# Cleanest Reverb



## José Herring (Jan 6, 2022)

What would you consider the cleanest reverb you have or have heard? I'm noticing that I tend towards reverbs that have a certain vibe, unfortunately for samples that "vibe" tends to make things cloudy and diffused more than the it would in a normal live recording situation. 

So now, I'm looking for the cleanest, clearest reverb. So far I might liking FabFilter ProR for it's ability to at least EQ the reverb itself, but even that I've noticed that there could be some build up once the signal multiplies through it. 

Any suggestions?


----------



## José Herring (Jan 6, 2022)

liquidlino said:


> I don't have a massive arsenal to choose from, but for clean and clear, I reach for Nimbus or PheonixVerb. And then in Nimbus, to really clarify the audio, I'll use the Warp feature, and use the ducking controls to duck the reverb whilst the instrument is sounding.


Nimbus looks really interesting. PhoneixVerb looks a lot like R2 which I already have. What's the difference?


----------



## storyteller (Jan 6, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Nimbus looks really interesting. PhoneixVerb looks a lot like R2 which I already have. What's the difference?


R2 and R4 have character. Phoenix/Nimbus are very transparent. You can up the mix % and swear you can’t hear the verb. Take it off and it is so obvious what it does. It is perfect for orchestra and film. Nimbus has been a staple for me, but I’m playing the cautionary card with iZotope since the EA Verbs seem to be EOL with iZotope. Cinematic Rooms Pro and Tai Chi are what I’m using now to replace them. Still getting to know them though.


----------



## KEM (Jan 6, 2022)

I’ve found Cinematic Rooms to be the cleanest out of all the reverbs I own, it doesn’t really color the sound at all and moreso sounds like you’re just lengthening the release tail of whatever you’re putting it on, at first it was honestly a bit jarring to me as I’d only been using Valhalla before that (which is the exact opposite) so I thought it just sounded stale and uninteresting but in the context of an entire mix it sounds much cleaner and sounds more like an actual room than a reverb on top of some samples

And Alan Meyerson uses it, and I don’t question his judgement for a second


----------



## Virtuoso (Jan 6, 2022)

When comparing reverbs it's a good idea to set the mix to 100% wet so you can hear _exactly_ what the reverb is doing to the core tone. Then, when you've found one with the right character (or absence of character) you can dial it back to taste. This is super effective when you're auditioning very short reverbs to give a sense of space or depth.

My go-tos for clean are Bricasti, TC VSS3, and EA Phoenix/Nimbus/Stratus.


----------



## Henu (Jan 7, 2022)

Pro-R and Cinematic Rooms IMO.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 7, 2022)

liquidlino said:


> Oh, and I think R2 became R4, which is the "coloured" product, similar to ValhallaVintageVerb (R2/R4) vs ValhallaRoom (Pheonix/Nimbus). That's been my understanding anyway.


Yes, I have them both. I got R4 then R2. No wondered I liked them. They are colored reverbs but they get muddy. Before that I was using Valhallaroom. Same problem. Now I using 7th Heaven, same problem. 

I'll check out Nimbus because I have a feeling that Phoenix will be the same


storyteller said:


> R2 and R4 have character. Phoenix/Nimbus are very transparent. You can up the mix % and swear you can’t hear the verb. Take it off and it is so obvious what it does. It is perfect for orchestra and film. Nimbus has been a staple for me, but I’m playing the cautionary card with iZotope since the EA Verbs seem to be EOL with iZotope. Cinematic Rooms Pro and Tai Chi are what I’m using now to replace them. Still getting to know them though.


Let me know what you think of Tai Chi.


----------



## Dietz (Jan 7, 2022)

José Herring said:


> What would you consider the cleanest reverb you have or have heard? I'm noticing that I tend towards reverbs that have a certain vibe, unfortunately for samples that "vibe" tends to make things cloudy and diffused more than the it would in a normal live recording situation.
> 
> So now, I'm looking for the cleanest, clearest reverb. So far I might liking FabFilter ProR for it's ability to at least EQ the reverb itself, but even that I've noticed that there could be some build up once the signal multiplies through it.
> 
> Any suggestions?


That would be Acon Digital's "Verberate" (and "Verberate Immersive"). 

-> https://acondigital.com/products/verberate/

... clean like Scandinavian air.

A bit more colourful is a brand-new contender, Reverb Foundry's "Tai Chi":

-> https://www.reverbfoundry.com/tai-chi/

... despite its strange name this is an incredible reverb engine which can do ultra-clean as well as coloured and dirty. And 3D.  

If it's just about "buildups" in the frequency domain you could also consider a highly artificial approach to reverb, namely Zynaptiq's "Adapiverb", which is able to cancel harmonic content in the reverb tail that no longer appears at the input:

-> https://www.zynaptiq.com/adaptiverb/

Oh, and don't forget Sonible's "Smart:Reverb" which is also stereo only, but relies on a very transparent algorithm, too. 

-> https://www.sonible.com/smartreverb/

Finally, there's always t.c.electronic's "VSS4", the definition of "clean" for more than a decade now:

-> https://www.tcelectronic.com/free-trial-vss4hd-native


----------



## Joe_D (Jan 7, 2022)

"Clean" to me (in a reverb) means that I am not distracted by the reverb -- either by individual reflections jumping out or by coloration or distortion, and that the source and the reverb meld together so that they seem like "one sound."

Two software reverbs I would nominate according to my criteria are Flux IRCAM Verb (and Verb Session), and Acon Digital Verberate.


----------



## Scoremixer (Jan 7, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Yes, I have them both. I got R4 then R2. No wondered I liked them. They are colored reverbs but they get muddy. Before that I was using Valhallaroom. Same problem. Now I using 7th Heaven, same problem.
> 
> I'll check out Nimbus because I have a feeling that Phoenix will be the same
> 
> Let me know what you think of Tai Chi.


Nimbus is the king of clean... But really R4 is also a very similar fundamental character, even if the literature and modulation options suggest it's more 'vibey'. 

With the plethora of great reverb options out there these days, the most important thing is to be more critical of what you're feeding the reverb, and more critical of how they sit in a mix context - sometimes the 'right' reverb in a mix is deeply unnatural by itself.


----------



## thorwald (Jan 7, 2022)

This very much depends on what a clean reverb is to you. I am deliberately ignoring other attributes that I look out for in a reverb, such as how fizzy their higher frequency range is (essentially brightness, but also the way they diffuse the sound), whether they have convincing reflections, customizable crossfeed, etc. Also, I'm not fortunate enough to own hardware reverbs, so this is only for software-based ones.

In my book, a clean reverb means that the reverb is very transparent, i.e. it melts into the source. This also means that there is no, or very little, buildup in the tail. This does not necessarily mean that the reverb is not colored, as this feature is quite often what gives character to the reverb, but at the same time it's not always preferred.

Generally speaking, I found that the only reverb in software that can achieve this without post EQ or ducking is Seventh Heaven. Breeze and Cinematic Rooms are also quite good, but they can have slightly more buildups. All three are super smooth though. Nimbus is a close 3rd.

If you need something more colored that might require a bit more work, R4 and VSS4 are great choices.

This is not to say that other reverbs can't do the job well, there are other very high quality verbs after all, but your out-of-the-box experience may vary. The source material you use and your preference for a specific reverb sound could further influence your decision.


----------



## CGR (Jan 7, 2022)

+ 1 for Nimbus and Smart:Reverb. Also, I recommend this if you're after realism:






INSPIRATA | Inspired Acoustics







www.inspiredacoustics.com


----------



## Trash Panda (Jan 7, 2022)

Neoverb uses the algorithms from EA’s verbs, but the assistant, with the appropriate inputs for a transparent sound, adds a clean layer of reverb that you can barely notice until you bypass it and realize the sound got a lot smaller.


----------



## Petrucci (Jan 7, 2022)

Nimbus and Phoenixverb are really clean and Cinematic Rooms are also very clean to my ears.


----------



## ed buller (Jan 7, 2022)

Cinematic rooms is the best reverb I have yet heard in the box

best

e


----------



## Consona (Jan 7, 2022)

KEM said:


> I’ve found Cinematic Rooms to be the cleanest out of all the reverbs I own, it doesn’t really color the sound at all and moreso sounds like you’re just lengthening the release tail of whatever you’re putting it on, at first it was honestly a bit jarring to me as I’d only been using Valhalla before that (which is the exact opposite) so I thought it just sounded stale and uninteresting but in the context of an entire mix it sounds much cleaner and sounds more like an actual room than a reverb on top of some samples
> 
> And Alan Meyerson uses it, and I don’t question his judgement for a second


Alan also uses Valhalla... He uses like nearly everything you can think of, they main difference is, he knows what he's doing with it, in comparison to someone like me.  You can buy all the plugins he uses and your mixes still won't sound like his.

Sometimes he uses such various reverb settings in his mixes that I don't know wtf is going on. Like everything sounds huge and spacious and then you focus on some sound and you're like "Wait, is this stuff totally dry? WTF?, I don't know anything anymore, again..."


----------



## re-peat (Jan 7, 2022)

If you have the CPU to run it, the budget to buy it and the stamina to purchase product from the infuriating Corporate Hell Online that is the Music Tribe website: the *TC VSS4 HD Native*. Very, very, very good. Very good. Really very good.

_


----------



## AudioLoco (Jan 7, 2022)

re-peat said:


> If you have the CPU to run it, the budget to buy it and the stamina to purchase product from the infuriating Corporate Hell Online that is the Music Tribe website: the *TC VSS4 HD Native*. Very, very, very good. Very good. Really very good.
> 
> _


"The online shop where shopping is made unclear and weird!"
Other then that VSS3 is incredible and VSS4 (which I just got this BF) is even more incredible-ler!

I have Phoenix too but haven't gelled with it for now. R4 which I love, I wouldn't consider "clean" as it relies, for its liveliness and movement, on a lot of modulation, like any good 'ol Lexicon should do.


----------



## Jeremy Spencer (Jan 7, 2022)

Cinematic Rooms. It's the cleanest, most natural reverb I've ever used.


----------



## Rubens Tubenchlak (Jan 7, 2022)

Dietz said:


> That would be Acon Digital's "Verberate" (and "Verberate Immersive").
> 
> -> https://acondigital.com/products/verberate/
> 
> ...


Dietz, I wonder how VSL reverbs, hybrid, miracle, (there's another one I can't remember the name...) compare to those.


----------



## storyteller (Jan 7, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Yes, I have them both. I got R4 then R2. No wondered I liked them. They are colored reverbs but they get muddy. Before that I was using Valhallaroom. Same problem. Now I using 7th Heaven, same problem.
> 
> I'll check out Nimbus because I have a feeling that Phoenix will be the same
> 
> Let me know what you think of Tai Chi.


I really like Tai Chi. It is extremely flexible and has a great sound. I think @Dietz made a spot-on assessment of it. What I’ve found it does best (for me at least) is to be run in parallel with a good plate like Transatlantic Plate. The plate give you a distinct, yet round and clear reverb like the best mixes we idolize while Tai Chi adds just enough color and movement to serve as a glue to the mix for a more modern feel. And don’t forget some saturation on both… that makes it <chef’s kiss>.

My favorite combo thus far while I’ve been getting to know these new verbs for my template has been using Cinematic Rooms Pro for a unifying reverb for all orchestral sections. There may be slightly different settings based on individual library mic positions and wetness. Then, on the final mix I like TA Plate and Tai Chi in parallel.


----------



## Trash Panda (Jan 7, 2022)

Henrik B. Jensen said:


> I’m no expert but EastWest Spaces II sounds nice and clean when using the Abbey Road trick on the Filter page and reducing the reverb decay time a bit.


Does that get rid of the metallic character?


----------



## blaggins (Jan 7, 2022)

I am an incredible neophyte so take my opinions with a grain of salt but I have pretty much hated every reverb I've tried until I tried Cinematic Rooms. I originally went with Valhalla Room based on the overwhelming number of recommendations here and I find it colors everything far too much. I've demo'd Seventh Heaven, kinda the same issue just much less so. Pro-R can be really good if you are willing to preset surf or futz with the EQ curves. Cinematic Rooms on the other hand... I can throw almost any preset at it and it's clean and transparent, no tweaking needed.


