# Reverb: pre or post-fader?



## Morodiene (Oct 7, 2016)

So I am new to all of this, and I have been watching some great videos on groove3.com on using Logic X. For the mixing section, he suggests putting the reverb in post-fader and adjusting that to give a sense of distance for each instrument based on where "physically" they are, and using CCs to take care of balancing the volume of each sound.

But then you kind of negate the ability of using the faders for balance, and the volume is much more difficult to tweak in a mix. 

Is this the best way for mixing orchestral tracks, or is there a better option?


----------



## P.N. (Oct 7, 2016)

Hi, Morodiene. With that approach, you can still tweak individual instruments volume using the faders, you just have to remember to adjust the send level after (since you're setting it post-fader).

Correction: Actually, now that i was thinking of it... If the reverb send is post fader, you'll be simultaneosly adjusting the reverb signal send and your direct sound. So, yes, i do believe that's a nice approach. 
If you have the sends pre-fader, everytime you move the volume fader, you'll also be moving the instruments position in the mix (because they retain the same amount of reverb send and variable amount of direct signal).

This is quite a sensible topic here, and you'll find arguments for both propositions.


----------



## Chandler (Oct 7, 2016)

It depends on what you're trying to do. If you have it post fader of course you can balance the amount of dry to verb sound as you said, which can be useful. For example if you have an instrument featured during a part you can bring up the fader and it will get louder and closer. 

If it is prefader you have more control over volume. You can use automation to control dynamics and you can do more to control the dynamics of your piece. 

It depends on what you're trying to do. It is more of a running shoes vs dress shoes question than a right or wrong question.


----------



## Jeast (Oct 7, 2016)

Since you said you are new to all of this, my advice is to stick with the "common way" of having it pre fader. It means more control since you can use the faders for balance (what they were meant for initially ). If you really like to change the amount of reverb the" fader way", you can also use the mix knob inside of the reverb plugin, which does exactly the same.


----------



## pkm (Oct 7, 2016)

I wouldn't say prefader is the "common way". Quite the opposite.

With post fader sends, the send level controls the relationship of dry signal to reverb, and the track fader controls the volume of both together. So if you want an instrument louder and raise the fader, it's like the player is playing louder from their seated position, not walking towards you.


----------



## Morodiene (Oct 8, 2016)

P.N. said:


> Hi, Morodiene. With that approach, you can still tweak individual instruments volume using the faders, you just have to remember to adjust the send level after (since you're setting it post-fader).
> 
> Correction: Actually, now that i was thinking of it... If the reverb send is post fader, you'll be simultaneosly adjusting the reverb signal send and your direct sound. So, yes, i do believe that's a nice approach.
> If you have the sends pre-fader, everytime you move the volume fader, you'll also be moving the instruments position in the mix (because they retain the same amount of reverb send and variable amount of direct signal).
> ...


I typed this late last night and just realized that I meant the suggestion was for "pre-fader". So the issue of the instruments "moving" is what I'm encountering here. 

It sounds like post-fader might work better for me, even though I've done a lot of volume and balancing already with CCs.

A second question: how do you determine how much reverb for the different instruments in an orchestra? I understand the concept of reverb giving a sense of distance from the listener, but how much difference between say the violas and the cellos? Perhaps this is impossible to answer depending on what reverb I'm using, but I have it set up with Logic's Space Designer using Old Concert Hall, which has a 2.2s reverb (I didn't change anything in the setup for this). Since the violas are farther away than the cellos, they should have more reverb, but how much more? I don't want things too spread out, but I also don't want them sitting in their laps :D


----------



## pixel (Oct 8, 2016)

Yes definitely post-fader if you want to follow realism and true nature of acoustics: louder signal=more reverb. and it also make your job easier as you don't need to make additional automation reverb every time when you make volume automation of your track. Even if you do automation with CCs still changes in volume fader can occur especially in non-orchestral instruments or if you want to make adjustments after insert effects. It simply make life easier.

To answer your seconds question you have to trust your ears. Differences in reverb between string sections are actually very very minimal. Balance and panning play more important role here. You can see in some videos that people set different reverbs (or amounts of these) just for whole brass, woodwinds and strings sections.


