# Correct reverb mixing



## emid (May 1, 2013)

Hi guys!

I have just registered with the site. 

I have a couple of questions regarding use of reverb. Please have a look at this,

http://soundcloud.com/emid-enam/a-carnival-dance

Please advice me with anything that will help me. For me, I find it really difficult choosing the correct reverb bearing in mind I am using multiple instances of Altiverb with default positioning of instruments on each instrument. At some point generally, (like 0.50 onwards in this piece) the reverb becomes muddy, however I low down the 'mix' value. With that said, if somebody would like to share his reverb settings specially strings sections then that will be awesome. Direct me to any tutorial (i have google a lot but might miss it). In short, come up with any suggestion and critique. 

Thank you very much for your valuable time.

Emid


----------



## ghostnote (May 1, 2013)

Hi there Emid,

and welcome to the forum 

Yes, mixing reverb can be very tricky, especially when using convos. I try to EQ (mostly hi-pass filtering) my instruments to get rid of all unwanted bass and sub frequencies before routing them into a reverb group. Then, when my orchestral sections still sound muddy and boomy, I'll try hi-pass the reverb itself. Convolution reverb tends to get very boomy in the low frequencies. I'm/was using QL Spaces for a very long time and always tried to get THE cinematic sound but I never was satisfied with the result, so I switched to algorythmic and think it's way easier to mix (at least for me).


----------



## emid (May 1, 2013)

Michael Chrostek @ Wed May 01 said:


> Hi there Emid,
> 
> and welcome to the forum
> 
> Yes, mixing reverb can be very tricky, especially when using convos. I try to EQ (mostly hi-pass filtering) my instruments to get rid of all the sub frequencies before routing them into a reverb group. Then, when my orchestral sections still sound muddy and boomy, I'll try hi-pass the reverb itself. Convolution reverb tends to get very boomy in the low frequencies. I'm/was using QL Spaces for a very long time and always tried to get THE cinematic sound but I never was satisfied with the result, so I switched to algorythmic and think it's way easier to mix for me now.



Thanks a lot for your kind reply Michael  

So true! Convolution reverb is hard to mix correctly but I think once done, then results are awesome. So, two options now. One is to try your method (which I must have tried but now place more emphasis) and next algorithmic reverb. Have you heard of QuikQuak RaySpace? My basic intentions are not to compromise the positioning of instruments or to place freely wherever I can and for that I heard Rayspace does good job. I found only one review on kvr. But back to the topic, if someone else would like to share his experience/technique that would be great.


----------



## Dan Mott (May 1, 2013)

Curious

Why do you guys find mixing algo verbs easier than convo verbs?


----------



## emid (May 1, 2013)

For 'me' both are challenges. I am still stick to convolution and so does my query


----------



## mark812 (May 1, 2013)

Dan-Jay @ Wed May 01 said:


> Curious
> 
> Why do you guys find mixing algo verbs easier than convo verbs?



Because algo reverbs are more flexible and they generally don't sound muddy as much as convolution reverbs. That's probably the reason why are Lexicon reverbs so popular - you can crank them up as much as you want without sounding muddy at all. Also, there's modulation.


----------



## Firstfewbars (May 1, 2013)

If I may put in my two cents worth...
I´m using Altiverb in my template and this is how I solved the muddy/boomy problem.
This is how I did (I´m using Logic):

1.Use the Test Oscillator in Logic and send pink noise thru the reverb bus.
Put the the match EQ after the Altiverb in the bus.
2. Bypass the reverb.
3. Open Match EQ and analyze the pink noise. Press "Template learn". After 10 sec press "Template learn" again.
4. Activate the reverb and press "Current learn". After 10 sec press "Material match"
5. Use the Apply slider for how much EQ you want. (I use 40% in my setup).

I´m composing in surround and have many Altiverbs in my template and this method works just fine, for me.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 1, 2013)

Firstfewbars @ Wed May 01 said:


> If I may put in my two cents worth...
> I´m using Altiverb in my template and this is how I solved the muddy/boomy problem.
> This is how I did (I´m using Logic):
> 
> ...



