# Opinions on orchestral reverb...



## Rob (Dec 17, 2012)

I'm trying to refine my skill in the reverb department, and I'd like to have your opinion on how this short cue sounds ambience/reverb wise... not so much about sounds, mostly vsl/cs/ew

www.robertosoggetti.com/StudioOrch.mp3

new mix

www.robertosoggetti.com/StudioOrch2.mp3

there we go again 

www.robertosoggetti.com/StudioOrch3.mp3


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 17, 2012)

Rob, I am missing some eqing here of the individual instruments, what should be a "must" before we can talk about the reverb... . (good meant)


----------



## Rob (Dec 17, 2012)

germancomponist @ 17th December 2012 said:


> Rob, I am missing some eqing here of the individual instruments, what should be a "must" before we can talk about the reverb... . (good meant)



You mean making room for the frequencies of each instrument? That's right for sure


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 17, 2012)

Yes, Rob, at the moment it sounds a little bit washy, but I think this is (not only) a result from the reverb.... .


----------



## Rob (Dec 17, 2012)

germancomponist @ 17th December 2012 said:


> Yes, Rob, at the moment it sounds a little bit washy, but I think this is (not only) a result from the reverb.... .



For some reasons I have become addicted to reverb, something I wouldn't ever thought possible before... Now I must learn to use it with discernment (is this english?)


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 17, 2012)

Rob @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> ... Now I must learn to use it with discernment.



Better with ears measured.  (Is this good english?)


----------



## Rob (Dec 17, 2012)

germancomponist @ 17th December 2012 said:


> Rob @ Mon Dec 17 said:
> 
> 
> > ... Now I must learn to use it with discernment.
> ...



Haha I'm afraid we're reinventing the english language


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 17, 2012)

Rob @ Mon Dec 17 said:


> germancomponist @ 17th December 2012 said:
> 
> 
> > Rob @ Mon Dec 17 said:
> ...



Or at least, our own... . The main words are between the lines anyway. o-[][]-o


----------



## Rob (Dec 18, 2012)

Gunther, can you listen to this new mix, is it any better?

www.robertosoggetti.com/StudioOrch2.mp3


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Dec 18, 2012)

Excellent writing Rob!

I did not find any major faults with the reverb. Just that the pizzicato strings seem to have much more tail than even the brass for some reason. 

I would look a little bit to the brass for a more majestic sound in terms of room placement and reverb.

I like the first one in terms of preference. The second one is nice but a little dry for my taste but then again, this kind of music sounds great in a dry setting as well because there is so much detail!

Not much else thats a problem for me in terms of reverb. You could try positioning the instruments a little further in the room with more ER than LR I suppose.

Tanuj.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 18, 2012)

Rob @ Tue Dec 18 said:


> Gunther, can you listen to this new mix, is it any better?
> 
> www.robertosoggetti.com/StudioOrch2.mp3



Hi Rob. 

Better? Hm, I would say, more cleaner but now I can hear the different (baked in) reverbs soundwise... . It is always tricky to mix instruments when some have baked in room/reverb and others have not. I would at first start to create depth in your mix without using a reverb. (setting volumes, panning and equing...)

After that you can use the instruments with the most baked in room/reverb as your reverence for the others. (via using extra inserted eq's and reverbs...)

The next steps are very good explained (for example) here: http://www.samplitude.com/en/news/samplitude-academy-creating-depth-with-samplitude.html 

There are many other solutions with more or less reverbs, some use an extra reverb on the master, some use 6 reverbs e.t.c. . And, you can insert a delay in your reverb channels and/or sometimes it is also better to use only delays instead of reverbs (to get a more clear sound).

A wide field, always also depending on your music, the tempi and at least, for sure, depending on the sound you are after. 

As always, experimenting is your best friend. 

BTW: This little composition is very nice! o-[][]-o


----------



## Rob (Dec 18, 2012)

vibrato @ 18th December 2012 said:


> Excellent writing Rob!
> 
> I did not find any major faults with the reverb. Just that the pizzicato strings seem to have much more tail than even the brass for some reason.
> 
> ...



thank you, Tanuj! Agreed on the brass needing a more noble, majestic sound... the pizzicatos have always more embedded room in there, I should avoid sending them to reverb. It bothers me a bit to have to dedicate more time to mixing than composing  but this is a well known thing...


----------



## Rob (Dec 18, 2012)

germancomponist @ 18th December 2012 said:


> Hi Rob.
> 
> Better? Hm, I would say, more cleaner but now I can hear the different (baked in) reverbs soundwise... . It is always tricky to mix instruments when some have baked in room/reverb and others have not. I would at first start to create depth in your mix without using a reverb. (setting volumes, panning and equing...)
> 
> ...



thanks Gunther, I'll go and read the link you provided... 
well I guess this the usual issue with different libraries, EW has release tail of a symphonic hall, VSL has some early reflections and no late r., while CS is somewhere inbetween... of course I tried compensating for the lack of reflections in vsl with a dedicated reverb, but then things get more complicated. The legato transitions in vsl contain more room info that the staccato or sustain patches, so I'd need to treat them separately... pizzicatos on the other hand in both ew and cs libraries have their tail and don't lend themselves well to reverb treatment... and so I find myself wanting to call the thing off and do the rendering as it is...


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 18, 2012)

Rob @ Tue Dec 18 said:


> thanks Gunther, I'll go and read the link you provided...
> well I guess this the usual issue with different libraries, EW has release tail of a symphonic hall, VSL has some early reflections and no late r., while CS is somewhere inbetween... of course I tried compensating for the lack of reflections in vsl with a dedicated reverb, but then things get more complicated. The legato transitions in vsl contain more room info that the staccato or sustain patches, so I'd need to treat them separately... pizzicatos on the other hand in both ew and cs libraries have their tail and don't lend themselves well to reverb treatment... and so I find myself wanting to call the thing off and do the rendering as it is...



