# Orchestral mixing - 3 different reverbs vs. 1 reverb for everything



## Voider (May 7, 2021)

Hey fellow composers! A topic that has been discussed here many times, but I have some specific questions and would like to structure this pretty clear. My usual approach when mixing a composition with enough orchestral instruments isto treat it like a "real orchestra", is to set up a close, mid and far reverb for the different sections to route them through it.

But I have just watched a video of Soundiron where they've just set up one single reverb and route all the sections into it, then they control the different "distances" of the sections simply by how much of the signal is fed into that reverb send.

My first thought was that it looks like it would make things way easier, clean everything up (different reverbs don't come into each others way), speeds the process up and everything sits nice and well in one place. But my second thought was, that maybe if one does split the reverb across 3 ranges, one can make more individual changes to all of them, resulting in more control / fine tuning about the sound.

Now my questions are:

1. Does that even matter or is the one-reverb-for-all approach well enough, so that setting up 3 different reverbs isn't even worth the extra effort?

2. Sending a 100% dry signal into a 100% wet channel does sound good, but I feel like the reality is more smooth in terms of transitions. There won't be only the dry and the ambient sound of the instruments, since the sound needs to travel. Therefore I usually set up my original track 100% dry and send it into a reverb send that is balanced somewhere between dry and wet. So I get the full dry sound, some mix and some tail. Do you think this is not necessary, am I missing something?



I'm very curious for your experiences and opinions


----------



## Voider (May 7, 2021)

Looked into another thread on reverb I made a few months ago and found a link that is actually answering my questions and confirms what I assumed, here it is: https://mattiaswestlund.net/?page_id=448

If someone wants to add something still feel free about it of course.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (May 7, 2021)

I know that some people like to use the specific reverbs that come with "placements" but I haven't done so in years. My normal approach is to have 1 room reverb on individual tracks which I adjust the wet/dry to get the depth that I want. I also use EQ and obviously volume to get that distance. After that I use other reverbs on busses etc to give me the tail. 

In many cases it's also very important to adjust the stereo width of the raw tracks. I can't believe how many sample libraries sound so unrealistic on that end. Honestly, this placement and space that I create is probably 90% of what I bring to a project as a scoring mixer. Beyond that it's just a little bus processing and adjusting levels.


----------



## Voider (May 7, 2021)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> In many cases it's also very important to adjust the stereo width of the raw tracks. I can't believe how many sample libraries sound so unrealistic on that end. Honestly, this placement and space that I create is probably 90% of what I bring to a project as a scoring mixer. Beyond that it's just a little bus processing and adjusting levels.


Like using a stereo enhancer? Is that coming into the way of panning or will it still sound panned but in the same time having more width?


----------



## José Herring (May 7, 2021)

Voider said:


> Hey fellow composers! A topic that has been discussed here many times, but I have some specific questions and would like to structure this pretty clear. My usual approach when mixing a composition with enough orchestral instruments isto treat it like a "real orchestra", is to set up a close, mid and far reverb for the different sections to route them through it.
> 
> But I have just watched a video of Soundiron where they've just set up one single reverb and route all the sections into it, then they control the different "distances" of the sections simply by how much of the signal is fed into that reverb send.
> 
> ...


I did not read the other thread but hear are my thoughts. 

When dealing with multiple libraries recorded in different rooms reverb choices aren't so clear. Yes use one main "Hall" reverb which I set up on an FX track in Cubase. I think traditionally they would be called "returns" or "Aux" buses but I can't really remember any more. I send all libraries to that Hall reverb. 

Then I use another for a "Stage" reverb. Some libraries are quite dry and you need to match them to libraries that are more wet. I use EWHO which is in a smaller stage and I use some Spitfire stuff that are in huge stages. To match HO to the SF libraries I've set up another reverb that is there for just to increase the size of the room for HO. I don't send my SF libraries to the "stage" verb just to the hall verb because SF and OT have almost too much stage. For BBCSO the stage actually rings out more than my Hall settings. I wouldn't even send it to the Hall but I need them blend. It actually sounds better without the reverb at all and can be used that way easily. And, I send HO to the stage verb to match BBCSO and AROOF and SSS and the hall verb. 