That is very clever! I am would like to steal it for one of my MacProVideo's Hub articles (with your kind permission, sir.) I will give you credit if you give me your real name.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (May 1, 2013)

Lots of IRs sound muddy because they have not been properly post-processed. The deconvolution process (when converting sweeps to IRs) introduces lots of subsonic noise that can really mess up your mix. If you have an audio editor, such as SoundForge, open some IRs you want to use and first check the Frequency Spectrum of the entire IR file.

And check to what SNR level the IR drops when you play it as an audio file. SNR should be higher than 80-90 dB in my opinion.

For my TCE System 6000 and Lexicon 960L IR libs I had to use drastic low frequency corrections with Linear Phase EQ plugins. I used white noise recordings as reference.

This BTW does not mean that you should not take care of WHAT you send into the convo plugin, dropping the low level range never hurts!

And your mix is also a bit too wet IMHO 

Cheers


----------



## ghostnote (May 1, 2013)

mark812 @ Wed May 01 said:


> Dan-Jay @ Wed May 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Curious
> ...



+1

I really like the Lexicon algorythms, they sound instantly familiar, really smooth and kinda melt everything together. With convolution you always get the image of adding something to the samples and it feels like there's something missing when you try to hi-pass or lo-pass the reverb. 

I did a big reverb test about a month ago and compared the PCM, LPX, MPX, Relab RandomHall, Valhallaroom, VVV, B2, Aether, QL Spaces, Samplicity Bricasti M7 IRs, Artsacoustic and the new R2 and Pheonix Reverbs. I really liked the Bricasti IRs but it's not as good as Valhallaroom nor the R-Hall in the PCM bundle which I clearly prefered. (could've made a reverb shootout but... no mic )

@ Emid: IMO Convolution is still the best choice for creating realistic mock-ups, but you'll need to experiment with shaping it. If you're looking for a really good Algo reverb, then you might want to demo this one: http://www.valhalladsp.com/valhallaroom


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (May 1, 2013)

Check out this torture test on completely anechoid material with IRs:

Glinka:

http://www.samplicity.com/demos/


----------



## Gusfmm (May 1, 2013)

Peter, thanks for pointing out to your demo. Could you explain how this demo (as well as Debussy's) was originally recorded, that is, the dry side of it?


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (May 1, 2013)

It is from a Denon CD - recorded in a hall with as much damping materials as possible to avoid any reflections and reverb. This CD was especially created for experiments with artificial reverb.


----------



## Gusfmm (May 1, 2013)

They sound monoaural or the stereo field having been fairly colapsed, don't they?


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (May 1, 2013)

The source? Maybe, but I am sure that I have used True Stereo IRs. Not at my DAW at the moment to check.


----------



## Gusfmm (May 1, 2013)

Yes, your processing definitely opens up the stereo. I was just trying to mentally equate what I was hearing to an actual full orchestral hall recording and something wasn't sounding quite right. 

This is very interesting and thought-provoking, many thanks!


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (May 1, 2013)

This is of course an artificial situation. Super dry orchestra and only one reverb bus. This demo was meant to show the clean reverb tail, especially on woodwinds and pizzicato strings. In a more realistic setting I would use a much more complex mixer setup, with ER inserts and (at least) one reverb tail bus.


----------



## Gusfmm (May 1, 2013)

The original recording room was probably relatively "small", and I definitely agree with your point on ER as another key factor there.


----------



## Dietz (May 1, 2013)

Michael Chrostek @ Wed May 01 said:


> I really like the Lexicon algorythms, they sound instantly familiar, really smooth and kinda melt everything together. With convolution you always get the image of adding something to the samples and it feels like there's something missing when you try to hi-pass or lo-pass the reverb. (...)



It's interesting to read an opinion like this. For me it's exactly the other way 'round. 

When my colleagues and I started to experiment with the first (extremely expensive) convolution-based reverbs which appeared on the market about 15 years ago, we all were really overjoyed how easy good IRs "melted" with the sound of the dry signals. What a revelation, compared to what we had until that point (L480, L300, L224, PCM 70, M5000 ....). Ideally you "forget" that you were actually adding an effect within seconds, because the result sounds so familiar.

That said, it might be important to point out that real rooms don't sound necessarily "pretty". I still like to use algorithmic reverb for that extra "supernatural" sheen, or for mere FX (... gated reverb, anyone ...?  ...). But in terms of natural acoustic behaviour, it's all convolution reverbs for me.

