# Found a nice trick with Reverb!



## Andreas Moisa (Jan 18, 2010)

Hi,

I found a nice trick to open up a mix with Altiverb. I don't know if it's been mentioned before, though. 
Take your stereo mix and duplicate the track. Then put an Instance of Altiverb on the duplicated track with a pretty wet setting. Apply a low cut at around 3KHz after the Reverb.
You can dial this signal in and as only the high frequencies are "wet" there is no clutter and no resonances but a nice and more "live" sounding brilliance.

I tend to use Nugen Monofilter at around 60Hz which clears up the low end additionally.

Have fun with that,
Andreas


----------



## Dietz (Jan 18, 2010)

Yes, this can do wonders!

Numerical Sound even has created a dedicated IR-library for a similar approach:

http://www.numericalsound.com/hollywood ... onses.html


----------



## Marius Masalar (Jan 18, 2010)

What a wonderful little trick! I can't wait to try this out —thanks, Andreas!


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 18, 2010)

When working with A6, use an exiter in the next effect slot. 

Did you know this? It is also cool to use 2 stereo tracks for mastering. One as it is and the other much compressed.... .


----------



## MettaAudio (Jan 18, 2010)

I've heard of doing the compression trick for drum tracks, but haven't considered it for the mix as a whole.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 18, 2010)

Experiment. You will be very impressed!


----------



## poseur (Jan 23, 2010)

_experimenting_ w/parallel tracks, over time, is a very good idea;
some great results can occur.
but, personally:
i've found it's a "dangerous" trick, in relation to the integrity of tone/timbre, phase & spatiality.
(width, depth & distance are all affected,
most esp. when mixing-in any add'l. "dry" signal w/the reverb track.)
if you're mixing in stereo, listen to your results in "mono", as a test.

personally, i never do this w/full mixes.....
though, i will use more than one reverb (on individual aux'es)
w/different timings & (sometimes drastic) EQ'ing.

dt


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Jan 27, 2010)

Dietz,

Wont this create phase issues?


Tanuj.


----------



## The_Controllers (Jan 28, 2010)

vibrato @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> Dietz,
> 
> Wont this create phase issues?
> 
> ...



No, as phasing issues begin to happen when the two sounds are exactly the same + at the same level. 

Regards

Amour


----------



## stevenson-again (Feb 5, 2010)

gee nice trick. i generally do the eqing before the reverb but it would be interesting to see the effect after...


----------



## bryla (Feb 5, 2010)

The_Controllers @ Thu Jan 28 said:


> phasing issues begin to happen when the two sounds are exactly the same + at the same level.


hmmm....

plus: out of phase


----------



## chimuelo (Feb 5, 2010)

:mrgreen:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2010)

"I've heard of doing the compression trick for drum tracks, but haven't considered it for the mix as a whole."

This isn't compression, it's filtering out the low rumble mix-cluttering stuff from the reverb.

Usually you don't create another track, you insert a filter on the send to the reverb. But as long as the phase is okay, this comes down to the same thing (never mind that it's often better to do this on individual tracks).


----------



## synthetic (Feb 5, 2010)

lux @ Fri Feb 05 said:


> is this supposed to work with algo reverbs too? Also, if no delay is involved, couldnt this be created with sends?



EQing the send/return? Yeah, you can do that with an algo verb.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2010)

I'd underline that: it's *normal* to do that with an algo reverb, i.e. this has been standard engineering practice for years.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2010)

Looking at what Ernest has done, the important difference is that his programs are designed for when you don't have the luxury of filtering the reverb sends:



> A new feature unique to HIR is the addition of 6 sets of RIs that are high pass filtered at points of the frequency spectrum that match the range of acoustic instruments. These point are at the notes C2, G2, C3, G3, C4, and G4. This instrument designed approach offer much more sonic precision and clarity than any other currently available hardware or software reverberation. For example if you have a solo violin track the RI’s [I assume he means IRs?]from the G3 set will exactly match the range of this instrument. C3 would work for the Viola and C2 for the Cello.



He's actually a pretty sharp guy. And a true maniac - in a good way.


----------



## kdm (Feb 5, 2010)

Just be careful of parallel processing - it works sometimes, but not as a general rule. 

If you aren't running the dup track with 100% reverb, 0% dry, there will be some doubling of frequency content above the cut creating frequency balance problems that are too wide band to isolate from the effect you are looking for; and the phase characteristics of the low cut filter will have some impact on the mids around 3k, possibly a wider range than desirable (not sure if you are using linear phase filter for this). It doesn't take much to create problems to some degree.

Sometimes things sound good for a day or two until you start to hear artifacts that impact the balance across the spectrum, and/or clarity/smoothness of the top end.

The best way to create clarity of presence and ambience is to think in terms of the real space, and how that would interact with the actual characteristics of the audio in the mix (e.g. the characteristics of space acoustics that create the sound you are looking for vs. simply "sounding like it"; and how those string samples would sound there vs. treating them the way you would a real string section in the same artificial space).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2010)

Not to be an obnoxious bickering jackass, but actually I think it's also important to understand the differences between a recording and the real space. In a real space you have psychoacoustics on your side - everything is coming from a different angle, therefore your brain is able to separate a lot of things that sound like total mush on a recording.

The ear is very different from a microphone, and the speakers aren't actually the source when you listen to them - they're behaving as early reflections of the direct sound.

That's why you may need to filter out low-end crap that muddies up your reverb return, while you might not need to do that in a real space.


----------



## kdm (Feb 5, 2010)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Feb 05 said:


> That's why you may need to filter out low-end crap that muddies up your reverb return, while you might not need to do that in a real space.



I assume that was a general observation, which is quite true. When I said "think in terms of the real space" I meant what is happening there, and adapt that to how samples translate instead of how live instruments react there. In other words, the same thing you said, technically speaking.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 5, 2010)

Fair 'nuff.


----------



## bryla (Feb 6, 2010)

In theory (I've never tried Ernest's tricks or IR's) high pass filtering on the same samples on different frequencies tend to cause phasing, because filters shift the low frequencies in time. You can use a linear phase filter, but the introduces latency


----------