----------



## Takabuntu (Oct 8, 2016)

I read an article of Peter Schwartz about the pre/post-fader questions and he shows the examples in Logic X. https://ask.audio/articles/mixing-orchestra-tips-pre-or-post-fader-send-reverb. It's definitely post-fader for me.


----------



## Morodiene (Oct 8, 2016)

@Takabuntu, looks like a great article, reading it now!


----------



## Morodiene (Oct 8, 2016)

That article hit the nail on the head for me, I was reading the follow up comments, and Peter Schwartz said this:



> If you tend to make significant volume rides on the Auxes (subgroups) for each instrument family, then the reverb send(s) should be on the Aux, and they should be post-fader. Here's an extreme example to illustrate the point, and there are 3 scenarios to consider, and they all involve post-fader sends...
> 
> Your trumpets and their reverb balances sound perfect. But they're too loud overall in the mix. Typical trumpet players, right? (LOL) So you bring down their subgroup -12 dB.
> 
> ...



So right now, I have reverb on each individual instrument, and not on the subgroups (scenario #2). Does anyone use #1 or #3, and why? 

Another comment stated that they use short reverb on each instrument subgroup for early reflections, and then a longer reverb for overall.


----------



## Takabuntu (Oct 8, 2016)

Regarding your last statement there was another interesting discussion about using 2 reverbs (ER and Tail): http://vi-control.net/community/thr...-for-people-to-use-2-different-reverbs.56062/


----------



## Jeast (Oct 8, 2016)

pkm said:


> I wouldn't say prefader is the "common way". Quite the opposite.
> 
> With post fader sends, the send level controls the relationship of dry signal to reverb, and the track fader controls the volume of both together. So if you want and instrument louder and raise the fader, it's like the player is playing louder from their seated position, not walking towards you.



You are right. . I mixed up pre and post. Post fader really is the common way. I know no mix engineer who trades his balance faders for reverb send faders.


----------



## wst3 (Oct 9, 2016)

Pre- and Post- fader serve different purposes, and I think you need to have both in your toolkit. Heaven knows I used to wrestle with sends when I was using hardware mixers!!!

Post fader means that reverb mix will match your mains mix, and sometimes that is exactly what you want. If is, for certain, quicker<G>!

Pre-fader means that as you create your 2-mix you also must create your reverb mix as a separate exercise. Much more flexible, and more than twice the effort, since each mix will have an impact on the other.

It depends, a great deal, on how you use reverb, how many reverb sends you use, etc.

Same goes for delays and other effects processors! (I love pre-fader sends to delays!)

And in fact now that we have virtual consoles some of this hardly matters anymore except to dinosaurs myself that still think in terms of hardware mixers<G>... I can get the same result using automated levels in clips or tracks. If I were a little more clever (and ambitious) that's probably what I'd do exclusively, since that would be maximum flexibility!

My workflow today is a hybrid...

I find that I use several reverb sends for different groups of instruments. For example, if I am using Adagietto and Cinematic Strings 2 I'll send all the Adagietto tracks to reverb 1 and all the CS2 tracks to reverb 2. I leave everything as post-fader, and most of the time that works perfectly. If I'm not happy then I'll switch one or two tracks to pre-fader and try to get the balance I need in that reverb send.

Of course this is further complicated by the fact I almost always have a single reverb send for the 2-mix, and that uses a pre-fader send from every track - although some of those sends may end up muted in the end.

So I'll work on the mix using everything but the main reverb until I'm pleased, and then I'll use just the main reverb sends to finish it up.

That works well until I start to use MIR, or lately VSS2 or EAReverb for a little more detailed placement. Any of these is much easier than dozens of delays and EQs and pan pots just to manage placement. Well, except for the bit where I really haven't figured out which one I like best.