.... my 0.02 € ...

/Dietz


----------



## synergy543 (May 1, 2013)

Dietz @ Wed May 01 said:


> I still like to use algorithmic reverb for that extra "supernatural" sheen, or for mere FX (... gated reverb, anyone ...?  ...). But in terms of natural acoustic behaviour, it's all convolution reverbs for me.



I do the same Dietz. Although used in very small amounts, almost as a subliminal effect, I find algorithmic reverb adds liveness to the convolution room that better emulates the dynamic nature of acoustic behavior (whereas convolution by itself I find rather "static"). For me, it adds the dynamic sound of the "air" filtering effect (very, very slight pitch and phase filtering that makes the sound come alive).

I agree that in larger doses, it becomes a "supernatural" sheen or mere FX (that Lexicon "sha-sha" sound - not what I'm after - I'm interested in the random delays and very subtle pitch shifts).


----------



## emid (May 1, 2013)

Thank you all for your valuable input and insight  

After reading all posts and discussion I conclude that there is a long way to go for me in terms of better understanding as well as implication with lots of trials and errors. I am happy to be part of a helping community. Thanks again guys. Much appreciated!


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (May 1, 2013)

Here are some experiences of another old hand...
A)
I also confirm that a lot of Convolution IRs sound a bit muddy (or come with their own sound at least) as Emanuel Roos already mentioned above. I also started with Altiverb years ago and even if it comes with a huge amount of IRs I only used two or three of them (Teldex and some others). Since Altiverb got some competitors we also got a lot more IRs from other companies which sound more natural in my opinion. One of those Convolution Reverbs is the one of the Suite Effects of VSL. It comes with really nice and very neutral Reverbs.
But I also agree with the argument that a lot of Algho-Reverbs produce even nicer and more "living" tails than you get with the convolution-IRs.

B) 
Using reverbs for mixing samples often means "using different depths" and not mainly "using different tails" (which also can lead to muddy sound). 
Nevertheless, some tail sounds natural and belongs to the music as well.
So what I need is the ability to create a nice depth with a certain amount of tail. 

C)
My approach now is to use the strengths of both types of reverb.
For creating the room or different depths I use the first parts of IRs (the first reflections so to say). I didn't find an algho-reverb until now which can place the samples in nice depths and distances how I can reach it with good IRs.
But then for the tail (which often is either muddy or sounds a bit "cold" with IRs) I'm using an algo-reverb.

See the following Image. It shows you a possible routing (as I explained above)





Hope you can see the routings because of the max 480pixels :( 
Othertwise here as Download: Reverb Concept 1280 pixels

Here is an example how nice you can get depth without a lot of muddy convolution tail in the mean time. Such results you can't really get with just an "algo-" or just a convolution-reverb.
Listen to the Result different depths by changing the ER and the Dry signal
(For ERs I used the Schumann-Saal of the convolution Reverb VSL-SUITE (first 30ms), for the Tail I used the Roomworks-Reverb of Cubase (Church-Preset) with a constant level within the output channel (as tail over all so to say) 

D)
As always: Sound is a matter of taste. Some do like a lot of reverb and more dark sounds, some like more dry sounds but with nice depths. Each of us will find its own favourite treatment of the music with time. This post shall show my personal reverb treatment which I like most. 
The advantage: You can get nice and transparent mixes and in the mean time you have all the parameters under control. 
The disadvantage: You need some experiences in using different effects and even if you have them it's always a bit tricky to get the perfect rooms.

Best 
Beat

BTW: This is a mix with the upper reverb method... observe the different depths and how they increase the transparency of the mix


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 1, 2013)

I agree with Beat that a mixture of convo and algo works best. QL Spaces sounds much less muddy to my ears than Altiverb, which is why I sold Altiverb. Combined with ny UAD Plate 140 and sometimes the UAD Lexi, short of exepnsivehardware I think it is about as good asit gets.

That said, for dry libraries, MIR Pro is also a terrific product.


----------



## emid (May 1, 2013)

Wow  ....big thanks Beat Kaufmann for sharing this idea. I will surely try it. Very clean and clear cut to understand. Thanks a bunch again for your time and effort. 

Cheers!