On rare occasions now I use The Trumpet which is bone dry. No room at all close mic. I have to do all sorts of tricks to get it to work including EQ positioning, creating a room at the track level. Sending that to my "stage" and also the Hall. It sucks and I don't use it much any more unless I have a real exposed trumpet solo because The Trumpet is really expressive. 

For positioning and Depth I tend to rely on the mics more than reverb. If the library is old school VSL dry then plugins like SPAT and MIR can help with position as well.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (May 7, 2021)

Voider said:


> Like using a stereo enhancer? Is that coming into the way of panning or will it still sound panned but in the same time having more width?


I use the Waves S1 (even though I'm not a fan of Waves). I have the Ozone one which does the same thing but searching "S1" from my plugins list is second nature to me. I rarely ever expand the stereo field. 9/10 it's reducing it and then I create a new full width signal with the room reverb. The S1 lets you rotate the narrowed field so it's still easy to pan around with that plugin. I rarely touch the panner in the DAW both because I do it in S1 and most of the time everything is already set in place on the ref mix so I can't just change where everything is.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 7, 2021)

Voider said:


> But I have just watched a video of Soundiron where they've just set up one single reverb and route all the sections into it, then they control the different "distances" of the sections simply by how much of the signal is fed into that reverb send.


This is exactly how I use reverb for orchestral mixes. It also saves you a ton of cpu. Just set the reverb (on the reverb bus) to 100% wet and adjust the sends to taste. I personally don't mess around with stereo enhancers, most decent orchestral libraries are already well placed IMO.


----------



## AudioLoco (May 8, 2021)

Using reverb on an insert (actually most time based effects including delay and modulation) is a rarity for most mix engineers (I know of). 
There are many reasons for that; unify spaces and give cohesion, manage resources etc. Until a few years ago, in a good studio you had max 2-5 reverbs/processors, not a hundred to put on each channel's insert. 
So usually these processors are set 100% wet in send. There are not many reasons to keep a reverb send not 100% wet. Let's say it is set to 70%, you are just boosting 30% of dry signal. (by using the faders and sends you can obtain the same ambience ratio)
It gives less control of the actual depth and confuse the balancing process in my opinion.
Unless there is some creative or particular processing done on that send.

It's not against the "law", and everyone should choose the methods that work for them, it's just not very practical in my opinion/experience.
There are times you do want to put these effects on inserts, when for example you want to compress or saturate a signal with it's reverb for example. Still for doing that I would use a combo of auxes/groups and have max control over the process.

Having said that, let's say I have a single bone dry LASS violin in a wet-ish Spitfire Symphonic populates track, a quick reverb on the LASS insert with X% wet is a very fast and effective solution to try and match the ambiences.

As generally for reverb use, I find it differs from track to track. 
The only constant I personally use is a sweetening long hall that I send in various amounts from each instrument group.
Then probably one or two more for cohesion and space placement.


----------



## AudioLoco (May 8, 2021)

A little production tale:
The most elaborate "reverberation processing" operation I ever did was many years ago.
I wanted a (more or less, very loosely) chamber size string section for a pop/alternative track I was working on.
I was working in one of those production rooms you rent in a London industrial estate that had a 2x5 meter booth which was kind of acceptable to record vocals, but as you can imagine totally worthless for strings, or any instrument really... (I had a lot of pot noodles in that place, my only nutriment for a few hard but exciting years)
I had 3 players hired (violin, viola, cello) recording each on their own in that sad sad death of ambience room. I put 4 very different sounding mics on each in different positions. They all doubled their parts a few times. 
Once I had 4/5 takes of each part, each one with a different mic chosen so they sound slightly different in tone and a tiny bit of space (I didn't phase align them or anything one was on the ceiling the other facing the ground, one normally positioned etc), I went on on a super detailed ambient and space placement process with Altiverb. An instance on each insert with a different setting of the same room but from different positions (I don't remember the presets names, but they were impulses taken in the same room but with different speaker position) was set.
Then a global reverb, panning etc...

