# Newbie Reverb Question



## ironlion (May 5, 2014)

Hi,

Brand new to the forum, glad to have found it! I've made a decision to move towards a career in music >8o and am working on finishing my first composed piece. 

I've got an orchestral composition with 9 midi tracks and am mixing in Sonar X3 using a reverb plugin called Breverb 2 http://www.overloud.com/products/breverb2.php.

Here's my question:

Should I apply a singe instance of reverb to the master channel, or individually to each track? I realize I could do either, but would like to save some time by hearing from people with experience. My assumption is that adding it to each track would muddy up pretty quickly...

Thanks!


----------



## JohnG (May 5, 2014)

Hi there,

Welcome to the forum!

Reverb sparks surprisingly passionate debate. Some like convolution reverb, some like "regular." Some use more than one, some use one.

For pretend orchestra-plus, I usually use one, but I have it set so that each instrument (or sub-group of instruments) can send as much or as little signal to excite the reverb as I choose.

For example, an electric synth bass that maybe already has its own reverb might not get any send. By contrast, short, staccato strings might get a fair amount.

If you know the difference between a "send" setup and an insert, this will be clear. If not, ask away.


----------



## TheWildToad (May 5, 2014)

Was just reading, now I'm gonna jump in here and say that I don't know the difference, so, John, I'd be happy to have you explain it. Thanks!


----------



## wst3 (May 5, 2014)

I'm not John, but I'm going to take a shot at it anyway...

There are two ways to apply reverb in most (all?) DAWs.

You can "insert" an instance of the reverb - it usually goes in something called an effects bin or something like that. The result is that the entire signal is processed - if the reverb effect has a mix control you can still control how much of the dry signal appears at the output of the track.

Alternately, you can send the signal to an effects buss that has the reverb plug-in, and return the reverberated audio to the master.

The first approach is handy when you want complete control over the effect, or you are using the effect for only one track. But if you have a bunch of tracks that you want to effect then it is generally easier to use sends.

clear as mud?

So what's a person to do?

My advice, worth exactly what you paid for it, is to start as simply as possible.

If you are using an effect on only one track then use an insert, and adjust the mix to get the balance of effect to 'dry' (unaffected) audio.

If you want to use reverb on the entire piece then create a reverb bus, and create a send from each track to that reverb bus. Balance the reverb by setting the effect to 100% "wet" (affected) and then adjusting the sends from each track.

You may discover that you can send to the effect from the track either pre- or post- fader. Pre-fader means that the level sent to the bus will remain the same no matter what you do to the track level. Post means that the level sent to the bus will follow your track fader. I'd suggest using post-fader to get started.

And yes, use only one reverb for now - the time will come when you will insert an independent delay into each track, and send the tracks to multiple reverbs, in different ratios, but there is plenty of time to develop that taste<G>!

Last thing - start you mix with the reverb muted. Get a mix that you like with no effects, and then start adding tracks to the reverb bus, and the reverb bus to the master. Add one track at a time and listen to what happens.

Depending on your arrangment, and your use of panning, you'll quickly discover that the overall level of the mix will increase - possibly significantly, and the placement of instruments in the stereo field will change.

Mixing is a separate skill set from composing, arranging, and even tracking (and especially mastering). I've not yet figured out which of those I want to do when I grow up - but dang, sitting back and listening to a finished mix (when is a mix finished???) is truly a wonderful experience!


----------



## JohnG (May 5, 2014)

There are better people to explain this, but:

*Insert* -- An insert is right in the middle of your signal chain. You have the sound coming in, then it all runs through the inserted effect (in this case, your reverb), then out the other side. In that situation, the reverb has to be dialed to be partially "dry" (unprocessed, original) signal, and partly "wet." That way you get a combination of your original sound, say, strings, and the sound of the reverb. Insert effects commonly are EQs, in which you want the entire signal to change. However, virtual instruments like Omnisphere or Zebra use plenty of insert effects, including reverbs.