----------



## j_kranz (May 1, 2013)

I usually have a hi-pass around 100hz or so on the reverb bus, just to eliminate that low end buildup. Secondly, I usually assign my sends to be pre-fader... that way the fader also acts as somewhat of a secondary 'wet/dry' (a nice little trick from Maarten Spruijt's article in VI mag a while back).

Lastly, never underestimate what a little panning and even some delay can do for your mix... a tiny bit in the strings for example can give you a little bit of room size without even involving the reverb.


----------



## emid (May 1, 2013)

@Beat Kaufmann - By the way mix sounds awesome!!!


----------



## emid (May 1, 2013)

@j_kranz - Thanks for the tip. Agree with adding some delay but I never get good response. Might look into it again.


----------



## j_kranz (May 1, 2013)

Emid... If you're curious about using delay with orchestral samples, check out this post from Alan Meyerson (he mixes Zimmer, James Newton Howard, etc...):

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/3991990-post27.html

Some great knowledge from the horses mouth o-[][]-o


----------



## Peter Alexander (May 1, 2013)

First, I like your piece. It brings out "the Hobbit" in me!

Second, use of low strings similar to this can be found in Bruckner Sym #6, mvt 1. Worth a listen. You can find Solti conducting it on YouTube. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWeP0ooFLfY
Check 16 seconds in and 1:17 -1:45.L

Pizz Cellos and basses at 2:03 seconds

Third, you didn't tell us your libraries. The Bruckner piece is instructive as the reverb tail in the hall where Solti conducted it was about 2.4s. Abbey Road is 2.3s. 

Whether in octaves or in dense 6 part harmony (violas, cellos and basses on the dance rhythm), the low strings "speak" clearly. 

So before you added your reverb, did your low strings speak with the clarity you hear in the Bruckner 6th with the rooms 2.4s reverb tail? 

The point is this, the more ambient your samples (meaning that the reverb tail is long before you add any more reverb) then the more reverb you add can create muddiness.

What Peter E. Roos says is dead on. Not all convo IRs are created equally (so much for Thomas Jefferson!). Like Beat and Dietz, I use the Vienna Suite but with the FORTI/SERTI IR package where the Convos are just super clear. Once I get the sound shaped, I can then add a final "covering reverb" from Hybrid Reverb which gives that "algo sheen" mentioned here. 

A lot of this is covered in Visual Orchestration 2 video lecture series which for Brits and those on the Euro is dirt cheap! You can find it in the commercial section.

Anyway, aside from the semi-shameless plug, I hope this helps.


----------



## emid (May 2, 2013)

*@j_kranz,* 
Now this is a clever trick and definitely worth trying. I would never be able to think that far. Not relying on my results; the least you know is what is being done in real world. Thanks for sharing.

*@Peter Alexander,* 
I use EWQL gold and LASS 2 (for this piece) in Studio One professional. Yes I do take care about the clarity of low strings and don't put much reverb on them but here seems not succeeded as tried it out so many times that later became indifferent. What I think is I need a 'clear' IR for EWQL gold because of the library's default ambient or just that 'covering reverb' you are talking about in the master insert. That 'wetness' of the library also bothered me...may be! LASS always mix better because of dry samples. Many thanks for your suggestion though.

*@Peter Emanuel Roos,* 
Bricast IR are excellent and worth messing around. Thank you as well for advice. Just a quick question. What is your suggestion about LASS IRs (if you have this library)?

Anybody tried?

Regards


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (May 2, 2013)

Emid, sorry for a brief reply (mobile), but EW Gold is quite wet and has release samples. You need a reverb tail bus for this with the first 200 or so milliseconds lowered, or you will have way too much early reflections, which also act as EQ filters (comb filtering effects). In a normal ratio desirable for our brains, but too much will create muddy effects.


----------



## emid (May 2, 2013)

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Thu May 02 said:


> Em*i*d, sorry for a brief reply (mobile), but EW Gold is quite wet and has release samples. You need a reverb tail bus for this with the first 200 or so milliseconds lowered, or you will have way too much early reflections, which also act as EQ filters (comb filtering effects). In a normal ratio desirable for our brains, but too much will create muddy effects.



Thank you for prompt and to the point reply Peter!