----------



## Dietz (Jan 7, 2022)

Rubens Tubenchlak said:


> Dietz, I wonder how VSL reverbs, hybrid, miracle, (there's another one I can't remember the name...) compare to those.


The "other" could be MIR Pro, I suppose ;-D ... MIR and all convolution based VSL reverbs are great, but they are oozing with color and (sometimes edgy) realism, not cleanliness.

MIRacle OTOH is indeed an extremely clean reverb, as it was mainly built to complement MIR's output with some nice modulations. However, due to the fact that it is not available separately, I thought it would not be a useful addition to the short list I posted above.


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jan 7, 2022)

I use PhoenixVerb when I want super-clean.


----------



## Loïc D (Jan 7, 2022)

Another vote for Cinematic Rooms.
But I don’t own the other recommend ones (Phoenixverb, VSS4, Nimbus, etc.)


----------



## J-M (Jan 7, 2022)

Cinematic Rooms is my go-to when I want a clean tail!


----------



## José Herring (Jan 7, 2022)

Thanks for the excellent recommendations. So it's between Nimbus, VSS4 and Cinematic Rooms as far as I see. They all seem to be competitively priced so that's not an issue.

I have and really like R2 and R4 so Nimbus is of great interest to me. I've always loved TC Electronics hardware verbs so I know I will love VSS4, the only downside is the Behringer connection. I have one piece of Behringer gear and as silly as it seems I can't separate out the products from the behavior of the man and his holding company. I'm litterally trying to give a way now the only piece of Behringer gear I've ever owned so I'm not sure if I can buy into the Tribe again without doing the same. But....if it really is that good, I may need to bite the bullet. 

Cinematic rooms. Seems like a winner. A little insistent because I found 7th heaven to be an utter disappointment in spite of its near universal praise. So I lost a little faith in Liquidsonics after that, but never say never.

I'm going to move to the demo phase now and demo these 3 verbs doing an a/b to what I have. Thanks again.


----------



## muziksculp (Jan 7, 2022)

Dietz said:


> Finally, there's always t.c.electronic's "VSS4", the definition of "clean" for more than a decade now


It's an amazing reverb. One of the best I have used, but it's also a CPU Hog. TC-Electronics didn't bother trying to fix it. It's still at version 1.0


----------



## Rubens Tubenchlak (Jan 7, 2022)

Dietz said:


> The "other" could be MIR Pro, I suppose ;-D ... MIR and all convolution based VSL reverbs are great, but they are oozing with color and (sometimes edgy) realism, not cleanliness.
> 
> MIRacle OTOH is indeed an extremely clean reverb, as it was mainly built to complement MIR's output with some nice modulations. However, due to the fact that it is not available separately, I thought it would not be a useful addition to the short list I posted above.


haha no Dietz, MIR I can not only remember but also check every day to see if MIR 3D has arrived.
I meant another reverb that came with the suite package. Anyway, your answer is good enough, thank you.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 7, 2022)

Nimbus most transparent of all that I've tried, but I love CRP more - it has a shade more of a sound than Nimbus. Nimbus can probably be picked up for a very small sum on the used market, given that it's practically been given away over the holidays. I quite liked the Acon Digital Verberate 2, but didn't connect with it as much as others.

I wasn't going to mention the B word in connection with TC, but that also rules them out for me, too, so long as there's viable alternatives.

I've been critical of Seventh Heaven here and elsewhere. But Cinematic Rooms Pro is the real deal, even if working in stereo rather than surround (I also think the Pro is more natural sounding than the standard version, but that's even more subjective). Also highly recommend Tai Chi Pro.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 7, 2022)

Okay so I tested them all in a short little template piece I worked on last week which made the problem of my reverbs very apparent to me. 

7th Heaven was my reverb originally. The one that I own. After listening to VSS4, Nimbus and CR I realized that the reason 7H is "bad" imo is that it really, really, really alters the fundamental tone quality of the sound to a degree that threw into question all my other mixing decisions. I tend to put reverb on last and not mix through it so in doing so, the time I spent mixing gets tossed out the window. 

Of the reverbs I demoed, Nimbus is clearly the most lacking in color, but unfortunately for me that meant that it lacked in any kind of flavor whatsoever. Even with the reverb time set to 4 seconds it didn't sound that much different than the dry signal. I'm sure that if I spent more time with it I could fix that but part of the problem is that I don't really have or want to spend a lot of time tweaking. 

Damn it that VSS4 turned out to be the best one for my purposes. Besides the association with The Music Hive...er...I mean Tribe I think the Star Trek: The Next Generation Enterprise interface is rather cheesy as much as I like the show I don't want to accidentally hail startfleet command while I'm setting up a reverb. But, I can get over the 80's TV Sci/Fi vibe, but will have to work long a hard to get over the Behringer association after swearing I'd never buy an aything related to Behringer ever again after the Kern incident. But, he did give all those synths to Africa so nobody is all bad.

Cinematic Room/CRPro, I couldn't demo the CRPro because the demo licenses wasn't working but I did get CR working and I have to say that it's good. like real, real good. Like I could live with it good, but....it's also not anywhere near transparent. It has some highs rolled off to the point that many of the presents really do dampen the sound, making everything rather smooth sounding, but I can live with that. Rather too smooth than too bright and harsh which is what I get from 7th heaven--thin bright and harsh. 

Provided demos. Let me know what you think.


----------



## Dietz (Jan 7, 2022)

José Herring said:


> I tend to put reverb on last and not mix through it so in doing so, the time I spent mixing gets tossed out the window.


The first half of the sentence might be the core of your problem.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 7, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Okay so I tested them all in a short little template piece I worked on last week which made the problem of my reverbs very apparent to me.
> 
> 7th Heaven was my reverb originally. The one that I own. After listening to VSS4, Nimbus and CR I realized that the reason 7H is "bad" imo is that it really, really, really alters the fundamental tone quality of the sound to a degree that threw into question all my other mixing decisions. I tend to put reverb on last and not mix through it so in doing so, the time I spent mixing gets tossed out the window.
> 
> ...


You'll want to dig into the controls on CRP. If the highs are being dampened, you can remove all/most of that... removal. I love dark reverbs so always roll things off. Heh.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 7, 2022)

Dietz said:


> The first half of the sentence might be the core of your problem.


You think so? I always felt that I got better balances and panning and spacing if I wait until the end to put verb on. Is this not true?


----------



## José Herring (Jan 7, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> You'll want to dig into the controls on CRP. If the highs are being dampened, you can remove all/most of that... removal. I love dark reverbs so always roll things off. Heh.


Problem I find is that in doing sample productions I have to use so much reverb that rolling off the highs on reverbs kills all the air in the mix.


----------



## river angler (Jan 7, 2022)

I think most reverbs can be made to sound atmospheric without clouding the mix - it's not so much which one you use but more how you program it/apply it.

I find judicious use of eq roll off filtering is the number one parameter to adjust in this regard.

Having said that I find the Reverb Designer in Logic is pretty quick and easy to tame into a more transparent 'verb and can go pretty clinical to completely the opposite as you like. 

Other than that the Quantec QRS is probably one I reach for if I'm after clinical clean room simulation and this is actually a hardware device from the late 80's! 

Like all studio tools it's much more about knowing how to get the best from the tools you already have than some hypothetical hindrance in the design of those tools.


----------



## muk (Jan 7, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Problem I find is that in doing sample productions I have to use so much reverb that rolling off the highs on reverbs kills all the air in the mix.


Have you tried reverb ducking? It's good if you want to use quite a bit of reverb without clouding the mix. Don't overdo it or it starts to sound like an effect. A little goes a long way.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 7, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Problem I find is that in doing sample productions I have to use so much reverb that rolling off the highs on reverbs kills all the air in the mix.


Cinematic Rooms Pro aims for realism (highs get rolled off). That's not always desired in electronic music.

That said, you can minimize the roll-off of the Reflections and Reverberations graphs by dragging the dots far to the right. There's also the Contour control that impacts highs, and the Equalisation tab in Pro there's the high shelf and roll off.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 7, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Cinematic Rooms Pro aims for realism (highs get rolled off). That's not always desired in electronic music.
> 
> That said, you can minimize the roll-off of the Reflections and Reverberations graphs by dragging the dots far to the right. There's also the Contour control that impacts highs, and the Equalisation tab in Pro there's the high shelf and roll off.


So getting the Pro version is the best route for this reverb. I'm assuming these things can't be tweaked in the Standard version.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 7, 2022)

José Herring said:


> So getting the Pro version is the best route for this reverb. I'm assuming these things can't be tweaked in the Standard version.


I think only the Equalisation feature is in Pro and not Standard. The others are.


----------



## El Buhdai (Jan 7, 2022)

CGR said:


> + 1 for Nimbus and Smart:Reverb. Also, I recommend this if you're after realism:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Is Inspirata really good though? I used the free version they gave out a while back for a bit and was amazed at how terrible it sounded. Maybe I'm missing something but I wasn't even remotely impressed.


----------



## Macrawn (Jan 7, 2022)

For kicks I took your mp3 and ran it through Neoverb just to see what it did. It's 50 percent wet which is too high but I just left it. I also used the default set up (clean setting) which is a medium type space then gain matched it.

Neoverb ran a pre eq taking out 1-2 db at 60 hz 600 hz , 1300k and around 3700k. I suspect those are the peaks on that track. The post eq set up a wide q at 350 hz and took out about 5 db which is more the extreme end of what I usually see this verb take out. (This is wet signal eq not the dry signal pre and post reverb)

Nothing was taken off the top or very low end. (no abby road trick stuff)

It's a very clear and transparent result. I lost something on the signal because it's just an mp3 and then downmixed again to mp3.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 7, 2022)

One I forgot to mention if the goal is clean but not realistic space: D16 Toraverb 2 is also a solid reverb. Again, not as clean as Nimbus, which maybe is a good thing, since Nimbus was TOO transparent.


----------



## Zanshin (Jan 7, 2022)

El Buhdai said:


> Is Inspirata really good though? I used the free version they gave out a while back for a bit and was amazed at how terrible it sounded. Maybe I'm missing something but I wasn't even remotely impressed.


I have the personal version. I wouldn't describe it as realistic like CGR does. It CAN sound good and very musical though. The CPU hit is on par with VSS4, also it takes up up 193 GB for the IRs.


----------



## CGR (Jan 7, 2022)

Zanshin said:


> I have the personal version. I wouldn't describe it as realistic like CGR does. It CAN sound good and very musical though. The CPU hit is on par with VSS4, also it takes up up 193 GB for the IRs.


I also have the Personal edition. My benchmark for assessing realistic reverbs which integrate with the source, have a natural depth and sense of a real space is running solo piano through them. I'm very familiar with how an acoustic piano sounds in a variety of real spaces. For me, Inspirata is up there with the very best, and the Personal edition offers much more control compared to the Free edition. The 190+ GB hard drive hit is a bit of a downside though.


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi (Jan 7, 2022)

2C Audio Breeze 2. The thing sounds so clean that when you use it to add body to a sound, you notice it only when the plugin is bypassed. I've never heard anything cleaner.

Exponential Audio's "clean series" can be really good in this regard, but still too dense compared to Breeze.
Breeze 2 is practically sterile(this is why I highly recommend you to play with it for a week or so before buying it, because you can dislike this hardcore transparency).

Also, I've noticed that people often misunderstand their needs in this case. They confuse a desire for "fresh and bright" with "clean". If that's the case, I highly recommend you to try TC VSS4. This reverb used to be veeeeeeery popular back then in media production.

Finally, maybe all you need is to make reverberation less loaded. In this case try to reduce density and switch to a few taps pattern.


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi (Jan 7, 2022)

Damn, I didn't read the whole thread. Anyway, I'll let the comment exist I guess 🛀


----------



## KEM (Jan 7, 2022)

How much are you guys sending to your reverbs? I’m sending everything post-fader at -10db, I really love that extremely wet sound of Batman Begins so that’s always what I’ve went for, but I’m curious as to what everyone else’s settings are, especially with how clean Cinematic Rooms is I feel like you can turn it up a little bit more and it won’t get muddy or washy


----------



## NoamL (Jan 7, 2022)

José Herring said:


> You think so? I always felt that I got better balances and panning and spacing if I wait until the end to put verb on. Is this not true?