Here's a trick I recently stumbled over, and it could just be that my ears are not up to the task, or my imagination is working overtime, but I find that if I get my placement where I want it with MIR I really don't need to do anything at all with other virtual instruments. The VSL strings will - more or less - take care of placing the instruments on the stage and additional virtual instruments seem to just affect timbre or feel or whatever it is I am going for. As an example, the placement for 8Dio Dynamic Bowing patches doesn't seem to affect the placement of the strings, but it adds a certain realism (?) to the strings. If that makes sense.

I have no idea if I'm on to something or just got lucky on that particular track.


----------



## emid (Oct 9, 2016)

Prefader reverb trick is very effective method in mixing and actually gives pretty good results if used cautiously. Have a look at this 8 mins video please.


----------



## Morodiene (Oct 10, 2016)

emid said:


> Prefader reverb trick is very effective method in mixing and actually gives pretty good results if used cautiously. Have a look at this 8 mins video please.



OK, he makes a very interesting case for pre-fader to really give a "soloing" section more presence. But then it does go against the concept of reverb being used to place a musician forward or back spatially. Instead, reverb for this model is used for drawing the listener's ear to a certain line in the music.

He also states that when you have post-fader and you increase the volume of an instrument to bring out that line, you also would increase the amount of reverb. Pre-fader avoids this and would then only increase the dry sound by increasing the fader. One could, theoretically, if they wanted to use this effect, keep it post-fader but then decrease the reverb send, correct? Thus using automation still for volume & reverb control rather than making a more permanent CC modification in a pre-fader setup.


----------



## emid (Oct 10, 2016)

In my very uneducated opinion, I am afraid this is not correct. Send and pre-fader are two entirely different techniques to achieve the desired results.

For your question about keeping post but decreasing the reverb send. If you keep the send level to 0 db you still do not get the acoustically same results as send still 'leaks' out into the master fader as well as the dry source. Think pre as insert where the source is directly fed by the reverb. In send, lowering down the send just 'removes' the reverb level from the instrument making it more dry that's it, while increasing the amount of source signal in pre still keeps the characteristic of reverb as well as maintains the presence of dry signal.

Certainly most practices are post, but Prefader method is as good as send if not better to acheive the changing distance. This method is immensely helpful when you need the reverb only with no direct sound because it keeps the reverb level constant for some time and at the same time lowering the direct sound (think of a fading footsteps or a distant hit or a barking dog at distance). It is more realistic to acheive a 3D perspective by placing an instrument into the hall (prefader) rather than placing reverb unto an instrument. The hard part of it is it requires lot more automation then send where you sometimes leave the levels as it is for the entire track. But the results are more dynamic and not as static as send. Try it yourself and mess around with the fader. Start with a boom sound with prefader but lower the master volume first. Use cans and see the results. There is a wow factor in it. With that said, I also use the send method but on strings and horns, for me, prefader is go to due to what I stated above. Experimentation is must to understand the practical value of the concept and who knows you might come up with more interesting results.

Ps: please note this is not an expert opinion or such just my readings, experiments for which I stand corrected.

Edit: Found a video. This is exactly how I use prefader. I find it more realistic and lively. Please observe the difference and the harmonics it gets in this method. Also note the spatial placement not loosing the integrity of the desired space.


----------



## Morodiene (Oct 11, 2016)

emid said:


> In my very uneducated opinion, I am afraid this is not correct. Send and pre-fader are two entirely different techniques to achieve the desired results.
> 
> For your question about keeping post but decreasing the reverb send. If you keep the send level to 0 db you still do not get the acoustically same results as send still 'leaks' out into the master fader as well as the dry source. Think pre as insert where the source is directly fed by the reverb. In send, lowering down the send just 'removes' the reverb level from the instrument making it more dry that's it, while increasing the amount of source signal in pre still keeps the characteristic of reverb as well as maintains the presence of dry signal.
> 
> ...




Finally had some time to watch this video. I still wonder about large orchestral works where you want to "solo" a section. Turning up the direct sound while keeping the reverb constant would then give the impression that the musicians are moving closer to you. So what then do you do to avoid that? This is what I was doing before, and trying to achieve the volume levels I needed using CC7 - which makes the mixing process harder for me.

I get it, just not sure that's what I should be doing.