----------



## Echoes in the Attic (May 2, 2013)

Whenever people talk about their favorite their favorite convolution IRs, they usually talk about Altiverb or QL Spaces or something. I've got both Reflektor and Reverberate for convolution's but havn't found IRs that blow me away. Just wondering if anyone has suggestions for nice realistic room and hall IRs with good ERs that work well with orchestral situations.

And if I could add another question to the mix: Why do I see some IR files which have separate L and R files and sometimes even a C? Doesn't a regular stereo sample file give both channels? Why separate files? Sometimes these L and R files are even stereo themselves. So how is a left channel file stereo? I've never understood this.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (May 2, 2013)

True stereo requires 4 channels, often using two stereo files, sometimes 4 channel files. If you may have any of my Samplicity libraries, this is explained in the PDF files.

Still on mobile only, sorry for the short answers


----------



## ErnestCholakis (May 2, 2013)

Hi Emid

Here is my 2 cents. 

I listen to your piece and do think that the overall balance of the EQ should to be adjusted first. I hope you don't mine but I did EQ it - here is the
link http://www.numericalsound.com/audio-clips/SCarnivalDance_EmidEnam_Eq4_23.mp3 (http://www.numericalsound.com/audio-cli ... Eq4_23.mp3)

One practical problem with some of Altiverb RI's is that they are not neutral but 
do have resonances - especially below 500Hz. Which specific RI's are you using ? VSL's MIR and Numerical Sound's FORTI SERTI have a flat frequency response so using them will not change the overall tone. 

I have found that most of the RI's available output a "dry" component to the sound and are not in effect "100% wet with totally omnidirectional ambience. The stereo 
image should cover the entire stereo field. When a track is 100% wet you should not be able to localize the original dry signal at all. Here is the link to a reverb impulse comparison which highlights this problem http://www.numericalsound.com/FORTI_SERTI_RI_Shootout.html (http://www.numericalsound.com/FORTI_SER ... otout.html) In this area algorithmic reverb's engine fall short when compared to the convolution approach.


Ernest Cholakis
Numerical Sound
www.numericalsound.com


----------



## re-peat (May 2, 2013)

It seems to me that of all the problems that this track is suffering from, the reverb is actually the smallest, the least off-putting and certainly the easiest to fix.
I mean, if the aim here is to put a more or less believable orchestra on its feet — and I think we may assume it is —, then surely, those strings for example — the way they sound, the way they’re written and the way they’re programmed — are a much more disruptive and disbelief-suspending presence in this production than the reverb is, and as such, much more urgently in need of a thorough revision and extra attention than the reverb? No? And that’s just the strings.

Said it before, and this track is a perfect illustration: in productions such as these, it doesn’t matter one bit which reverb you choose. Produce this, in its current state, with a Lexicon or a Bricasti, with QL Spaces, Altiverb, MIR or SPAT or whatever, and you’ll always end up with the same problematic sound. Because all the real problems of this track — the ones that jump out of the speakers long before the reverb even has a chance to be perceived as not ideal — have got nothing whatsoever to do with the reverberation.

Altiverb is not to blame here — used wisely, Altiverb rarely is —, it’s what is being sent to Altiverb that needs more care and attention.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 2, 2013)

re-peat @ Thu May 02 said:


> It seems to me
> _



if you read the OP's first post, he did not ask "how can I best improve this piece?" he specifically asked about the use of reverb. 

And then there is the title of the thread

Other perceived issues are a different discussion. And a lot of the Altiverb IRs ARE muddy IMHO, as several here have pointed out.


----------



## germancomponist (May 2, 2013)

But Piet is right here, Jay.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 2, 2013)

germancomponist @ Thu May 02 said:


> But Piet is right here, Jay.



That may be true. it is also correct if I say water is H2O but it is not germane to what he asked about.

Just saying


----------



## park bench (May 2, 2013)

But you would be right, Jay, isn't that what you want to be?
:wink: 

lots of good, solid, instruction in this thread.


----------



## rayinstirling (May 2, 2013)

Jay,
Without doubt, you are the most infuriating stirrer on this forum.
You just can't help yourself.