Yes I think he has a point. For instance consider the bass & treble decay multipliers on most reverbs. If you set the bass decay multiplier to 1.5x then you get 1.5x longer sustain of bass freqs. On something instantaneous like a string pizzicato, this is just adding "tail" not volume, but if the strings play sustained material, everything mixes all together and you are adding more lows.

I think a reverb can be seen as an EQ and I try to "mix into" the reverb and get it set up early on when writing.


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi (Jan 7, 2022)

NoamL said:


> Yes I think he has a point. For instance in Cinematic Rooms consider the bass & treble decay multipliers. If you set the bass decay multiplier to 1.5x then you get 1.5x longer sustain of bass freqs. On something instantaneous like a string pizzicato, this is just adding "tail" not volume, but if the strings play sustained material, everything mixes all together and you are adding more lows.
> 
> For this reason I think a reverb can be seen as an EQ and I try to "mix into" the reverb and get it set up early on when writing.


Yes. There's a mixing technicque that suggests to use reverbs instead of compression for managing sustain.


----------



## Dietz (Jan 7, 2022)

José Herring said:


> You think so? I always felt that I got better balances and panning and spacing if I wait until the end to put verb on. Is this not true?


When mixing, you should hear all the relevant information, just as you want to hear all the instruments (not just a piano excerpt). Mixing is as much about depth and space as it is about volume, panning and frequencies. Without the ability to work with this important aspect, the mixing process will always suffer from the dreaded "reverb as effect" impression and will not give the 3D-effect of a convincing spatial mix. 

... but hey - that's not an absolute "truth," just my point of view as someone whose primary business has been mixing music for about three decades now. In the end, your approach could be very different, but still valid. "If it sounds right, it is right"


----------



## Dietz (Jan 7, 2022)

Faruh Al-Baghdadi said:


> There's a mixing technicque that suggests to use reverbs instead of compression for managing sustain.


But why does it have to be an "either/or"? Why not use both tools in combination to achieve maximum emotional impact?


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi (Jan 7, 2022)

Dietz said:


> But why does it have to be an "either/or"? Why not use both tools in combination to achieve maximum emotional impact?


Did I say we can't 
I'm abusing reverberation like a madman myself 😎


----------



## wilifordmusic (Jan 7, 2022)

I skipped from page one to page four.

I think the libraries that you use will determine the best reverb.

So, the bigger issue is using libraries that have a similar room or sonic footprint.
If you are using different "bands", you may have to use different reverbs to create a cohesive whole.

I find algo verbs easier to tune in to each library.

good luck in the quest. 

Steve


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Jan 7, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> One I forgot to mention if the goal is clean but not realistic space: D16 Toraverb 2 is also a solid reverb. Again, not as clean as Nimbus, which maybe is a good thing, since Nimbus was TOO transparent.


For clean but not realistic Adaptiverb is great (probably the cleanest)....


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 7, 2022)

Example: Nimbus is the primary reverb on this album (not mine though I wish I was this talented, but I know for a fact that Michael used Nimbus). He specifically wanted something that was there but you didn't really notice.


----------



## liquidlino (Jan 8, 2022)

Dietz said:


> When mixing, you should hear all the relevant information, just as you want to hear all the instruments (not just a piano excerpt). Mixing is as much about depth and space as it is about volume, panning and frequencies. Without the ability to work with this important aspect, the mixing process will always suffer from the dreaded "reverb as effect" impression and will not give the 3D-effect of a convincing spatial mix.
> 
> ... but hey - that's not an absolute "truth," just my point of view as someone whose primary business has been mixing music for about three decades now. In the end, your approach could be very different, but still valid. "If it sounds right, it is right"





José Herring said:


> Okay so I tested them all in a short little template piece I worked on last week which made the problem of my reverbs very apparent to me.
> 
> 7th Heaven was my reverb originally. The one that I own. After listening to VSS4, Nimbus and CR I realized that the reason 7H is "bad" imo is that it really, really, really alters the fundamental tone quality of the sound to a degree that threw into question all my other mixing decisions. I tend to put reverb on last and not mix through it so in doing so, the time I spent mixing gets tossed out the window.
> 
> ...


My Listening notes, if they're worth anything:

7th Heaven: The synth intro sounds gert lush. Really nice. When the cello/viola is playing on it's own with the synth it's nice too. But then as the track builds, it's like what R4 does, it starts to get really muddy.

CR: Intro synth is under-reverbed, has no vibe at all (might want to put it on it's own reverb and crank it up a bit). However, once the track starts to build, it's all lovely, no mud, good clarity and lovely stereo sound.

VSS4: Nice verb on the intro section, sounding lush. I'm wondering how it's going to stay sounding clear as the track builds... and yet somehow it is staying relatively clear... The synth starts to get a bit lost in the mix, but otherwise sounds great.

Nimbus: Same issue as CR - intro is under-verbed, no vibe. But as track builds, stays nice and clear. Not as nice sounding as VSS4 though (or even CR)... damn, that is interesting...

So VSS4 is like R4/Lexicon but without the build up of mud... best of both worlds. Xpensive though! Good to know for future...


----------



## thorwald (Jan 8, 2022)

I think doing the reverb early on during mixing ensures that it fits the source. With most reverbs it's very easy to get it sound like it was added on later, rather than being an integral part of the mix, buildups certainly contribute to this.

The posted demos confirm what I recommended earlier:

7th heaven, although it made the sound a bit muddy, will need the least amount of work to make it fit with what you have. I would personally choose a bit brighter preset, and pull back on the VLF mix, your source does not need low frequency boost at this point. The sound was colored enough, lush and natural otherwise.

Cinematic Rooms and VSS4 were also great, for different reasons. CR was just as clean, though brighter than Seventh Heaven, while VSS4 had a similar sound to R4, but I'm not sure I like what it did to the mids. Speaking of, CR added a bit of resonance, especially noticeable with the celli. I would likely use EQ to fix these.

Nimbus was good, but too transparent for my liking.


----------



## Crossroads (Jan 8, 2022)

Waves H-Reverb. Yes, you read that right. Still the one to beat for me. It somehow always works, it's transparent yet large. It never muddies a mix even with a four second tail. It's the only one I've heard that does that.

I've heard most reverbs out there, and I will tell you, there's magic in that thing.

It can also be as unclean as you want.


----------



## KEM (Jan 8, 2022)

Crossroads said:


> Waves H-Reverb. Yes, you read that right. Still the one to beat for me. It somehow always works, it's transparent yet large. It never muddies a mix even with a four second tail. It's the only one I've heard that does that.
> 
> I've heard most reverbs out there, and I will tell you, there's magic in that thing.
> 
> It can also be as unclean as you want.



Never used it but I feel the same way about H-Delay, it just has that sound, if I’m not using Echoboy it’s always H-Delay


----------



## doctoremmet (Jan 8, 2022)

Big H-series fan here as well. Can vouch for it.


----------



## liquidlino (Jan 8, 2022)

Crossroads said:


> Waves H-Reverb. Yes, you read that right. Still the one to beat for me. It somehow always works, it's transparent yet large. It never muddies a mix even with a four second tail. It's the only one I've heard that does that.
> 
> I've heard most reverbs out there, and I will tell you, there's magic in that thing.
> 
> It can also be as unclean as you want.


You're making me go revisit my h-reverb now. I'd stopped using it since getting R4 and nimbus. But will Retry h-reverb again!


----------



## Russell Anderson (Jan 8, 2022)

El Buhdai said:


> Is Inspirata really good though? I used the free version they gave out a while back for a bit and was amazed at how terrible it sounded. Maybe I'm missing something but I wasn't even remotely impressed.


Lite is in mono. Yes… not exactly a freebie that puts the best foot forward, I agree.


----------



## Crossroads (Jan 8, 2022)

liquidlino said:


> Right... I just did an experiment, took my latest track (which I ended up mixing with R4 for ER and Nimbus for LR), and remixed with R4 and H-Reverb. Interesting outcomes:
> 
> ER/LR: R4/Nimbus (Original mix)
> 
> ...




H-Reverb sounds good doesn't it?


----------



## liquidlino (Jan 8, 2022)

Crossroads said:


> H-Reverb sounds good doesn't it?


It really does - with all the modulations etc turned off (which is what the 780 H2 preset is, and a 4.3s tail), it sounds really clean. Interestingly, I think in the end I actually preferred the R4 mix for this piece... the lushness suits it more... ah well...

But, thanks for guiding me back to H-Reverb! I wasn't wrong when I bought it originally then 

Note - all three mixes, the Tail has a pre-delay of about 120ms - I find this stops the tail eating all the Early Reflections, and helps clarity enormously.


----------



## liquidlino (Jan 8, 2022)

liquidlino said:


> It really does - with all the modulations etc turned off (which is what the 780 H2 preset is, and a 4.3s tail), it sounds really clean. Interestingly, I think in the end I actually preferred the R4 mix for this piece... the lushness suits it more... ah well...
> 
> But, thanks for guiding me back to H-Reverb! I wasn't wrong when I bought it originally then
> 
> Note - all three mixes, the Tail has a pre-delay of about 120ms - I find this stops the tail eating all the Early Reflections, and helps clarity enormously.


One more experiment. This is H-Reverb with "Grand Hall" preset, which is 4.63 seconds of heavily modulated reverb. Same ER/LR setup. Same 120ms pre-delay on LR, but this time I cranked the LR up to 50% mix. Actually blown away by how lush this sounds without getting muddy. VSS4 eat your $249 heart out.

View attachment Song 2022-01-08.3 H-Reverb Grand Hall.mp3


----------



## re-peat (Jan 8, 2022)

That doesn't sound very good, Liquid. Quite bad, actually. Well, _very_ bad. Sorry.

But in defence of H-Reverb: apart from there being waaaaaaaaaay too much of it, I think the reverb is least of all responsible of why this sounds the way it does.
Pour a little or a lot of the VSS4 — or any other good reverb — over this, and it won't sound any better or worse. The problems of this track run much deeper than the reverb.

Maybe there are productions with the H-Reverb to be done that makes one say "VSS4 eat your $249 heart out" (I very much doubt it though), but this certainly isn't one of them.

_


----------



## liquidlino (Jan 8, 2022)

re-peat said:


> That doesn't sound very good, Liquid. Quite bad, actually. Well, _very_ bad. Sorry.
> 
> But in defence of H-Reverb: apart from there being waaaaaaaaaay too much of it, I think the reverb is least of all responsible of why this sounds the way it does.
> Pour a little or a lot of the VSS4 — or any other good reverb — over this, and it won't sound any better or worse. The problems of this track run much deeper than the reverb.
> ...


Hey re-peat. That may be the case, and I'm sure you know what you're talking about... but your response here doesn't actually help me... there's no info imparted other than, "you're pretty terrible Liquid."

I would definitely love to know your thoughts on what could be changed to improve things here though - that's why I'm on the site, to learn and share and learn (focus on the learning though), or even just more info on what aspects sounds bad to you that I can work on?


----------



## KEM (Jan 8, 2022)

re-peat said:


> That doesn't sound very good, Liquid. Quite bad, actually. Well, _very_ bad. Sorry.
> 
> But in defence of H-Reverb: apart from there being waaaaaaaaaay too much of it, I think the reverb is least of all responsible of why this sounds the way it does.
> Pour a little or a lot of the VSS4 — or any other good reverb — over this, and it won't sound any better or worse. The problems of this track run much deeper than the reverb.
> ...



Harsh


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 8, 2022)

re-peat said:


> That doesn't sound very good, Liquid. Quite bad, actually. Well, _very_ bad. Sorry.
> 
> But in defence of H-Reverb: apart from there being waaaaaaaaaay too much of it, I think the reverb is least of all responsible of why this sounds the way it does.
> Pour a little or a lot of the VSS4 — or any other good reverb — over this, and it won't sound any better or worse. The problems of this track run much deeper than the reverb.
> ...


What's your least favourite reverb of all time? Something that causes unrest and makes your sweat at night at how insulted you are by its very existence? Just curious.