*Send* -- In a send situation, it's slightly more confusing but also more typical and, I think, useful for reverb in an overall mix. You have your original, dry strings going two places. First, it goes straight through, unprocessed. But in addition, this dry signal is also sent (hence the name "send") to the reverb unit in order to excite the reverb effect. In this case, the reverb unit is set at 100% wet, by contrast with the insert situation. Then this reverb signal is blended with the original dry sound source by bringing it in separately, either to the final stereo mix, or sometimes at a different point in the chain.

The amount of reverb in a send setup that comes into your mix is controlled in two ways. First, by the amount you send of the original dry signal to the reverb unit. Second, by the volume of the reverb return.

Because of the flexibility of virtual consoles, this all can be confusing. There are lots of images and how-to guides out there.


----------



## Mahlon (May 5, 2014)

I'm using sends mostly, too, rather than inserts. Basically, a send is where you have your reverb on a separate channel (or bus) from your instruments and you "send" a part of the signal from your instrument's channel to that reverb using the instrument channel's send knob. The signal gets reverberated and joins the rest of the original unprocessed signal at the Main Outs (or wherever you have the output of your channels going). 

If using inserts, one approach is to put inserts on group channels. This is so you can send like-spaced channels to the same group channel and apply the same reverb. The output of your instrument channels "outs" go to that reverb bus. So as an example you'd have all your strings' outputs bussed to the same group channel (or bus) where a reverb insert resides. Then you'd have all your brass going to another channel where another reverb that would place the brass farther back in space, resides.

That's probably a terrible explanation and only half of what sends and inserts really are and can do, but it's a starting point. There are loads of vi control topics on this as well as lots of information on tha intranet.

Hope that helps,
Mahlon


----------



## clarkus (May 5, 2014)

Well, hell, I'll wade in to, even though I'm not as qualified as theses other gentlemen. I've been watching people mix music (s0me of it mine) for a long time, but am just now learning how to do this.

What I wanted to add is that some people on this forum (I think of them now as "The Smart Ones") are setting up templates with their favorite pallet of sounds, and essentially premixing, in the sense that their favorite reverbs, EQ's, compression & so on are already dialed in. They will make some adjustments - especially to the automation - vis a vis instrumental tracks, because, of course, all pieces of music go their own way. 

But the point is once you have a lot of this set up you should not have to do it every time you compose a cue. This is really good if it's cues you are writing (as I largely am) with a certain recurring aesthetic. If you're writing pop tunes with a lot of variety, or film scores, those projects may not suit themselves to this labor-saving approach. But it's what I am now zeroing in on.


----------



## Dan Mott (May 6, 2014)

clarkus @ Tue May 06 said:


> Well, hell, I'll wade in to, even though I'm not as qualified as theses other gentlemen. I've been watching people mix music (s0me of it mine) for a long time, but am just now learning how to do this.
> 
> What I wanted to add is that some people on this forum (I think of them now as "The Smart Ones") are setting up templates with their favorite pallet of sounds, and essentially premixing, in the sense that their favorite reverbs, EQ's, compression & so on are already dialed in. They will make some adjustments - especially to the automation - vis a vis instrumental tracks, because, of course, all pieces of music go their own way.
> 
> But the point is once you have a lot of this set up you should not have to do it every time you compose a cue. This is really good if it's cues you are writing (as I largely am) with a certain recurring aesthetic. If you're writing pop tunes with a lot of variety, or film scores, those projects may not suit themselves to this labor-saving approach. But it's what I am now zeroing in on.




I start blank or I just go mad.


----------



## davidgary73 (May 6, 2014)

@ironlion

There's a discussion about adding space to your mix (using reverb) in this thread @ http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3712083

Cheers


----------



## TheWildToad (May 6, 2014)

Makes Total sense. I was actually aware of this in a sort of my-own-world version, and just didn't compute the terminology everyone was using. I've been riding the Logic X busses for over a year now, for reverb, stutter effects, and everything, which I just called "riding the bus" in my mind but is actually "Sends," haha! "Effects" I pretty much understood off the bat, speaking from a channel strip POV.