Rob, because you used the term "better" I have to add: Both mixes are not bad! If you mix in this way for TV, for example, I am sure noone will ask you about reverb settings... .


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 18, 2012)

I don't mean to diminish the value of this thread in any way, but I just want to add a little light touch to this discussion: in my 19 years of writing music for film and TV, no one has ever used the word reverb or space in talking about my music. Oh, they have had plenty to say about this sound or that note/chord, length, tempo, dynamics, etc, but never reverb. :lol:


----------



## Rob (Dec 18, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ 18th December 2012 said:


> I don't mean to diminish the value of this thread in any way, but I just want to add a little light touch to this discussion: in my 19 years of writing music for film and TV, no one has ever used the word reverb or space in talking about my music. Oh, they have had plenty to say about this sound or that note/chord, length, tempo, dynamics, etc, but never reverb. :lol:



 but that's something that concurs to the perceived impression of a piece anyway? That's why I ask, I have people, even professional musicians, that sometimes give the most bizarre description of a piece I made for them and I have noticed that the amount/quality of reverb can radically change their impression...


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 18, 2012)

You're right, of course. And your issues, IMO, will never be about things like notes and chords and feeling - you're just too gifted for that. =o 

But I shouldn't actually get involved in this discussion, as reverb has never been my forte, something I really think about a lot. I just use a bit of the original, if it has some baked-in, mixed in with, say, the Cello Hall preset in Breeze. 

The real man to get info from on this, of course, is Piet (Re-Peat). He's got the goods (great ears).


----------



## Daryl (Dec 18, 2012)

Rob, for me the main issue is not reverb, but orchestral placement. The Strings seem to jump forwards and backwards at will, the Woodwinds (especially the Flute) is almost sitting on my lap, and the Trumpets are somewhere back in the Band Room. I think that better placement (which may include reverb settings) will help enormously in giving a better mix.

D


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 18, 2012)

Daryl @ Tue Dec 18 said:


> Rob, for me the main issue is not reverb, but orchestral placement. The Strings seem to jump forwards and backwards at will, the Woodwinds (especially the Flute) is almost sitting on my lap, and the Trumpets are somewhere back in the Band Room. I think that better placement (which may include reverb settings) will help enormously in giving a better mix.
> 
> D



The reason why I said I would begin with volume-, panning settings and use an eq where it is needed to cut the high frequencies at the instruments what have to sit not in the front of the mix... .


----------



## Mr. Anxiety (Dec 18, 2012)

Rob,

To start, this is the most difficult part of doing orchestral music with samples, by far!

I would agree with Daryl, the stage placement of the orchestra sections/soloist is really key in getting the whole mix to sound "right". It took me a few years to fine tune my palate to my liking. And with new sounds being put into the mix constantly, it was always in flux.

The issue of mixing samples with and without ambience is the major obstacle in achieving a good stage placement.

Gunther is right, you probably need to let the section with the most ambience dictate the overall amount of reverb your orchestra will have, then add reverb to the drier sections to match the "wet" ones. This is if you do not want to go in to the samples with ambience and reduce or shorten their ambience to get every section sort of matched.

If you can commit to your sounds now, then getting the stage placement is probably the first thing to achieve. Listen to some of your favorite orchestral recordings and get a sense of depth from them. Find where the percussion is on the stage, the WWs, the harp and piano, how close the strings are, etc. and then try to achieve this with your sections.

A stage placement tool will be needed ala Spat. MIR or the new one I've seen on the forums here(?). Once you can get the sections on the stage correctly, then you can start adding reverb to get the ambience/tail right. A slight touch of reverb across all of the mix can pull the whole sound together if needed.

I'm being extremely general here, and excuse me if you already know this, but it does seem that you will need to go down this path to get your sound in a better place.

Good luck!

Mr A


----------



## Rob (Dec 19, 2012)

@Ned - thank you man, your words are much appreciated

Daryl and mr. anxiety, I've tried to do what you say, replicated (sort of) the hall of qlso and applied to the rest, backed woodwinds and, as Gunther suggested, cut some highs... finally a light splash of general reverb on everything... 

www.robertosoggetti.com/StudioOrch3.mp3


----------



## Carles (Dec 20, 2012)

Rob @ Thu Dec 20 said:


> @Ned - thank you man, your words are much appreciated
> 
> Daryl and mr. anxiety, I've tried to do what you say, replicated (sort of) the hall of qlso and applied to the rest, backed woodwinds and, as Gunther suggested, cut some highs... finally a light splash of general reverb on everything...
> 
> www.robertosoggetti.com/StudioOrch3.mp3



That link is not working for me. 
(www.robertosoggetti.com/StudioOrch2.mp3 is working fine though, so I don't think it's any firewall issue or similar but perhaps a syntax error?)

Could you re-check if is it working for you?

Cheers,
Carles


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 20, 2012)

I had a short listen in the early morning on my netbook, and it sounded good to my ears.


----------



## Rob (Dec 21, 2012)

Carles @ 20th December 2012 said:



> Rob @ Thu Dec 20 said:
> 
> 
> > @Ned - thank you man, your words are much appreciated
> ...



sorry Carles, the file should be ok now...


----------



## Per Lichtman (Dec 30, 2012)

@Rob The third mix sounds more Hollywood/less classical than the second one (in the sense of the instruments being a bit more defined and a bit less blurred by the hall sound).

The winds feel more lively and vivacious now. I haven't listened too in-depth but the third mix is my preferred one so far for that reason alone.


----------