----------



## Virtuoso (Jan 8, 2022)

jononotbono said:


> What's your least favourite reverb of all time? Something that causes unrest and makes your sweat at night at how insulted you are by its very existence? Just curious.


The Boss RV-5 gives me hives and yet it's beloved by so many.


----------



## Trash Panda (Jan 8, 2022)

jononotbono said:


> What's your least favourite reverb of all time? Something that causes unrest and makes your sweat at night at how insulted you are by its very existence? Just curious.


Probably the one that killed his parents at the circus.


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 8, 2022)

Trash Panda said:


> Probably the one that killed his parents at the circus.


I'm not actually joking. I love Piet's posts. I'm genuinely interested if there's a reverb that causes him discomfort 😂


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 8, 2022)

Virtuoso said:


> The Boss RV-5 gives me hives and yet it's beloved by so many.


Oh god. I've never tried it. If its anything like the Boss Metal Zone pedal and what that does in the "distortion" world, then I'll take your word for it! 😂


----------



## Trash Panda (Jan 8, 2022)

jononotbono said:


> Oh god. I've never tried it. If its anything like the Boss Metal Zone pedal and what that does in the "distortion" world, then I'll take your word for it! 😂


I love how peoples lack of ability to properly use a Metal Zone so often translates to “this thing sucks!”


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 8, 2022)

Trash Panda said:


> I love how peoples lack of ability to properly use a Metal Zone so often translates to “this thing sucks!”


Oh I've had a couple in the past. Definitely moved on from that "sound". Not sure how anybody could have a "lack of ability to properly use" one but ya know... this is actually a real thing...






So I guess some people find a Metal Zone pedal difficult?! "Not for everyone" should be on the box. Is that fair? haha

Anyway... Reverbs

I'm enjoying Cinematic Rooms Pro at the minute.

As for cleanest? I have no idea as I've not tried every thing out there. I've been curious about the Fab Filter one as that sounds "clean" in demos I have heard. But it also sounds clinical... which is another thing altogether.


----------



## Jackdnp121 (Jan 8, 2022)

Cinematic room is clean !


----------



## José Herring (Jan 8, 2022)

@liquidlino I wish you hadn't deleted all your post. I was getting a lot out of your input.

I did listen to your piece and it's not all bad. It does highlight some problems I feel that could be addressed to improve your mix. Definitely the problem isn't your choice of reverb though. Mostly it's a problem with dynamics. Notably everything is just too loud. You'll be able to balance it out better if you brought the level of the strings down by about 1/2. It would also give you more room to breath expression wise.

On a positive note, you're the first person that I've ever heard use CSS that didn't make it sound like a dark muddy mess.

I've made the same errors that you've made, if you try and push everything to the front volume wise then you will lose depth perspective. There are some ways to do it and many can help you.

Dietz makes some great mixes. Maybe a bit clinical for my taste but the work that he's done with VSL is remarkable. Beat Kaufman has great ideas on frequency and how it relates to spacialization. Maybe takes it a bit too far in a mix but definitely worth knowing. Jolie has great ideas on balancing instruments to get a smooth mix. He maybe takes that a bit too far as you'll lose some of the actual thing that makes an instrument sound different but definitely worth noting. Piet/Repeat is great at making a stereo mix sound like immersive audio. He's big on instrument placement. ect...

I've had to swallow my pride thousands of times over the years and take an honest look. I've gotten better, one can always get better. 

Your mix will benefit greatly by seeking out post from these guys and applying them to your mix.

We all have a lot to learn about this stuff.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 8, 2022)

jononotbono said:


> Oh I've had a couple in the past. Definitely moved on from that "sound". Not sure how anybody could have a "lack of ability to properly use" one but ya know... this is actually a real thing...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There's "clean" and then there's "metallic". Nimbus, to me, straddles the line. R2, Breeze, Valhalla Room, and some others are in the "metallic" camp - and I simply cannot stand them. But, as always, reverb is SUPER subjective.

Sonsig-A in Sonsig mode is also clean, but bright. I think it might be brighter than my Mercury M7 pedal, which is as bright as I can regularly stand (and I always have the High Frequency knob below 50%, usually at 0%). As much as I like it, I have it for sale right now, as it's been replaced with ones I like better. Plus I have the M7, which I'm using as I type this.


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 8, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> There's "clean" and then there's "metallic". Nimbus, to me, straddles the line. R2, Breeze, Valhalla Room, and some others are in the "metallic" camp - and I simply cannot stand them. But, as always, reverb is SUPER subjective.


Sure. What is it you're responding to, with what I said? I've not mentioned anything being clean or metallic. I haven't given an example saying any reverb has the characteristic of being clean of metallic. Curious what you were thinking. 

I said I'm curious about Fabfliter's Reverb and to me it sounds "Clean". But I also said it sounds clinical.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 8, 2022)

jononotbono said:


> Sure. What is it you're responding to, with what I said? I've not mentioned anything being clean or metallic. I haven't given an example saying any reverb has the characteristic of being clean of metallic. Curious what you were thinking.
> 
> I said I'm curious about Fabfliter's Reverb and to me it sounds "Clean". But I also said it sounds clinical.


Oh, I was just on the subjective thing. Your "clinical" may be my "metallic" as an example. Not trying to make general claims about reverbs, only how people perceive them so differently.


----------



## jononotbono (Jan 8, 2022)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Oh, I was just on the subjective thing. Your "clinical" may be my "metallic" as an example. Not trying to make general claims about reverbs, only how people perceive them so differently.


No man. Clinical isn't a word I'd use to describe anything Metallic going on.

When I say "Clinical", I mean just that. If you went to a doctor and had to have an injection of some sort, a clinical environment is what "most" people expect. Not a room full of flies with a bearded doctor walking towards you, with a dirty needle in hand that's got coagulating blood dripping off the end. At least the doctor had a smile yeah? 😂

Clinical = none of the above. No vibe added. Sterile. And why would this be useful in music and especially samples? Well, how about when you're using samples recorded in a space that captures huge amounts of personality and space? This is when I would prefer a more clinical Reverb.

Metallic... Usually the result of stacking too many reverbs on top of each other, phase problems, or just horrible reverbs to begin with and everything said before. Saying that, it could just be the perfect sound design choice for you and your music at the time. EQ it or get rid of it. 😂


----------



## KEM (Jan 8, 2022)

José Herring said:


> @liquidlino I wish you hadn't deleted all your post. I was getting a lot out of your input.
> 
> I did listen to your piece and it's not all bad. It does highlight some problems I feel that could be addressed to improve your mix. Definitely the problem isn't your choice of reverb though. Mostly it's a problem with dynamics. Notably everything is just too loud. You'll be able to balance it out better if you brought the level of the strings down by about 1/2. It would also give you more room to breath expression wise.
> 
> ...



@liquidlino there are threads with multiple pages of people ripping my music (and me personally) to shreds, sometimes you just gotta take the beating and move on, our art is so personal to us and it’s hard when someone attacks it cause we see it as a reflection of us as a whole so it can be extremely hard to let go but there is a lot of growth to be made in doing so. If you’re confident in your musical decisions then don’t let anyone deter you from making them, and if it’s something you didn’t fully believe in then take the opportunity to use the hate as a way to objectively reflect on what you could’ve done better, and how you can learn more to not make the same mistakes

I’m not defending re-peat either, he was definitely being overtly harsh in his criticism and didn’t even provide any actual applicable feedback to anything specific you could’ve changed, I’ve been on the receiving end of that quite a few times and it’s not fun at all but it can also prove to be a valuable lesson, the real world is cruel and the internet even moreso when people can hide behind their words and anonymity, but being able to take all of that negative energy and doing something positive with it will only serve to make you better in the end, so don’t feel the need to delete your posts or stop joining the discussions on here, there’s no shame in getting kicked to the ground, it happens to the best of us, and I know we all have immense respect for the ones who can get back up and go at it again!!


----------



## liquidlino (Jan 9, 2022)

KEM said:


> @liquidlino there are threads with multiple pages of people ripping my music (and me personally) to shreds, sometimes you just gotta take the beating and move on, our art is so personal to us and it’s hard when someone attacks it cause we see it as a reflection of us as a whole so it can be extremely hard to let go but there is a lot of growth to be made in doing so. If you’re confident in your musical decisions then don’t let anyone deter you from making them, and if it’s something you didn’t fully believe in then take the opportunity to use the hate as a way to objectively reflect on what you could’ve done better, and how you can learn more to not make the same mistakes
> 
> I’m not defending re-peat either, he was definitely being overtly harsh in his criticism and didn’t even provide any actual applicable feedback to anything specific you could’ve changed, I’ve been on the receiving end of that quite a few times and it’s not fun at all but it can also prove to be a valuable lesson, the real world is cruel and the internet even moreso when people can hide behind their words and anonymity, but being able to take all of that negative energy and doing something positive with it will only serve to make you better in the end, so don’t feel the need to delete your posts or stop joining the discussions on here, there’s no shame in getting kicked to the ground, it happens to the best of us, and I know we all have immense respect for the ones who can get back up and go at it again!!


Thanks KEM. Means a lot. Repeats not wrong, it was garbage. I'm going to take a break from vi control, focus on practicing and learning. Catch you later.


----------



## el-bo (Jan 9, 2022)

KEM said:


> @liquidlino there are threads with multiple pages of people ripping my music (and me personally) to shreds, sometimes you just gotta take the beating and move on, our art is so personal to us and it’s hard when someone attacks it cause we see it as a reflection of us as a whole so it can be extremely hard to let go but there is a lot of growth to be made in doing so. If you’re confident in your musical decisions then don’t let anyone deter you from making them, and if it’s something you didn’t fully believe in then take the opportunity to use the hate as a way to objectively reflect on what you could’ve done better, and how you can learn more to not make the same mistakes
> 
> I’m not defending re-peat either, he was definitely being overtly harsh in his criticism and didn’t even provide any actual applicable feedback to anything specific you could’ve changed, I’ve been on the receiving end of that quite a few times and it’s not fun at all but it can also prove to be a valuable lesson, the real world is cruel and the internet even moreso when people can hide behind their words and anonymity, but being able to take all of that negative energy and doing something positive with it will only serve to make you better in the end, so don’t feel the need to delete your posts or stop joining the discussions on here, there’s no shame in getting kicked to the ground, it happens to the best of us, and I know we all have immense respect for the ones who can get back up and go at it again!!


There's a good message in here, about resilience, but I think that people often give a free-pass to tactlessness (or just plain nastiness) because there is a notion that 'The Truth™' is supposed to be hard/harsh.

Of course, nobody should be under the illusion that the world owes us anything, or that people 'in the REAL world' will have the time or the inclination to couch their critiques and provide positive, workable steps towards improvement. But this is a community of people who are at various skill levels and amount of working experience, in the field. There are clearly a lot of people here who are disinclined to share their stumblings, fumblings and WIP, due to the quality of talent that also stomps these boards. But the last thing we/they need is the added feeling of being 'fed to the lions'.

I'm not saying people should be treated with kid gloves, or that this place become a saccharin-sweet safe-space. However, imo, unless someone actually asks for gloves-off, no-holds-barred harsh critique, then people should either make the effort to give constructive feedback, or just keep quiet


----------



## re-peat (Jan 9, 2022)

KEM said:


> and didn’t even provide any actual applicable feedback to anything specific you could’ve changed



We never got to that phase. I’d written my post half-expecting Liquid to reply, somewhat annoyed perhaps and maybe cursing my uncouth manner at first, but then inquiring why I thought the mix sounded so bad. To which I then would have replied with a list of observations, outlining what, to my ears anyway, was wrong with the track and its sound.

“Ye gods, what is happening to this place?”, was my first thought when I returned to this thread earlier today and learned what had transpired. We used to be able on VI-C to tell one another, forthright and frank, when things don’t sound very good. From one grown-up musician to another, you know. José and several other members will bear me out on this one. Sure, it used to cause some unpleasantness and irritation at first then too, it always does (and quite understandably so), but eventually something good would come of it. Nearly always. Might have taken a few days or even a few months, but it would end well. Often very well. In fact, what frequently happened was that the person on the receiving end of a negative comment would, after the first pain had abated, thank the one who had given the comment because it had opened his or her ears and now important progress had been made. Witnessed it on many occasions over the years. All of them great examples of musicians helping musicians.