Cheers to all you guys for laying it out in laymen's terms, now I have a way to more effectively communicate my workflow for future problems that I'll definitely run into!


----------



## BachRules (May 7, 2014)

ironlion @ Mon May 05 said:


> ... reverb plugin called Breverb 2 http://www.overloud.com/products/breverb2.php.
> 
> Here's my question:
> 
> Should I apply a singe instance of reverb to the master channel, or individually to each track? I realize I could do either, but would like to save some time by hearing from people with experience. My assumption is that adding it to each track would muddy up pretty quickly...



Basic reverbs (both convolution and algorithmic) are linear, meaning the final result would sound exactly the same whichever way you did it.

However, if you use Breverb's "Extended Nonlinear section", placing it on the master track will intensify the non-linearities, moving you further from a pure reverb sound. The intensified non-linearities will add more mud or glue to your mix, depending on what you want to call it.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (May 7, 2014)

Algo reverbs are not linear... They typically use modulations in the time domain, but I am not sure what you mean exactly with "linear"...

But I will try to stay out of this discussion, as I am now also a plugin developer (convo reverbs with real orchestral stages - think MIR). 
I will probably also stop being a moderator here for that reason.


----------



## JohnG (May 7, 2014)

BachRules @ 7th May 2014 said:


> the final result would sound exactly the same whichever way you did it.



Your answer might be true for some narrow situations, but doesn't address, I think, what the OP was asking, since he asked, "Should I apply a single instance of reverb to the master channel, or individually to each track?"

Your description is true for a single instrument. Or, I suppose, if want exactly the same amount of reverb for each and every track.

The reason I prefer the send method over the insert when mixing multiple tracks, is that one might want some instruments in the mix to have little or no reverb, and some to have a lot more than average. Trying this using inserts only would necessitate a separate reverb for each set of tracks for which you want a different amount of the effect. 

Not that this is a crime or anything, but it's a lot of computer resources devoted to reverbs, without necessarily improving the result.


----------



## BachRules (May 7, 2014)

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Wed May 07 said:


> But I will try to stay out of this discussion, as I am now also a plugin developer (convo reverbs with real orchestral stages - think MIR).


I'm unfamilar with MIR. Please don't stay out on my account, and I appreciate any info you have.



Peter Emanuel Roos @ Wed May 07 said:


> ... I am not sure what you mean exactly with "linear"...


By linear, I mean a reverb where

reverb(A) + reverb(B) = reverb(A+B)

The left side of the equation represents using a reverb on each track, and the right side represents using one reverb on the master buss.



Peter Emanuel Roos @ Wed May 07 said:


> Algo reverbs are not linear... They typically use modulations in the time domain, but I am not sure what you mean exactly with "linear"...


By 'basic' algorithmic I meant verbs which just use delay and allpass and comb filters. If algorithmic verbs typically add modulation, I stand corrected about algorithmic verbs.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (May 7, 2014)

Well, let's not get into the nasty stuff about digital filters and linearity (comb filters and all-pass filters are feedback filters, which are always non-linear - only feed forward filters can be linear, read: convolution based filters).

Here is an example of the IRs I created from recordings at the Berlin Teldex Studio, where all libraries from Orchestral Tools are recorded. Pure anechoic recordings with the reverb switched on and off, no other tweaks with EQ etc.

I am working on a plugin that will include 4-6 stage libraries likes this, with true stereo presets of all the orchestral sections.

https://soundcloud.com/peter-emanuel-ro ... -ir-reverb


----------



## BachRules (May 7, 2014)

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Wed May 07 said:


> Well, let's not get into the nasty stuff about digital filters and linearity (comb filters and all-pass filters are feedback filters, which are always non-linear - only feed forward filters can be linear, read: convolution based filters).


I like talking DSP, but maybe the original poster wasn't looking for that. I had thought combs and all-pass were linear; thanks for straightening that out.



