolution verbs aren't putting instruments on a stage, they're putting those 20-30 boxes on a bigger stage, and the interaction of all the different instruments and frequencies is very very unnatural, thus the lose of detail.



Does VSL have release samples that can be switched off? Or would it be possible to shorten the VSL samples to remove the early reflections (this would only work on short notes)? 

Ryan


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Nov 24, 2012)

@Tatu - I am not using a canyon reverb but I do keep a Master Algo tail verb to keep things a little more interesting in the mix. I may have for example, taken it too far in the second example.

But largely, I am using realistic spaces for the ER and perhaps slightly exaggerated ones for the tails but this keeps changing with different kinds of cues.

@Nick - You are right, Pre-delay is important and I am playing around with it. May be, I can do more with it. I have done something in the new mix. 

@Josejherring - I have beefed up the orchestration slightly in this new example. Tweaked the reverbs and applied some equalisation. 

@Jamwerks - You are right in saying that VSL can sound boxy but I dont think its a problem that cannot be ironed out. Some of my other pieces dont have this problem. Sometimes, I am just a little lazy I guess! I need to get better at programming and production.

SO - After going through all of your inputs, I have done this new mix. Some usual MIDI tweaks, Reverbs and equalisation. Please note, there is no change in the type of space. Just Wet/Dry and Send amount changes with some eq and very slight amplitude changes. Also some basic orchestration changes (balance only).

*Here is the new link:* http://www.tanuj-tiku.com/HRVINewMix.wav (www.tanuj-tiku.com/HRVINewMix.wav)

I like the clarity in this new mix but a feedback will be great!

Thank you so much for your help. Already, the mix is sounding a little better. Long way to go still.


Tanuj.


----------



## José Herring (Nov 24, 2012)

It's better. I would balance the percussion a little hotter than it is especially the timp.

Then, I'd work on reducing the volume of the reverb. Also, is that convolution reverb you are using? It is very cloudy.


----------



## re-peat (Nov 25, 2012)

vibrato @ Sun Nov 25 said:


> I like the clarity in this new mix but a feedback will be great!


Tanuj,

Still not _really_ clear, I find. And I don't think it is (only) the reverb which needs looking at (other than that there is, to my taste anyway, just a bit too much of it). 
In my opinion, you simply have way too much out-of-control low-mids in your mix. The entire thing sounds almost completely saturated in that range (100Hz-500Hz), making for a rather heavy, boomy sound. Take care of that problem, and things will immediately start to sound fresher, much better defined and more open.

Also: too much low-mids kills energy rather than enhances it, because if that range is congested, as it is here, there's no room anymore for the instruments which rely on that range for impact — timpani and other low percussion, for example — to manifest themselves at their most effective. (Which is why I can't really agree with the suggestion of raising the level of the percussion, timpany especially. It'll only create more problems, I believe. If however you could manage to control the low-mids of the other sections better, you'd immediately create more space for the timpani to do their thing, and there would be no need at all to raise their level.)

Without presuming that I'm anything of an expert in this field, I did have a quick go at that last mix of yours with a Dynamic EQ. http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/Tanuj_HRVI_EQTweak.mp3 (Here's the result.) The first two bars (or four bars, depending on the tempo you've set) are treated with a Dynamic EQ, the last two bars is your (untreated) mix. I'm fully aware that I did exaggerate the EQ settings (my treatment sounds a bit empty and thin, I know), but it is only to show how much low-mid ballast your mix is carrying. 

Also (and very importantly): the processing which I applied shouldn't of course be applied on the MasterOutput. Ideally, such problems should be taken care of BEFORE your mix reaches the MasterOutput. And you can also cure these problems MUCH better if you tackle them on a track-by-track basis, rather than on a summed output, like I had to do here.

Another very welcome bonus is that, if your tracks don't sound too heavy and low-middish to begin with, the reverberation of these tracks will automatically sound much clearer, cleaner and airier too.

Your audio example, by the way, is also a perfect illustration of something I've been saying for years (and always to universal protest and disagreement): reverb doesn't really matter in mock-up land.
See, tracks like these could easily be mixed with any of a dozen reverbs and it wouldn't make one significant bit of difference. Mix this with a Lexicon, MIR, Spaces, SPAT, TSAR-1, B2, Altiverb, TC VSS3, Vienna Hybrid, Sonnox, Redline, or any other (decent or half-decent) reverb you care to choose, and you will always end up with the exact same problems.
Someone who knows what he's doing can mix this with Logic's SpaceDesigner and it'll come out sounding just as effective (and sonically flawed) as when mixed with a Bricasti. Reverb is not the problem in this mix, everything else is.

_


----------



## germancomponist (Nov 25, 2012)

What Peat says, 

and, too much low-mids in the mix is very often a result from the monitor setup and the room where you do your mix.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Nov 26, 2012)

Piet,

Thank you so much for posting your thoughts and a re-mastered version.

I am out of town at the moment and will reply in detail day after tomorrow when I am back on my desk. I need to listen on my speakers.

Best,

Tanuj.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Nov 27, 2012)

Piet,

I am back now. Can you please re-post your example so that I can listen to it on my speakers?


Thanks!


Tanuj.


----------



## re-peat (Nov 27, 2012)

Tanuj,

Sorry about that. I did upload a few little things yesterday and when the time came to take 'em down again, I also removed the comparison file of your mix inadvertently.
(Good thing I had a copy, cause all of yesterday's stuff is deleted.)

So, it's back online again.

_


----------



## IsodualQ (Dec 3, 2012)

Tanuj, 

The best advice I can give you is to subscribe or buy this tutorial and start from there:

http://www.macprovideo.com/tutorial/son ... sionmixing


----------