Why would I say something sounds good when it clearly doesn’t? Who is helped by that? The only thing that does, is keep the forum’s surface ripple-free — a soporific state of affairs I have never found normal, healthy and honest, let alone desirable, in a community of musicians, whom I like to think of (quite wrongly, as I increasingly learn) as people of passion, individuality, conviction and temperament — but, much worse, it’ll also see to it that the mistakes made today will keep on being made next week, and the weeks after that, because the person making them is convinced his or her work sounds good. After all, it was applauded as such. Now, many of you seem to think differently, but I find that a very bad thing. A *very* bad thing. Saddeningly so, even.

Instead of the indignation and the stupid ‘circus parents’ comment — a comment a million times more offensive than anything I’ve ever said, by the way — we could be having a great discussion about the problems in the production to which I reacted in my previous post. And I’m convinced it would have turned out most helpful and informative. Not just on the topic of choosing and applying reverb, but also on the matter of what sort of processing to have (or avoid) on the MasterBus of a mock-orchestral mix, as well as on the subject of writing and orchestration. (Because, in fact, it was the problems in the latter which, in my view, were the chief reason as to why the piece sounded like it did.)

I, for one, will be genuinely happy — honestly so — if Liquid’s next track sounds way better than that last H-Reverb example posted in this thread, and does so as a direct consequence of this little moment of friction. Such a thing happening would, in my opinion, show VI-C at its best and be a glorious illustration of perhaps the most valuable thing it has to offer: a place where people find the honesty, the knowlegde and the stimuli to get better at their art and their craft.

_


----------



## el-bo (Jan 9, 2022)

re-peat said:


> Why would I say something sounds good when it clearly doesn’t?


You're completely missing the point. Nobody expects others to say something sounds good when it isn't.

If my child were to come home from school, with an 'F' for a piece of homework, I wouldn't say "Well, no wonder you got an F. The piece you wrote is clearly shit!". I'd go through with them where things could be improved. I don't think this is an absurd idea.

And if you truly were expecting to have a conversation, then why not just start with a constructive conversation? Instead, your opener had this particular member declaring they wouldn't return to VIC until they were more skilled. Any potential conversation and learning opportunity now completely shut-down.


----------



## liquidlino (Jan 9, 2022)

re-peat said:


> We never got to that phase. I’d written my post half-expecting Liquid to reply, somewhat annoyed perhaps and maybe cursing my uncouth manner at first, but then inquiring why I thought the mix sounded so bad. To which I then would have replied with a list of observations, outlining what, to my ears anyway, was wrong with the track and its sound.
> 
> “Ye gods, what is happening to this place?”, was my first thought when I returned to this thread earlier today and learned what had transpired. We used to be able on VI-C to tell one another, forthright and frank, when things don’t sound very good. From one grown-up musician to another, you know. José and several other members will bear me out on this one. Sure, it used to cause some unpleasantness and irritation at first then too, it always does (and quite understandably so), but eventually something good would come of it. Nearly always. Might have taken a few days or even a few months, but it would end well. Often very well. In fact, what frequently happened was that the person on the receiving end of a negative comment would, after the first pain had abated, thank the one who had given the comment because it had opened his or her ears and now important progress had been made. Witnessed it on many occasions over the years. All of them great examples of musicians helping musicians.
> 
> ...


Sadly I'm still reading this site. It's... Addictive. 

You are, of course, completely right. The fundamental composition and orchestration was lacking, and you are also right that your harsh feedback threw me into a frenzy of research and learning to figure out wtf was so bad that it deserves such harsh feedback. And I'm making progress on that already.

So... In that sense, mission accomplished. 

However... I'm not sure if you're blind to it, or don't care, but ultimately what Kenneth said above is very true. Our individual art is incredibly personal, and I certainly don't come to public forums to be ridiculed and insulted, particularly on such a personal subject. 

And, it's not even you in particular. I've had this growing sense of discomfort about vi control, starting from when I looked up the last discourse between members and Paul Thomson that led to him and CH vacating the site and even CH citing how much he doesn't like vi control in a video, from a man who almost never says anything negative ever (certainly not publicly).

Day after day I see negativity in abounds here, whether it's directly to another member, or just disparaging companies or individuals that work there. And it doesn't sit well with me at all. It's a tiny industry, full of mostly well meaning hard working, talented, creative people. If I was one of those people getting such disparagement, I'd be devastated.

So this was just the proverbial straw on the camels back. I'm sure I will be back, and we can have that discourse about everything. But for now I think my path is to take some time to myself, get better at my art and come back later.


----------



## re-peat (Jan 9, 2022)

el-bo said:


> Nobody expects others to say something sounds good when it isn't.



Someone _did_ say it sounded good. And Lino himself expressed euphoric enthusiasm about the sound he got. I felt it would be the start of a constructive thing to point out that it didn't sound good at all.

(Could give plenty of examples, actually, of people receiving applause and "awesome!"'s for work that has me saying to myself: "That doesn't sound good at all. Don't these congratulators hear it? And if they do, why not say so?")

_


----------



## re-peat (Jan 9, 2022)

liquidlino said:


> I certainly don't come to public forums to be ridiculed and insulted, particularly on such a personal subject.



I don’t come here to insult or ridicule, Lino. When I write a post like the one that caused the upset, it is with the sole intention of triggering improvement and progress. Maybe I go about it the wrong way, that is possible — I actually go about the exact same way I would like to be treated as well when I post something that has flaws — but, paradoxical as it may appear just now, I find my way actually more respectful than the polite, well-behaved, tactful indifference one usually gets around here and from which one learns nothing other than that we’re apparently one big happy family here.

If I hadn’t been interested enough in what you’re doing, I’d have said nothing. Easy. And the days of learning nothing would roll by. But I am interested, I truly am, and I hear what I consider mistakes, so I tell you. Okay, my opening line was a little brusque and harsh. Unnecessarily so, I know. But if it hadn’t been posted, you wouldn’t have been able to write, as you just did, that you’re making progress already.

_


----------



## el-bo (Jan 9, 2022)

re-peat said:


> Someone _did_ say it sounded good.


Because maybe to them it did sound good.



re-peat said:


> And Liquid himself expressed euphoric enthusiasm about the sound he got.


ok...



re-peat said:


> I felt it would be the start of a constructive thing to point out that it didn't sound good at all.


Your response seemed like a conversation-ender, imo



re-peat said:


> (Could give plenty of examples, actually, of people receiving applause and "awesome!"'s for work that has me saying to myself: "That doesn't sound good at all. Don't these congratulators hear it? And if they do, why not say so?")


Great! But what we might say to ourselves, unfiltered, is not necessarily the best thing to say to others.

If you really want to start a conversation with the aim of helping someone improve their work, then, instead of saying that something sounds bad (...really bad), perhaps just say that you hear some things in the example that could be changed, in order to really improve the outcome. There's nothing dishonest abut that.

In its simplest terms: it's not what you say, but how you say it, that's important.

You are clearly very talented and very intelligent, and have knowledge that could really help people. Not that it's your responsibility to do so, but if you do intend to help then maybe try a more tactful approach.



re-peat said:


> I find my way actually more respectful than the polite, well-behaved, tactful indifference one usually gets around here and from which one learns nothing


No need for such a dichotomy. Being respectful and tactful is not at odds with being honest and helpful


----------



## easyrider (Jan 9, 2022)

Lexicon PCM native Reverb Bundle.

EOT 😜


----------



## Zanshin (Jan 9, 2022)

liquidlino said:


> and even CH citing how much he doesn't like vi control in a video, from a man who almost never says anything negative ever (certainly not publicly



Which is video is this? I must have missed that. 

I get it. VI-Control is like a rescue sanctuary for wild dogs. Mostly good boys, but prone to misbehaving, and sometimes outright violence.


----------



## Snoobydoobydoo (Jan 9, 2022)

Zanshin said:


> VI-Control is like a rescue sanctuary for wild dogs. Mostly good boys, but prone to misbehaving, and sometimes outright violence.


All barking and no biting wont get you adopted. Or was it vice versa..
If you dont blow yourself up to twice your size, the alpha dogs wont see you as a concurrent, and go their way, tagging and fighting for their territories all day long.
Never ask the alpha dog to teach you and explain you the world, when he is comfortable with himself barking at everything that could take his role.
Scared old beast.


----------



## Noeticus (Jan 9, 2022)

Can anyone say, @Dietz perhaps, what is the cleanest setting on Acon Verberate 2?

Also, does anyone know what the built-in reverb in VSL's Vienna Instruments player is? I have always loved how clean its reverb sounds.


----------



## Trash Panda (Jan 9, 2022)

liquidlino said:


> I looked up the last discourse between members and Paul Thomson that led to him and CH vacating the site and even CH citing how much he doesn't like vi control in a video, from a man who almost never says anything negative ever (certainly not publicly).


They try very hard to hide it in their public facing personas, but if you pay attention, you can catch glimpses that both of those fine gentlemen have pretty big egos and don’t handle criticism of their products very well. It’s more apparent with the staff attitudes on their own forums.


----------



## Dietz (Jan 9, 2022)

Noeticus said:


> Can anyone say, @Dietz perhaps, what is the cleanest setting on Acon Reverberate 2?


I don't know if it is _the_ cleanest setting, but I like to start with something close to the factory defaults (without ERs) when I want to add "air" to a MIR 3D mix:





... that's a screenshot of an insert effect, of course, not AUX-send. Input EQ is flat, BTW.


----------



## KEM (Jan 9, 2022)

re-peat said:


> We never got to that phase. I’d written my post half-expecting Liquid to reply, somewhat annoyed perhaps and maybe cursing my uncouth manner at first, but then inquiring why I thought the mix sounded so bad. To which I then would have replied with a list of observations, outlining what, to my ears anyway, was wrong with the track and its sound.
> 
> “Ye gods, what is happening to this place?”, was my first thought when I returned to this thread earlier today and learned what had transpired. We used to be able on VI-C to tell one another, forthright and frank, when things don’t sound very good. From one grown-up musician to another, you know. José and several other members will bear me out on this one. Sure, it used to cause some unpleasantness and irritation at first then too, it always does (and quite understandably so), but eventually something good would come of it. Nearly always. Might have taken a few days or even a few months, but it would end well. Often very well. In fact, what frequently happened was that the person on the receiving end of a negative comment would, after the first pain had abated, thank the one who had given the comment because it had opened his or her ears and now important progress had been made. Witnessed it on many occasions over the years. All of them great examples of musicians helping musicians.
> 
> ...



Everybody responds to criticism in different ways, some respond very well to negative reinforcement while others need a more positive approach, I don’t think one is inherently better than the other but I personally see a lot more value in being able to take extremely harsh and overtly negative feedback without feeling shutdown or beaten up, or more importantly having the ability to get back up when you do, as you seem to as well. But that’s just not how everybody else works, humans certainly aren’t universal in that aspect and you obviously don’t know how liquid or anyone else will process things in their own heads when you’re that blunt, I’m not saying you’re a bad guy and I’m certainly not trying to attack you, my point was that I just wish you would’ve worded it better 

But hey, it clearly lit a fire in liquid to get better, soooo mission accomplished I guess…??


----------



## re-peat (Jan 9, 2022)

Noeticus said:


> what is the cleanest setting on Acon Verberate 2



For the best neutral and/or transparent reverb, I prefer the Vivid algorithm and I’ll sometimes attenuate a bit around 3000kHz (on top of the usual Low Cut filtering) in the Decay Editor to minimize the risk of clangy reverberation, but that depends entirely on the timbre of the source of course. 

It’s a good reverb. If you want additional presets for it, there’s “Polished Districts” ($19.98) from SynthPresets.com and “Vivid Spaces” (€15) from SolidTrax.nl

_


----------



## SupremeFist (Jan 9, 2022)

KEM said:


> Everybody responds to criticism in different ways, some respond very well to negative reinforcement while others need a more positive approach


I'm not a teacher but my dad is (a music teacher at that), and I think it's a pretty well settled principle in pedagogy that, if you sincerely want to help someone get better, you don't respond to their new effort by saying simply "this is very bad". Awareness of this principle is, after all, why we have the concept (in everything from Hollywood script notes to managerial feedback) of the "shit sandwich".