Peter Emanuel Roos @ Wed May 07 said:


> Here is an example of the IRs I created from recordings at the Berlin Teldex Studio, where all libraries from Orchestral Tools are recorded. Pure anechoic recordings with the reverb switched on and off, no other tweaks with EQ etc.
> 
> I am working on a plugin that will include 4-6 stage libraries likes this, with true stereo presets of all the orchestral sections.
> 
> https://soundcloud.com/peter-emanuel-ro ... -ir-reverb


I'm looking forward to this as an alternative to EWQLSO and Spaces for realistic reverb, since their software defects and low-quality customer support are getting in the way of my work.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (May 7, 2014)

Thanks!

And the essence of all-pass filters is that they let through all frequencies equally, but all with different phase shifts, and so they are non-linear, if we are talking about linearity in the phase domain.

Sorry to the OP! 

I will not give an ETA for this plugin, as it will also mean a change of business for me. And I want to launch several plugins at the same time. But you can expect some very nice European orchestral stages and positioning options.


----------



## Riggs (May 12, 2014)

Hi,

We had a discussion a few years ago on this . . . 

If this link works , check it out.
http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... ing+reverb

Here is an one plan from Tanuj, and there are others . . .

Re: Routing Reverb Sends... 
Posted: Fri 03 Aug, 2012

This is how I do it: 

1. Violin Track send to three separate FX(aux) channels. 

2. Aux Channel 1 = ER - Aux Channel 2 = LR - Aux Channel 3 = Master Algo Verb. 

3. Set the stereo output (dry signal) to another group channel called Violins Dry. 

4. Set the output of Aux Channel 1 and 2 to a separate Violins Wet aux channel. 

5. Create a new bus called Violins Bus. 

6. Finally set the output of Violins Dry + Wet to Violins Bus. 

This way, you have complete control over all parameters with just faders. 

If done with each section of the orchestra, this method offers immense flexibility to automate and balance levels on the fly. 

This also allows to mix somewhat on the fly as you are writing. 

Of course, a final mix is necessary but you can have a balanced gain staging and manage dynamic levels between each section. 

This also allows for special effects in terms of reverbing out certain instruments or busses. 


Best Regards,
Riggs


----------



## Hannes_F (May 15, 2014)

BachRules @ Wed May 07 said:


> By linear, I mean a reverb where
> 
> reverb(A) + reverb(B) = reverb(A+B)
> 
> The left side of the equation represents using a reverb on each track, and the right side represents using one reverb on the master buss



BachRules,

in first order this is true for most practical reasons. BTW I personally love the one reverb on the master approach but I might be the only one in this thread.

EDIT: 
In order to clarify: This is only valid of course if all the reverb() functions are identical which means the same reverb plugin or reverb hardware unit _and _identical settings.

One slightly different approach is to use the same reverb plugin but with different settings. For a practical example you could have a reverb for your strings bus that includes early reflections in a way to seemingly placing them quite to the front of your virtual stage, a second reverb instance on the woodwinds bus that places them a bit back and a third instance for brass and percussion that are still farer away.

As an alternative you could then only use the early reflections of these three instances and then add a common reverb tail to the summed signal. The mathematical equivalent would be more a multiplication than a summation in the form of:

StringSignal * (ER_strings * Tail) + WoodSignal * (ER_woods * Tail) + BrassSignal * (ER_brass * Tail)
=
(StringSignal * ER_strings + WoodSignal * ER_woods + BrassSignal * ER_brass) * Tail

/EDIT

Your general assumption is not true when the reverb has a dynamic behaviour which means it adds effects like saturation depending on the input level. Some reverbs do that, examples are B2 or Altiverb 7. In that case obviously they are not linear in the way you are asking.

Usual EQ in a reverb would be linear, dynamic EQ not. Modulation in reverbs should be linear except if there are random components in it and yes, algorithmic reverbs are the ones that often add modulaton to the reverb tail. However even there are exceptions, for example Exponential Audio Phoenix Reverb that is meant to be a 'transparent' reverb. 

In practise sound engineers often feed the output of one reverb partly into a different reverb. Everbody has his own secret sauce here or thinks he has  but the main reason is to get a more dense and complex pattern of reflections. Usually this is more adjusted by ear than by calculus. Hope that helps.


----------