I worked on it a lot and I have to say I would prefer a 100 times to have people playing together in a room (it was kind of a crazy thing to attempt), but.... It worked really really well, sounded actually convincing, I was well chuffed and the track actually had some degree of success later on.

So yeah, no rules


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (May 9, 2021)

*The story about "SEND*
In the past, studios had one unit of several expensive effects, maybe 2 at best, so how to add reverb to many tracks? "SEND" was the answer.
Then the first computers came along. Suddenly, theoretically, you had as many effects (reverb) available as you wanted.... but only theoretically. I remember when I was still a WIN-Logic-user (V 5.5.1): With 5 open "Gold-Reverbs" I had to either freeze or mix and bounce the first tracks for having "computer power" again.
Until then (ca. 2009) it was clear, only SEND can fix it. Well, unfortunately there is a lot of literature from that time that says (still today), set up an EQ in the channel, but a reverb in a separate AUX channel and use SEND for that.
And because many analog studios with older consoles still have only 1-2 hardware reverbs, the "reverb=SEND myth" persists to this day. I am sure that this myth will continue for a long, long time.

So, the call that you absolutely have to set up reverb as a SEND effect is of course nonsense today in 2021. You can, but it's certainly not a must. On the contrary, today we are able to use various high quality reverbs - even in single audio tracks. This allows for very creative use.


*Reverb and music style*
I guess you also have to differentiate between the style of music you produce.
I would say that a rock band can be done quite well with about 2 reverbs and a SEND concept. But I know from my own experience that a symphony orchestra with strings, winds, percussion and even a choir can't really be solved with the SEND concept and 1-2 Reverbs... at least not that I am satisfied with the result.


*Advantage when working with different BUS channels *(different depths):
The advantage of setting up a specific room depth in a BUS channel is that you can simulate the certain room depth with all the other effects that help to simulate a specific concert hall distance. This includes an EQ that cuts the highs (and lows), the signal should be a bit more narrowed in the stereo image, and the signal thus processed can be given an effect that perhaps builds up pressure accordingly, for the instruments concerned. Samples have the problem that everything from the timpani to the tiny recorder was recorded at about nearly the same volume. If the timpani is now trimmed a bit in height and provided with a lot of space, then a lot of power has to be restored for having a real timpani situation. This applies equally to all instruments that play in the row (depth) of the timpani. In summary: An appropriate depth bus can be set up with all neccessary and additional effects in such a way that they optimally simulate the room depth (distance). All instruments, which are then routed through this bus, experience this procedure. SEND cannot offer this. You have to do the rest of the depth simulation for each instrument individually as good as possible. In general, one must always treat each instrument individually - in everything!

*Disadvantage*
You need about 3 - 5 reverb units instead of 1. But this is nothing for a modern computer.

That's the work with 3-5 depths...



Finally an example with 5 depths and a tail over all.
Listen how nice the different is between the soloists and the choir... This is really not possible with a SEND-Concept


All the best
Beat

PS. Of course SEND believers may continue to work with their SEND concept. That's the nice thing - it's the result and the happiness you experience when mixing that counts.


----------



## labornvain (May 10, 2021)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> *The story about "SEND*
> In the past, studios had one unit of several expensive effects, maybe 2 at best, so how to add reverb to many tracks? "SEND" was the answer.
> Then the first computers came along. Suddenly, theoretically, you had as many effects (reverb) available as you wanted.... but only theoretically. I remember when I was still a WIN-Logic-user (V 5.5.1): With 5 open "Gold-Reverbs" I had to either freeze or mix and bounce the first tracks for having "computer power" again.
> Until then (ca. 2009) it was clear, only SEND can fix it. Well, unfortunately there is a lot of literature from that time that says (still today), set up an EQ in the channel, but a reverb in a separate AUX channel and use SEND for that.
> ...



I've enjoyed your videos over the last few years and have always been impressed with the results. But I feel I have to point out that the difference between inserting a reverb on a buss, say the brass bus, and adjusting the wet/dry balance from within the reverb, or creating a send reverb routed to the brass bus and adjusting the wet/dry balance using the sends, is literally zero.