----------



## robgb (Jan 9, 2022)

Nimbus. Lexicon.


----------



## el-bo (Jan 9, 2022)

robgb said:


> Nimbus. Lexicon.


A question for all those recommending Nimbus: Have these qualities not been well-translated into Neoverb, or is just too much of an unknown?

I was so close to buying Nimbus when it recently showed-up at $10 on PIB. Then found out it was EOL, and would never end up being supported for M1. And while I don't have an M1 machine, there's a chance in a few years I might do. Even at $10 it seems not worth becoming so reliant on something, to just have to start all over again due to compatibility issues.


----------



## Trash Panda (Jan 9, 2022)

el-bo said:


> A question for all those recommending Nimbus: Have these qualities not been well-translated into Neoverb, or is just too much of an unknown?


You lose a degree of the control you get from Nimbus, but Neoverb does the clean Nimbus reverb well.


----------



## el-bo (Jan 9, 2022)

Trash Panda said:


> You lose a degree of the control you get from Nimbus, but Neoverb does the clean Nimbus reverb well.


No ducking, I'm guessing? But good that it has 'that' signature. Of course, this thread has offered up more options. Was just curious.

Thanks


----------



## Noeticus (Jan 9, 2022)

Dietz said:


> I don't know if it is _the_ cleanest setting, but I like to start with something close to the factory defaults (without ERs) when I want to add "air" to a MIR 3D mix:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you very much, @Dietz!

Because of your expertise and suggestion here, I have just purchased Verberate 2.

It is very, very clean. I love that you can actually turn off the early reflections.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jan 9, 2022)

re-peat said:


> I don’t come here to insult or ridicule, Lino. When I write a post like the one that caused the upset, it is with the sole intention of triggering improvement and progress. Maybe I go about it the wrong way, that is possible — I actually go about the exact same way I would like to be treated as well when I post something that has flaws — but, paradoxical as it may appear just now, I find my way actually more respectful than the polite, well-behaved, tactful indifference one usually gets around here and from which one learns nothing other than that we’re apparently one big happy family here.
> 
> If I hadn’t been interested enough in what you’re doing, I’d have said nothing. Easy. And the days of learning nothing would roll by. But I am interested, I truly am, and I hear what I consider mistakes, so I tell you. Okay, my opening line was a little brusque and harsh. Unnecessarily so, I know. But if it hadn’t been posted, you wouldn’t have been able to write, as you just did, that you’re making progress already.


I believe that's true, and I don't doubt at all your intentions. Still ... it was a pretty harsh way to go about it.  Not every moment is a learning moment, and there's a right time and a wrong time for brutal honesty.

If my wife shows me a new dress that she thinks looks great, then in the interest of "triggering improvement and progress," I suppose I _could_ respond with:
_"That doesn't look very good, honey. Quite bad, actually. Well, very bad. Sorry.
But in defense of the dress: apart from there being waaaaaaaaaay too much of it, I think the dress is least of all responsible of why you look the way you do. The problems run much deeper than the dress. The problem is your body."_

Now, that may all be true. And maybe it's something my wife needs to hear ... at the right time. But *this* would definitely be the wrong time. That's basic Husband 101.

It's important to remember that Lino didn't ask for critiques of his track. (I've undeleted his post so we see can the wording. Sorry Lino, but I think it's instructive.) He was just showing an example of a reverb in action. Perhaps he was too excited by how good the reverb sounded (nowhere did he imply the _music_ sounded great), but it was just an attempt to be *helpful* with an audio example.

That's a _good_ thing for the forum. In a thread about reverbs (or pretty much anything gear oriented), we want people to bring the examples on. Not every example will be great, of course, but too many is better than too few.

So with that in mind, we don't want to create an environment where people are afraid to post anything, for fear someone will point out how fat their ass is under that dress. That fear has real consequences, and as just one example, I remember Jay Asher wouldn't post examples of EW libraries doing various articulations people would ask for, because he didn't want to see his compositions get slammed in the process. Heck, cocky bastard that I am, I wouldn't want that, either.

So brutal honesty can be great, and in most cases, I love reading your posts because brutal honesty can be totally warranted. (Although I dread the day you write about a Realitone library!  ) IMO don't change that at all. I loves me some re-peat posts.

Sometimes, though, we're in situations where people can be sensitive (justifiably or not), and more to the point, they're not actually asking for unvarnished truth. So in those cases, it's sometimes best to just say, _"Looks great, honey!"_ or _"Great trumpet solo, son!"_ Or here on VI-Control (where your wife or son isn't staring expectantly at you), there's always the _"Don't say anything at all"_ option. If it helps, my tongue hurts from all the biting it gets, too. 

_Note 1 - I've deleted a number of posts, so the main focus of the thread doesn't get too derailed.
Note 2 - My wife is not fat. Not that there's anything wrong with that ..._


----------



## robgb (Jan 9, 2022)

el-bo said:


> A question for all those recommending Nimbus: Have these qualities not been well-translated into Neoverb, or is just too much of an unknown?
> 
> I was so close to buying Nimbus when it recently showed-up at $10 on PIB. Then found out it was EOL, and would never end up being supported for M1. And while I don't have an M1 machine, there's a chance in a few years I might do. Even at $10 it seems not worth becoming so reliant on something, to just have to start all over again due to compatibility issues.


As far as I know, they're two different things, but I've never used Neoverb. Nimbus was created by the guy who helped design the Lexicon reverbs, and the amount of control you get is astonishing.


----------



## el-bo (Jan 9, 2022)

robgb said:


> As far as I know, they're two different things, but I've never used Neoverb. Nimbus was created by the guy who helped design the Lexicon reverbs, and the amount of control you get is astonishing.


I have Phoenixverb and like the sound. The extra features of Nimbus seemed quite a draw. 

I guess i was mistaken. I thought that Neoverb was the spiritual successor the Carnes' earlier creations, using his algo's. Would be strange for them to buy him out for only a couple of years worth of software sales.


----------



## Trash Panda (Jan 9, 2022)

robgb said:


> As far as I know, they're two different things, but I've never used Neoverb. Nimbus was created by the guy who helped design the Lexicon reverbs, and the amount of control you get is astonishing.


Neoverb uses the same algorithms that are in the EA reverbs. The “Clean” algorithm sounds very much like Phoenix/Nimbus, but without as many exposed parameters.


----------



## AnhrithmonGelasma (Jan 9, 2022)

el-bo said:


> No ducking, I'm guessing? But good that it has 'that' signature. Of course, this thread has offered up more options. Was just curious.
> 
> Thanks


The EQ options in Nimbus are excessively limited IMO, though being able to EQ the ER separately within a single instance is convenient. It also lacks Neoverb's transient smoothing, which is designed to create a cleaner reverb. 

Sound on Sound: "[Neoverb has a] very smart adaptive EQ which prevents the reverb from getting in the way, even when mixed at a very high level, without it sounding as obvious as ducked reverb."

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/izotope-neoverb
Reproducing Nimbus's tail suppression for Neoverb (or any other reverb which allows you to isolate ER or tail) seems simple enough. Two instances of Neoverb, one all ER, one all tail, compressor on the tail sidechained to source. Make it a template. Or use sidechained dynamic EQ or spectral ducking. 

Granted, one could also place EQ before and after Nimbus, transient shaper before it, maybe Soothe2, etc.


----------



## re-peat (Jan 9, 2022)

All true, *Mike*, and I completely agree — also quite hilarious, by the way, to read my comments transported to your, granted, hypothetical domestic situation —, but maybe it’s also worth remembering that Lino, after the initial upset, quickly came to agree with what I had written. If only people had left it at that, we wouldn’t be where we are now.

No, what we have here is what’s always happening in situations like this: the usual flock of self-righteous drama addicts descends upon the thread to stir things up out of all proportion, I’m invariably painted as the devil incarnate, lies are told about me, everyone is having a jolly good time for a day or two, you find yourself in the unenviable position of having to intervene without alienating either side while still making your point and issuing a reprimand — and being partly responsible for that unpleasant and time-consuming task is the only thing I want to apologize for —, but come Tuesday or Wednesday, the dust will have settled, calm will have returned, far more interesting new topics will have surfaced, and this whole sorry episode will have begun to eek out the remainder of its brief and insignificant existence as another tiresome “that nuisance re-peat” anecdote.

I didn’t make Lino leave, by the way. That’s one of those lies that the upstanding people around here like to tell. Just like Henrik B. Jensen’s — a foremost member of said crowd — completely baseless ‘verbal abuse’ accusation in the Synchron Woodwinds thread, a week or two ago. On that occasion, he even invoked the Majesty of VI-C’s Administrative Law, in an attempt to make things as unpleasant for me as he possibly could. Jensen smelled a possible ban. Predictably, his moral nostrils aren’t what you'd call precision tools, and the visiting moderator, whom I greet gratefully, immediately saw that there was no verbal abuse, none whatsoever. After which Jensen vanished, without so much as an apology. Typical.

That’s the sort of people you always find in these threads. Vultures. Bigger forums, like this one, seem to have an endless supply of them. They see a spark of conflict, they see me, and they do everything they can — telling lies, making false accusations, twisting facts, egging each other on, … — to set the drama ablaze, hoping for victims. And then they come lecture me about bad behaviour. Always the same, time and time again. (They did it to another guy as well, ArtAt, a little over a week ago. Drove him out. Haven't heard from him since. Nice work.)

The “Don’t say anything at all” is a very wise choice in many situations, I quite agree, but I’m not wired that way, I’m afraid. I don’t visit VI-C to stay silent, I don’t listen to other people’s work to then dismiss it silently, especially not when I hear something that in my view could be improved. I mean it when I say that I’m interested. Interested enough to be prepared to get into a spot of trouble now and again. (That said, I actually do remain silent much more often than you might think. I wouldn’t last another week here if I gave my honest opinion on some of the things I hear and, especially, read.)

But, no, Lino hasn’t left. He is merely taking a break from the forum in order to focus on practicing and learning. And like I said, not before he fully agreed with what I wrote. So, when, upon his return, he treats us to a piece that sounds better than the one which provoked my earlier comments — and I’m sure he will do just that, after having first enjoyed the undescribable satisfaction and happiness that one experiences when having made progress — it’ll be partly thanks to evil bullying me and no one else. How bad should I feel?

My very best wishes for a happy and healthy New Year to you, your dazzlingly well-dressed wife, your family, friends and everyone who keeps VI-C running.

_


----------



## liquidlino (Jan 9, 2022)

Thanks everyone. Some great chat here, can't believe I provoked such discussion. 

Don't worry about me, I was having a sensitive day yesterday. End of Xmas leave blues. Back at my day job today (at which I objectively excel, unlike my efforts so far with music). All good.

I will be back with the same piece fully improved and reworked. At which point I expect no less than the full barrage of constructive criticism @re-peat 

All the best everyone.


----------



## labornvain (Jan 9, 2022)

Ircam Verb 3


----------



## mscp (Jan 11, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Yes, I have them both. I got R4 then R2. No wondered I liked them. They are colored reverbs but they get muddy. Before that I was using Valhallaroom. Same problem. Now I using 7th Heaven, same problem.


The cause for muddiness in software reverbs are often related to the material you're using and the settings you have dialed in your verb patch. I have no issues with any of them. What are you trying to achieve? And what's the source material?


----------



## José Herring (Jan 11, 2022)

mscp said:


> The cause for muddiness in software reverbs are often related to the material you're using and the settings you have dialed in your verb patch. I have no issues with any of them. What are you trying to achieve? And what's the source material?


Just go on my website and you will hear. I am just trying to get things less muddy.

www.joseherring.com


----------



## Consona (Jan 12, 2022)

Just use a post-reverb eq to tame the frequencies?


----------



## derschoenekarsten (Jan 12, 2022)

Wanna give a shout out to Reverb Foundry's Tai Chi. It's a great all-rounder. Set mix to 100% on an insert and listen to the detail that is retained compared to other reverbs. Sounds quite impressive to me. You also get all the tools you could want to further shape the reverb. From heavy-mod Lexicon-style verb to clean rooms and halls - it's all in there. 

Also, don't forget you can use your LiquidSonics discount codes on this (and vice versa).