----------



## germancomponist (May 2, 2013)

j_kranz @ Thu May 02 said:


> I usually have a hi-pass around 100hz or so on the reverb bus, just to eliminate that low end buildup. Secondly, I usually assign my sends to be pre-fader... that way the fader also acts as somewhat of a secondary 'wet/dry' (a nice little trick from Maarten Spruijt's article in VI mag a while back).
> 
> Lastly, never underestimate what a little panning and even some delay can do for your mix... a tiny bit in the strings for example can give you a little bit of room size without even involving the reverb.



+1

Delays bring a life into the music.


----------



## Per Lichtman (May 2, 2013)

The mix/mock-up has a fair number of issues but I liked the composition so I still liked it on SoundCloud.

I think Jay is right that we should focus our comments more on the reverb side of things like the OP asked, but I don't think a quick aside about the EQ is out of line.

However, the suggestion that all convolution engines or convolution libraries would give roughly the same results on the mix is... well, not one I think many people would agree with.  It matters a lot. I have had artists listen A-B (without knowing which is what) to a mix with different reverb impulses of a similar size applied and go "oh that feels so much more relaxed in my body" or "oh that feels so much more lush" or "that feels so much clearer" and then ask "what did you do?" We are literally talking about a couple of clicks to change just one factor and it makes that big of a difference.

As far as the strings, I would say there might be issues with programming/mixing but I like the way they are written. Don't mess with that side of it.

Anyway here are a few thoughts on organizing reverbs with tracks.

1) While you want to "get the track processed right" before you send it to a reverb, sometimes you want the sound to be different on the reverb send than the main signal. Busses/Auxes are your friends. I often have one dedicated to processing the send for each of the most important instruments/voices in my mix (especially any soloist).

2) Pre-delays can be a great addition for helping placement. Try adding different amounts of delay to the buss/aux of each instrument.

3) Don't rely on reverb to change tonal balance. If you get the sound right before you send it anywhere, then you can use a more natural or transparent reverb with good results. If the balance isn't right first, you may be tempted to drench the sound in verb to mask it.

4) For optimal use, consider the overall sound, feel and material you are going for before you start picking or applying a reverb. The denser your mix is, the more important transparency will be. The more percussive your material is and the more space there is in the mix, the more exposed your choice of reverb tails and early reflection will be.

5) When it comes to looking at algorithmic vs convolution reverb, it can be helpful to use the analogy of analog synthesizers vs samplers (with convolution being though of as samplers). Analog synthesizers can create sounds that are difficult to find in real-life and their behavior involves eccentricities that may be lost in sampling. But they are far less well-suited to capturing the detail and timbre of real world instruments or events - think about how little a given analog brass sound, sounds like real brass for starters.  Similarly, algorithmic reverbs are at their best when you play to their strengths in using them for unrealistic soundstages and at their worst when you try to make them exactly mimic a real space. While not all samplers are created equal, they are great at capturing the exact texture/timbre of a real moment but they are dependent on the quality of the recording you feed into. Convolution plug-ins are the same way - they are only as good as the libraries you feed them.

I had a few more but I have to go. 

EDIT: Wait two more.

6) You don't have to put your reverb sent into "pre" mode to change the wet dry balance if you can get it wet enough at the send anyway. A lot of DAWs let you go to +12dB relative to the dry signal.

7) When mixing libraries, keep in mind that you often want to match the panning placement and EQ for each before it hits the reverb. Also, the drier the mics are, the more flexibility you have in matching them (and the easier it is to marry them by using the same reverb space).


----------



## emid (May 2, 2013)

Wow...lot of info, advice and suggestions, not easy to grab everything in one go for a layman like me.

*@ErnestCholakis,*
Brilliant job. sounds a lot better to 'my' ears. Presets were Worcester for all strings sections and Konzerthaus vienna for flute and percs with their default instrument positions. 65% mix and some increase in size. I am going to read the comparison right now. Thanks a lot!

*@re-peat,*
I wholeheartedly admit that my piece is full of flaws, musically incorrect in turn clearly portraying my imperfections. As a doctor by profession I don't have any formal music training/education, yet composing is my time to time recreational hobby with great interest. Your wise words will help me improve myself. Many thanks for that  

*@EastWest Lurker,*
Thanks for re-routing mate :wink: 

*@Per Lichtman,*
Am really glad you enjoyed it. All your points are so solid with immense information that one can certainly build a base upon them. If you have time, please come back with three more to make a 'Ten commandments of reverb mixing' - a serious request  Gratitudes!