You can even link all your brass tracks (in Cubase anyway) so that when you adjust one track's send level, it proportionately adjusts all the other track's send levels. This gives identical results to using the reverb's mix knob.

But the reason I prefer using sends is really threefold:

1. I often don't want to send the same level to the reverb for low frequency instruments as for the mid and high. Low frequencies carry a lot more energy and just like with a bus compressor, low frequencies will devour your reverb. And just like with a bus compressor, you can remedy this somewhat if your reverb has an internal sidechain EQ. But why bother when you can conveniently taper the reverb for those low frequency instrument.

2. Panning. And this applies more to inserting reverbs on individual tracks. But when I pan something, I usually want to move its location inside the "room". Not drag the whole room with it. An exception being special FX type verbs. Or especially, the spring reverb on a guitar track. Panning the guitar hard and having its spring reverb panned with it can be a really cool effect. But for realistic spacial panning, you generally want to room sound to be stationary. Like in the real world.

3. Automation. This is also directed at the notion of using insert reverbs on individual tracks. If you've got some serious automation going on, like you might on a vocal, you don't want the level of the reverb return getting ducked when the vocal does. Unless its for some desired special FX, you want to be able to duck a vocal and have the reverb tail ring out. It is very unnatural for the volume of the reverb return to modulate with the automation of the track. Again, you want to mix inside the space, not mix the space itself. Usually.

Anyway, I've been doing the "multiple reverbs for multiple depths" trick for many years. And while I get the appeal of just inserting reverbs on tracks and busses (fast and easy), I just don't like the sound of tubas or bass trombones being as wet as trumpets. I think it makes things a bit washy in the end. So all things being equal, being able to control the wetness of individual instruments allows for more control and precision in the mix.

But again, I've been really impressed with the results you can get just using inserts on group busses. So who knows? I might renounce my religion of sends and join the Insertian faith. I sure is faster.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (May 10, 2021)

labornvain said:


> But I feel I have to point out that the difference between inserting a reverb on a buss, say the brass bus, and adjusting the wet/dry balance from within the reverb, or creating a send reverb routed to the brass bus and adjusting the wet/dry balance using the sends, is literally zero.


Well said. Plus, having the bus reverb(s) keeps things simple and consistent, and places less strain on your computer resources.


----------



## AudioLoco (May 10, 2021)

Beat Kaufmann said:


> *The story about "SEND*
> In the past, studios had one unit of several expensive effects, maybe 2 at best, so how to add reverb to many tracks? "SEND" was the answer.
> Then the first computers came along. Suddenly, theoretically, you had as many effects (reverb) available as you wanted.... but only theoretically. I remember when I was still a WIN-Logic-user (V 5.5.1): With 5 open "Gold-Reverbs" I had to either freeze or mix and bounce the first tracks for having "computer power" again.
> Until then (ca. 2009) it was clear, only SEND can fix it. Well, unfortunately there is a lot of literature from that time that says (still today), set up an EQ in the channel, but a reverb in a separate AUX channel and use SEND for that.
> ...



Thanks, super interesting post! (as always)

The only thing i would add as for why often, in my case, I still prefer to use sends instead of inserts when it comes to reverbs, modulations etc is that I like to have a lot of control over just the effect. So obviously EQ, opening/closing the stereo field, or even other more creative stuff like saturation/distortion.
Many good plugins have that built in, but when I can put my favorite workhorse plugins and use those I feel I'm more in control. (then I can always route the "section reverb" and the dry instruments to a fresh aux/group and then process the combination as seen fit)

Also I feel, for my personal workflow, it's probably easier, during the whole process, to quickly try out how a whole mix sounds with less or more overall ambience/reverb, mute it altogether to hear only the fully dry mix if I need to, etc. Having said that I guess you can do the same by linking parameters between plugins, VCAs etc, I'm sure you have methods for doing that.

I agree there is a lot of heritage from workflows that were limited by the gear of the time that have continued to be standard even if not always necessary/better. Often, i guess, people still use them because they have been proofed so many times and you have predictable results.
Myself, I'm surely interested in different and advanced techniques and I try to keep always a "learning mode" on and have no dogmas.


----------