----------



## wst3 (Oct 11, 2016)

Morodiene said:


> OK, he makes a very interesting case for pre-fader to really give a "soloing" section more presence. But then it does go against the concept of reverb being used to place a musician forward or back spatially. Instead, reverb for this model is used for drawing the listener's ear to a certain line in the music.



You bring up a very important point - why are you using reverb? You can use it to place sounds in a 2D or even 3D space. You can use reverb to create a sense of space, maybe not worrying about placement. You can use reverb to make something sound "nice" (any shower singers here?). And you can use reverb as a effect, or even to create a new sound that has never existed before (and anyone listening to music in the 80s knows about that!)

The reverb you choose, and where you place it in the signal flow, will all depend on your application.

My previous answer was way to general - put it post fader for a quicker mix and accept that the mix reverb will follow the 2-Mix, or put it pre-fader and be prepared to do a lot more work. Yeah - that's a little too general. But, as I type it I still think it is a good starting point<G>!


----------



## Morodiene (Oct 11, 2016)

wst3 said:


> You bring up a very important point - why are you using reverb? You can use it to place sounds in a 2D or even 3D space. You can use reverb to create a sense of space, maybe not worrying about placement. You can use reverb to make something sound "nice" (any shower singers here?). And you can use reverb as a effect, or even to create a new sound that has never existed before (and anyone listening to music in the 80s knows about that!)
> 
> The reverb you choose, and where you place it in the signal flow, will all depend on your application.
> 
> My previous answer was way to general - put it post fader for a quicker mix and accept that the mix reverb will follow the 2-Mix, or put it pre-fader and be prepared to do a lot more work. Yeah - that's a little too general. But, as I type it I still think it is a good starting point<G>!


Thanks for your explanations. When I first posted, I was't even sure there were other reasons for reverb - I hadn't really thought about it before. I think for the purposes of this project, however, it's a mock-up and so I'm looking for realism in a space, rather than sounding unique or having a cool effect. 

I do think the pre-fader idea can work if one is not bound to trying to sound closer to an actual orchestra.


----------



## emid (Oct 11, 2016)

Morodiene said:


> Turning up the direct sound while keeping the reverb constant would then give the impression that the musicians are moving closer to you.



You are right and this is how you create depths in one space. You need at least three depths in a hall. Turning up the direct sound, the instrument(s) would seem to be in the front row, turning down, in the back of the hall. Somewhere in between, in the middle of the hall. I have the combination of cc1 and cc7 assigned to mod wheel at different intervals. And rarely I assign cc11 as well in between. With full mod wheel, first I get the feel of the hall and then adjust the prefader accordingly; shouldn't be too loud. This way I create three/four depths in one space. Things go further from here.


----------



## Chandler (Oct 11, 2016)

Keep in mind that pre and post fader are just work flow issues, technically they don't sound different. It is just the difference between adjusting actual values vs ratios. You make the same sounds using both methods, but depending on what you want to do it will often times be the difference between 2 clicks and 8 clicks.


----------



## Morodiene (Oct 12, 2016)

Thanks for that perspective...I was starting to wonder if pre-fader was some secret way of getting a sound that you couldn't achieve in post-fader. It sounds more like a personal preference kind of thing.


----------



## wst3 (Oct 12, 2016)

at the risk of sounding terribly lazy (not that I would do this<G>)...

Start with all of your effects sends (to reverb busses) set for post fader. This will create a basic mix that is identical on the master and in the reverb bus. And that might be all you need (one can always hope<G>).

If you find that placement or timbre or something isn't quite right then you can start switching different tracks from post to pre and play with relative levels.

To me this is a nice compromise


----------



## Morodiene (Oct 12, 2016)

wst3 said:


> at the risk of sounding terribly lazy (not that I would do this<G>)...
> 
> Start with all of your effects sends (to reverb busses) set for post fader. This will create a basic mix that is identical on the master and in the reverb bus. And that might be all you need (one can always hope<G>).
> 
> ...


TBH, my ears are so new to this that I'm not sure Id' be able to tell what is working and what is not. But when I'm ready to post something, I'd love to get feedback especially on the mix so I can figure out if I should try something different like pre-fader.