----------



## re-peat (Jan 12, 2022)

Consona said:


> Just use a post-reverb eq to tame the frequencies?



Not a good solution, in my opinion. Nearly all of today’s reverbs, even the humble stock ones that come with our DAW's, are too good to add mud of their own to a mix. If you’re presented with a noticeable increase of ‘mud’ after adding reverb, it almost always means you’re sending mud into the reverb. If you then use a post-reverb EQ to remove that mud, you’re doing two things wrong, I believe: (1) you leave the mud-problem in the source signal unaddressed, and (2) you make the sound of the reverb thinner than it should be.

Far better, I find, to trace the source of the mud and solve the problem there. A reverb can actually be of tremendous help with this because it will reflect and ‘smear out’ the mud (or anything problematic in the source signal) in its tail, so if it’s difficult to determine which of your tracks (or which combination of tracks) is responsible for the mud — sometimes it's not obvious or easy to determine which tracks have too much mud by listening to an unfinished mix — simply send them, one after the other, through a reverb and you’ll quickly find out which of them is responsible for the reverb apparently generating mud. (The reverb doesn’t _generate_ mud of course, it merely reflects the mud that is part of the signal it is processing.)

This reverb trick doesn’t just work with mud. You can also use to it to trace all sorts frequency problems in sources: whenever you find certain frequencies too present in a reverb’s tail, it usually means those frequencies need to be tamed in the source. Due to the diffused, ‘smoothened out’ nature of a reverb’s tail, any frequency imbalances are much more easy to spot in the tail than in the source signal. Any noticeable frequency bump in a reverb's tail is always cause for concern and should be looked at. A reverb never lies about these things.

I think I said this before, but in my experience, 80-90% of what may seem at first to be reverb problems are in fact not reverb problems at all.

_


----------



## creativeforge (Jan 12, 2022)

re-peat said:


> You can also use to it to trace all sorts frequency problems in sources: whenever you find certain frequencies too present in a reverb’s tail, it usually means those frequencies need to be tamed in the source.



Note to self... ▲


----------



## creativeforge (Jan 12, 2022)

José Herring said:


> What would you consider the cleanest reverb you have or have heard? I'm noticing that I tend towards reverbs that have a certain vibe, unfortunately for samples that "vibe" tends to make things cloudy and diffused more than the it would in a normal live recording situation.
> 
> So now, I'm looking for the cleanest, clearest reverb. So far I might liking FabFilter ProR for it's ability to at least EQ the reverb itself, but even that I've noticed that there could be some build up once the signal multiplies through it.
> 
> Any suggestions?



Here is an obscure (or less known, maybe) reverb I found a couple years ago and was quite pleased with it. Although I haven't used it extensively, you can download a demo to try out.



RealtimeOnly - Reverbical


----------



## Consona (Jan 12, 2022)

EQing source + reverb sometimes works better than just EQing the source, ime.


----------



## mscp (Jan 12, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Just go on my website and you will hear. I am just trying to get things less muddy.
> 
> www.joseherring.com


I did. Indeed it's muddy. I still would have to know how you're applying reverb. Things that'd help to know:

1. Routing;
2. Preset use only or custom patch? ;
3. Reverbs used and material assigned to.


----------



## re-peat (Jan 12, 2022)

Consona said:


> EQing source + reverb sometimes works better than just EQing the source, ime.



Sure it does, but not to solve the sort of problems that José is inquiring about, in my opinion. Everybody has EQ's on their pre-StereoOut-buses or the actual StereoOut, to help give the sound its final shape, nothing wrong with that, but that is, still in my opinion, not the place to solve major problems like 'too much mud'. That should have been taken care of much earlier in the chain. EQ too much too far down the line (say, to remove mud) and you do as much damage as good. Is what I think anyway.

_


----------



## Loïc D (Jan 12, 2022)

re-peat said:


> Sure it does, but not to solve the sort of problems that José is inquiring about, in my opinion. Everybody has EQ's on their pre-StereoOut-buses or the actual StereoOut, to help give the sound its final shape, nothing wrong with that, but that is, still in my opinion, not the place to solve major problems like 'too much mud'. That should have been taken care of much earlier in the chain. EQ too much too far down the line (say, too remove mud) and you do as much damage as good. Is what I think anyway.
> 
> _


I second this.
In the hindsight, most of the time when I’ve got mud issues, it’s because of faulty arrangement or source material.
I was incriminating the reverbs or limiters until I found out that using other reverbs or limiter didn’t solve anything.


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi (Jan 12, 2022)

I just remembered another thing about digital reverbs and what makes them "cleaner".

We love "vintage" digital verbs, in part, due to their primitive sound. Back then processing power was very expensive so they had to limit themselves in certain parts of their development. One of those things was a number of delay taps. If you pay attention to "Vintage" tap pattern in EA R4, you will see what I mean.
Ironically, this primitivity sound is very pleasing for most people(of course, if the rest of it(diffusion etc) sounds good) and often prefered to more complex, dense reverberation of modern things.
Another part is that it used to be much darker compared to their modern implementations, but still sounded clean and clear.
From this perspective, I would suggest to try TC reverbs and Eventide 2016.

Speaking of EQ.
To cut lows before R is indeed a good practice. In fact, there's a mixing technicque that involves creation of some kind of a splitter-crossover, where you make 3-5 sends with EQ in each of them and, instead of sending your signal directly to your verbs and space processing in general, you send everything in those crossovers first, which are sent to all your space effects.
It gives us more more options and agility(technical and creative).
Down side of this approach is that it's not as straightforward as "classic" methods. You'll have to spend some time picking right reverbs(and not once, but probably for every big project or at least of few sets for different styles/types of material) and to get used to it.
But this approach gives you soooo many options. Besides, modern DAWs have the ability to create "presets" for such stuff, when you can import in your mixing session the entire setup in a few clicks.
By the way, to do this in your composing project is near to impossible. Another example why it's much more convenient and effective to separate composing and mixing sessions.

Finally, I've noticed people often forget about automation when it comes to reverberation. Lots of verbs allow you to automate without artifacts such parameters as density, decay time for certain frequency ranges(using numbers with "x"), diffusion, modulation and so on.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 12, 2022)

José Herring said:


> What would you consider the cleanest reverb you have or have heard? I'm noticing that I tend towards reverbs that have a certain vibe, unfortunately for samples that "vibe" tends to make things cloudy and diffused more than the it would in a normal live recording situation.
> 
> So now, I'm looking for the cleanest, clearest reverb. So far I might liking FabFilter ProR for it's ability to at least EQ the reverb itself, but even that I've noticed that there could be some build up once the signal multiplies through it.
> 
> Any suggestions?


The TC electronic tc6000/m4000/VSSR4 type of algorithms are common in post for their clean sound. the native version works great as well. The clone from relab is also good... but i cant find it on their store anymore. 

The cinematic rooms reverb, praised by hans zimmer , is also has this sort of real/clean sound.


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 12, 2022)

Consona said:


> EQing source + reverb sometimes works better than just EQing the source, ime.


Yes, and I would like to add, you also have to take into the account how fast the bass and low mids are moving, and choose the reverb length appropriatelly. I believe Bach composed slower when his work was to be performed in larger churches. And some do perform him slower when an organ is in a big space. The reverb prolongs the harmonics, and in low mids and bass they will clash and cause harmony mud. You either use a shorter reverb or you just EQ it out. EQ-ing the source too much will make it thin. For acoustic feel, you have to let some of the low mids through. But for electronic and EDM you simply must high pass the reverb tail.


----------



## Joël Dollié (Jan 12, 2022)

Cinematic rooms is - afaik - the cleanest most neutral reverb. If the source is muddy it will be muddy but it won't really add extra bad stuff.

VSS3 is very clean too, a bit wider and more modulated which I like


----------



## Tralen (Jan 12, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Okay so I tested them all in a short little template piece I worked on last week which made the problem of my reverbs very apparent to me.
> 
> 7th Heaven was my reverb originally. The one that I own. After listening to VSS4, Nimbus and CR I realized that the reason 7H is "bad" imo is that it really, really, really alters the fundamental tone quality of the sound to a degree that threw into question all my other mixing decisions. I tend to put reverb on last and not mix through it so in doing so, the time I spent mixing gets tossed out the window.
> 
> ...


José, I didn't read all the thread, so I don't know if it was mentioned, but if you are not willing to deal with Behringer's nonsense, you could wait for Relab's TC6000 implementation.

Last year, they discontinued VSR S24, their previous implementation, and introduced a Beta for REV6000, the replacement. I'm not following it, though, and don't know what you need to get into (is it in the subscription?).

Perhaps @muziksculp can share some light on this?


----------



## Midihead (Jan 12, 2022)

I am partial to the Overloud reverbs: Breverb and REmatrix, both are very clean (which comes from really good code and DSP knowlege) and not "blocky" and digital like some reverbs can sound. 

Of course, it always depends on the usage. But for retro material, I go with Breverb and if I want things to sound more "live" I use REmatrix, which mixes in convolution. 

Free trials are available for these to give you an excellent idea of how they'll work for you: https://www.ilio.com/products/overloud/reverbs

I also like Comet from Polyverse for more radical, unearthly verbs.


----------



## Project Anvil (Jan 12, 2022)

re-peat said:


> Sure it does, but not to solve the sort of problems that José is inquiring about, in my opinion. Everybody has EQ's on their pre-StereoOut-buses or the actual StereoOut, to help give the sound its final shape, nothing wrong with that, but that is, still in my opinion, not the place to solve major problems like 'too much mud'. That should have been taken care of much earlier in the chain. EQ too much too far down the line (say, to remove mud) and you do as much damage as good. Is what I think anyway.
> 
> _


This is the final shape EQ I put on all my tracks to make them sound good. 60% of the time, it works every time


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 12, 2022)

Project Anvil said:


> This is the final shape EQ I put on all my tracks to make them sound good. 60% of the time, it works every time








Just kidding! Mostly!


----------



## Zanshin (Jan 12, 2022)

Project Anvil said:


> This is the final shape EQ I put on all my tracks to make them sound good. 60% of the time, it works every time


-30 dB seems pretty high, -60 dB to be sure.


----------



## muziksculp (Jan 12, 2022)




----------



## Tralen (Jan 12, 2022)

muziksculp said:


>


I remember you mentioning the Relab REV6000 beta. Can you say if it is still running and if it is available in the subscription (NDA permitting)?


----------



## muziksculp (Jan 12, 2022)

Tralen said:


> I remember you mentioning the Relab REV6000 beta. Can you say if it is still running and if it is available in the subscription (NDA permitting)?


Hi @Tralen ,

The Relab *REV6000* beta is running very well, no issues at all. I have no idea what Relab is waiting for to officially release it. I wouldn't mind if they can further improve CPU usage, without affecting Reverb quality. But, it's still not an issue as is right now. 

That's all I can say, maybe emailing Relab and asking them directly would be the next step to get more info. on the status of REV6000. By the way it sounds very transparent, and very clean, with a super smooth tail. Easy to operate, and the GUI is very nicely designed. 

Cheers,
Muziksculp


----------



## Tralen (Jan 12, 2022)

muziksculp said:


> Hi @Tralen ,
> 
> The Relab *REV6000* beta is running very well, no issues at all. I have no idea what Relab is waiting for to officially release it. I wouldn't mind if they can further improve CPU usage, without affecting Reverb quality. But, it's still not an issue as is right now.
> 
> ...


Thanks a lot, 'sculp.

I will write them, I'm considering going back into the sub.


----------



## Faruh Al-Baghdadi (Jan 12, 2022)

muziksculp said:


> Hi @Tralen ,
> 
> The Relab *REV6000* beta is running very well, no issues at all. I have no idea what Relab is waiting for to officially release it. I wouldn't mind if they can further improve CPU usage, without affecting Reverb quality. But, it's still not an issue as is right now.
> 
> ...


Hmm... It seems they fused their P4N project with System 6000 philosophy. Interesting. 
Can you tell us at least how active the project is? Because I remember 2C Audio promised updates for all of their plugins and then they just disappeared.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 12, 2022)

mscp said:


> I did. Indeed it's muddy. I still would have to know how you're applying reverb. Things that'd help to know:
> 
> 1. Routing;


Typical Send/return configuration. I have two reverbs. One for drier libraries like HOOPUS and one for all libraries as a hall send.


mscp said:


> 2. Preset use only or custom patch? ;


Mostly presets but I do tweak a little to make things a little darker turn down the highs a bit but not by much.


mscp said:


> 3. Reverbs used and material assigned to.


I use 7th heaven as the hall set to about 3sec tail. And I use Valhalla or 7th heaven as a room verb set to about 1.9 seconds. Tend to put a little more verb on the brass stems and less on woodwinds and strings. Medium on orchestral percussion.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 12, 2022)

re-peat said:


> Sure it does, but not to solve the sort of problems that José is inquiring about, in my opinion. Everybody has EQ's on their pre-StereoOut-buses or the actual StereoOut, to help give the sound its final shape, nothing wrong with that, but that is, still in my opinion, not the place to solve major problems like 'too much mud'. That should have been taken care of much earlier in the chain. EQ too much too far down the line (say, to remove mud) and you do as much damage as good. Is what I think anyway.
> 
> _


Now this is the first thing that's actually really made sense. I do try and cut the "mud" at points that would be damaging like on the group level or the master buss level or the master reverb send and it does exactly that, ruin everything so I stopped doing it. I'm not sure I fully get how to do it at the track level because usually at that level the instrument itself sounds fine and I usually mix for everything to sound good at the track level thinking that magically everything will turn out fine at the group and master channels, which of course it doesn't. 

I'm going to start experimenting. Maybe I need to "thin out" those mud 200-500hz frequencies on each individual instrument.


----------



## KEM (Jan 12, 2022)

José Herring said:


> I use 7th heaven as the hall set to about 3sec tail. And I use Valhalla or 7th heaven as a room verb set to about 1.9 seconds.



I read somewhere on here a couple of years ago that Air Studios reverb time is 2.2 seconds, so I’ve always set my main reverb sends (which again, are Cinematic Rooms) to 2.2 seconds, might be worth a try


----------



## Dr.Quest (Jan 12, 2022)

José Herring said:


> I'm going to start experimenting. Maybe I need to "thin out" those mud 200-500hz frequencies on each individual instrument.


Since the instruments sound fine at their track level EQ I'm assuming you're talking about just EQing the send to the verb and not the main signal, yeah?


----------



## jcrosby (Jan 12, 2022)

José Herring said:


> What would you consider the cleanest reverb you have or have heard? I'm noticing that I tend towards reverbs that have a certain vibe, unfortunately for samples that "vibe" tends to make things cloudy and diffused more than the it would in a normal live recording situation.
> 
> So now, I'm looking for the cleanest, clearest reverb. So far I might liking FabFilter ProR for it's ability to at least EQ the reverb itself, but even that I've noticed that there could be some build up once the signal multiplies through it.
> 
> Any suggestions?


Are you pre-EQing your reverbs? This has a different affect on the tone of reverb than post EQing. It's similar to how you can completely alter the character of distortion by adding an EQ before the distortion... Or how removing the low end in a compressor's internal sidechain can totally change the behavior of the compressor.

It's also not uncommon to pre and post EQ a reverb if needed; many reverb plugins illustrating this in their topology by including pre-reverb filters, and post reverb EQ... However sometimes simple low and high filters simply aren't enough...

Imagine you have a percussion bus with a bunch of layered drums... There's a buildup of boominess around 200 or boxiness around 400-500... (Maybe a little of both)... You're better off EQing that mud out before you hit the reverb then trying to clean up the mess after the fact...

You might also want to play with any reverb's you that let adjust the attack time.. This can also smooth things out. It's similar to pre-delay, in that you're making space at the front of the tail for the source to poke through with a little more clarity.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 12, 2022)

KEM said:


> I read somewhere on here a couple of years ago that Air Studios reverb time is 2.2 seconds, so I’ve always set my main reverb sends (which again, are Cinematic Rooms) to 2.2 seconds, might be worth a try


Not bad reasoning man. But...they also have to add a bit more artificial EQ to even studios as large as Air so that you can get a tail going that extends a bit beyond that.


----------



## Jeffrey Peterson (Jan 12, 2022)

Joël Dollié said:


> Cinematic rooms is - afaik - the cleanest most neutral reverb. If the source is muddy it will be muddy but it won't really add extra bad stuff.
> 
> VSS3 is very clean too, a bit wider and more modulated which I like


I own VSS3 but isnt it discontinued? I can't find a new download.


----------



## Joël Dollié (Jan 13, 2022)

Jeffrey Peterson said:


> I own VSS3 but isnt it discontinued? I can't find a new download.


It's just extremely hard to find the right page on google, I struggled with this before lol. For a good hour or so.

The link is https://store.tcelectronic.com/


----------



## Consona (Jan 13, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Maybe I need to "thin out" those mud 200-500hz frequencies on each individual instrument.


I think this is the real basics of mixing. If there's a mud, cut it out.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2022)

Consona said:


> I think this is the real basics of mixing. If there's a mud, cut it out.


Not as simple as that and I'll explain why. 

I took my test track. I orchestrate on the lush side of life. Probably all those years of living the lush life in NYC, but that's story for another day. 

As I went through every track solo, every track sounded fine, better than fine,. But, I noticed that the accumulation of tracks almost all tracks had a lot of information between the ranges of 200hz to 600hz.

If you're writing for full orchestra and orchestrating for more than just a 2 instruments at a time then the mud starts to develop. My past ways of dealing with this was to eq the master bus, or eq the group bus or eq the master sends. Each method is too drastic and just cutting the "mud" at these points in the chain ruined everything. 

Now using an EQ that displays frequency, I went through each track. Again each track didn't sound muddy but looking at the display if the instrument had data in the 200hz to 500hz range, I lowered it by 1 or 2 db so that it didn't change the fundamental character of the instrument but over the course of doing it on about 10 tracks the mix cleared up and my reverbs sounded fine.

So it wasn't as easy as there's mud cut it out that's for sure. I couldn't even do it by ear really. 

Right now I probably went too far but I'll need practice to get good at it like anything else. But I feel like I'm on the right path now where I was wandering trying to find answers before.


----------



## KEM (Jan 13, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Not as simple as that and I'll explain why.
> 
> I took my test track. I orchestrate on the lush side of life. Probably all those years of living the lush life in NYC, but that's story for another day.
> 
> ...



Have you tried using multiband compression or dynamic EQ on the low mids? Could also be worth a try


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2022)

KEM said:


> Have you tried using multiband compression or dynamic EQ on the low mids? Could also be worth a try


Used that on the Brass tracks. But not compression per se but rather dynamic EQ.


----------



## Consona (Jan 13, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Not as simple as that and I'll explain why.
> 
> I took my test track. I orchestrate on the lush side of life. Probably all those years of living the lush life in NYC, but that's story for another day.
> 
> ...


I EQ-cut mud on every orchestral group channel.
If you are adding any reverb you should do that anyway since putting things further in the room makes low mid frequencies of the instruments go away in real life.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2022)

Consona said:


> I EQ-cut mud on every orchestral group channel.
> If you are adding any reverb you should do that anyway since putting things further in the room makes low mid frequencies of the instruments go away in real life.


I tried doing this and it was harder than just doing it on the individual track. Do you have your group channels separated by instrument? Or do you have just one group for Brass, another for woodwind, ect...?


----------



## Consona (Jan 13, 2022)

José Herring said:


> I tried doing this and it was harder than just doing it on the individual track. Do you have your group channels separated by instrument? Or do you have just one group for Brass, another for woodwind, ect...?


Yea, 1 for strings, 1 for brass, etc.

The eq looks something like this:


----------



## José Herring (Jan 13, 2022)

Consona said:


> Yea, 1 for strings, 1 for brass, etc.
> 
> The eq looks something like this:


Not bad. The only thing that would bother me is the upper end air would be missing.


----------



## Zanshin (Jan 13, 2022)

Soothe2 is pretty much made for this kind of stuff, while largely leaving the character of the sound intact. It's free to demo anyway.


----------



## Consona (Jan 13, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Not bad. The only thing that would bother me is the upper end air would be missing.


I have puigtec eqp1a on the buss to bring some air back. But naturally, the further the instrument is, the fewer high frequencies you hear.


----------



## Zoot_Rollo (Jan 13, 2022)

Jeffrey Peterson said:


> I own VSS3 but isnt it discontinued? I can't find a new download.


I had to request a link from Music Tribe




.


----------



## bobby b (Jan 13, 2022)

It's just Convolver for me. Depends on the IR's.


----------



## Rob (Jan 14, 2022)

Nice piece José by the way!


----------



## quietmind (Feb 16, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Not as simple as that and I'll explain why.
> 
> I took my test track. I orchestrate on the lush side of life. Probably all those years of living the lush life in NYC, but that's story for another day.
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting your new mix and your explanation of how you EQ'd each track. It does sound improved to my ears. I also love the piece itself. 

Which reverb did you end up using on the new mix? 

Also, would you be willing to post the dry version of the new mix to compare with your original dry? 

I'd like to experiment with reverbs I have or am currently demo-ing to buy and hear what they do comparatively and if I find anything interesting, I'd be happy to post it. CR Pro has been my go-to for the last year, but I'm still looking at some other options like Tai Chi.


----------



## MartinH. (Feb 16, 2022)

José Herring said:


> Now this is the first thing that's actually really made sense. I do try and cut the "mud" at points that would be damaging like on the group level or the master buss level or the master reverb send and it does exactly that, ruin everything so I stopped doing it. I'm not sure I fully get how to do it at the track level because usually at that level the instrument itself sounds fine and I usually mix for everything to sound good at the track level thinking that magically everything will turn out fine at the group and master channels, which of course it doesn't.
> 
> I'm going to start experimenting. Maybe I need to "thin out" those mud 200-500hz frequencies on each individual instrument.


I randomly saw this as this thread was bumped and I haven't read the previous pages, so maybe this has been mentioned before: have you tried which of the individual tracks/instruments sounds the "best" in the "mud range" of frequencies, and then letting that one through, but cutting the others? I did a lot of mixing experiments recently and if you say individually the tracks sound fine but together it gets muddy, then I would neither cut them all together at the end, nor all individually before reverb and other effects. I would pick a couple tracks that sound the worst in that frequency range, do static EQ cuts on those before they hit the reverb etc. then I'd look for the tracks that sound the best in that range, pick an order of importance for them, and then set up sidechain routing to feed into dynamic EQs that sidechain compress the mud frequency ranges of them contextually. If you just use one dynamic EQ or multiband compressor on the mix of all these signals, you're creating a muddy signal of more consistent loudness in that range, but if you sidechain them selectively to create a hierarchy of which tracks are most important to you in that frequency range, then you can let those shine through more dominantly as long as they are playing, and then e.g. when your top priority instrument for that range isn't playing the sidechained dynamic EQ on the next best track/instrument lets more of those frequencies through, and when that one isn't playing either, the thirdbest (and that's probably already more complicated than you'd need it to be). I can't speculate though in how far that is viable with very dynamic music, since I'm doing all my recent mixing experiments on Metal, which is as compressed as it gets. You might have some luck though with pre-processing the sidechain signals to be less dynamic, so that it's more of a "is this instrument playing at all or not?" kind of sidechain signal instead of "tightly react to the dynamics of this other intrument". If you're feeling adventurous, then while you're at it you could also experiment with a slight lookahead for the sidechain processing, either via the lookahead settings of your dynamic EQ or Multiband compressor (if they have it) or by introducing a negative track delay for the sidechained signales, which in Reaper would be trivial (adding a "time adjustment delay" plugin with negative delay time in the sidechain), but may or may not be easy to do in other DAWs.


Just some thoughts, not sure if any of it would work ¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## José Herring (Feb 17, 2022)

quietmind said:


> Thanks for posting your new mix and your explanation of how you EQ'd each track. It does sound improved to my ears. I also love the piece itself.
> 
> Which reverb did you end up using on the new mix?
> 
> ...


Thx. I ended up using 7th heaven. I never did get the mix I wanted and since this was a template test piece, I've moved on but it was a good learning experience for the future. 

If you want to fool around with it here's a link to the stems.


----------