----------



## Takabuntu (Oct 12, 2016)

Morodiene said:


> Thanks for that perspective...I was starting to wonder if pre-fader was some secret way of getting a sound that you couldn't achieve in post-fader. It sounds more like a personal preference kind of thing.



I tried, as a newbie, to mix using the pre-fader method and it was very, very difficult to do. I thought it was the right thing to do and thought also that pre-fader mixing was the secret to a successful sound. I ran into the issues that Peter Schwarz described in his article and can only say that post-fader makes live so much easier when mixing and I'm still a newbie at that or anything musical for that matter.


----------



## nicoroy123 (Oct 12, 2016)

This thread is a non sense. Just use reverb post-fader and be done with it. 

Keep yourself a list of "tricks to learn later" and put that pre-fader reverb technique on position 24.


----------



## desert (Oct 12, 2016)

nicoroy123 said:


> This thread is a non sense. Just use reverb post-fader and be done with it.
> 
> Keep yourself a list of "tricks to learn later" and put that pre-fader reverb technique on position 24.


Well if the title has "vs" in it, you're guaranteed to have mixed opinions in the thread. I don't think it's nonsense at all.

I prefer pre-fader and it's not hard to use, you just have to remember to not use the fader but use other methods of dynamic manipulation.


----------



## Rctec (Oct 12, 2016)

Pre-fader reverb makes no sense at all - other then if you want to fade something out into reverb as a special effect. 
-Hz-


----------



## Jeast (Oct 12, 2016)

A nice conclusion from mister HZ himself


----------



## AlexandraMusic (Oct 13, 2016)

This is also something I've been reading about and often left a bit confused (but I also have a tendency to over complicate things) 

Would perhaps doing things post-fader and then just using automation to adjust levels not be as effective?


----------



## Morodiene (Oct 13, 2016)

AlexandraMusic said:


> This is also something I've been reading about and often left a bit confused (but I also have a tendency to over complicate things)
> 
> Would perhaps doing things post-fader and then just using automation to adjust levels not be as effective?


I'm gathering from the feedback given that it just comes down to a personal preference in work flow, but not have really any effect on the outcome all else being equal.


----------



## nicoroy123 (Oct 13, 2016)

Rctec said:


> Pre-fader reverb makes no sense at all - other then if you want to fade something out into reverb as a special effect.
> -Hz-



I think my point is made. Thanks Hans!


----------



## Morodiene (Oct 13, 2016)

nicoroy123 said:


> This thread is a non sense. Just use reverb post-fader and be done with it.
> 
> Keep yourself a list of "tricks to learn later" and put that pre-fader reverb technique on position 24.


Not really a "nonsense" thing because I was being informed from a video to do pre-fader, thus why I posted because I thought post-fader would be better in a classical orchestra application. I'm glad that various people chimed in with their opinions, and now I know for me post-fader is the way to go.

So for my purposes, this wasn't nonsense at all


----------



## nicoroy123 (Oct 13, 2016)

Morodiene said:


> Not really a "nonsense" thing because I was being informed from a video to do pre-fader, thus why I posted because I thought post-fader would be better in a classical orchestra application. I'm glad that various people chimed in with their opinions, and now I know for me post-fader is the way to go.
> 
> So for my purposes, this wasn't nonsense at all



Sorry, wrong choice of words. You, asking for advise, made perfect sense. 
But since you said you are new to this, having people suggesting you to take a more difficult approach to achieve your goals is what made no sense to me. 

I am glad you found what you were looking for.
Peace.


----------



## Morodiene (Oct 13, 2016)

nicoroy123 said:


> Sorry, wrong choice of words. You, asking for advise, made perfect sense.
> But since you said you are new to this, having people suggesting you to take a more difficult approach to achieve your goals is what made no sense to me.
> 
> I am glad you found what you were looking for.
> Peace.


Thanks for clarifying. Now since I already had started out with the pre-fader, I need to go back and undo some of the CC7 stuff I wrote in to compensate.  On the bright side, learning by mistakes and undoing them is often the most effective way


----------