Again many thanks to everybody for your knowledgeable insights. It will help many of us. Loving this forum!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 2, 2013)

emid @ Thu May 02 said:


> *@EastWest Lurker,*
> Thanks for re-routing mate :wink:



You're welcome. As you will discover Doctor, intellectual discipline is in short supply here.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 2, 2013)

rayinstirling @ Thu May 02 said:


> Jay,
> Without doubt, you are the most infuriating stirrer on this forum.
> You just can't help yourself.



I am not stirring anything., If you didn't like the comment, you could have stated why you disagreed with it but it is easier just to disparage me, right?

But then of course you would need to construct a cogent and coherent argument about why it is a good thing to wander off from what the OP specifically asked and just disparage his work. Which I don't think you can do, thus the ad hominem attack on me. 

Which is fine with me, I am a big boy.


----------



## Per Lichtman (May 2, 2013)

emid @ Thu May 02 said:


> *@Per Lichtman,*
> Am really glad you enjoyed it. All your points are so solid with immense information that one can certainly build a base upon them. If you have time, please come back with three more to make a 'Ten commandments of reverb mixing' - a serious request  Gratitudes!



I'll try to find time to add the other things as long as we agree not to call them the ten commandments of well... anything.  Deal?


----------



## re-peat (May 2, 2013)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu May 02 said:


> germancomponist @ Thu May 02 said:
> 
> 
> > But Piet is right here, Jay.
> ...



Jay, why didn't you say all this to Mr. Alexander, who (1) brought Bruckner into this thread — as far as I know, Anton wasn't an Altiverb-user, was he?, nor did he struggle with and subsequently solve reverb-related problems in mock-ups — and (2) then went on to plug his wares yet again in that vulgar and obnoxious manner of his. How germane to what the OP asked about is that? You tell me.

Besides, my remarks are, I believe, very much to the point in that they put the reverb issue properly in context. Isolating the reverb as potentially problematic is quite absurd, in my opinion. It often is, and it certainly is in a production such as this, that has far bigger production- and programming-related flaws on display from start to finish. 
My point being that it is impossible to improve this particular mock-up by focusing on the reverb alone. (And I hope it is not too ungermane to this discussion to assume that creating a better-sounding mockup is what drove the OP to start this thread in the first place.) 
All this (in my opinion rather silly) talk about convolution or algorithmic reverb, about Altiverb supposedly being boomy, about reverb configurations, IR's, ER's and whatnot won't bring any fundamental improvement to this carnival. A marginal increase of listening pleasure at best. Realizing however that the reverb is what it is — a minor and quite unimportant player in the fabric of this mix — should help to put the focus of attention where it needs to be put, and thus result, eventually, in a profoundly better-sounding production.

_


----------



## mikebarry (May 2, 2013)

forwhatever its worth just about all the professional mixes I have sat on - one reverb was used.


----------



## emid (May 3, 2013)

Per Lichtman @ Fri May 03 said:


> I'll try to find time to add the other things as long as we agree not to call them the ten commandments of well... anything.  Deal?



Lol  ...but thanks anyways for lending a helpful hand. Much appreciated. As the topic seems to be moving in a wrong direction now, I pass my utmost respect and gratitudes to all pros and fellows with positive contribution.

Peace!
Emid


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 3, 2013)

re-peat @ Thu May 02 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu May 02 said:
> 
> 
> > germancomponist @ Thu May 02 said:
> ...


You may be right Piet but when a woman asks you "Do these jeans make my butt look fat", you don't respond with "It doesn't matter how fat the jeans make your butt look or not because your makeup is horrible, you are too fat and need to drop 20 lbs and get some exercise. Then you can worry about your jeans"

He asked for advice on practices of using reverb, not just on this specific piece. A lot of people did precisely that. You went to another place, a critical evaluation of the piece. I am sure your intentions were to educate but I think next time, perhaps wait until that is what is asked for?

Just my opinion.


----------



## George Caplan (May 3, 2013)

emid @ Thu May 02 said:


> I wholeheartedly admit that my piece is full of flaws, musically incorrect in turn clearly portraying my imperfections.



i dont think it matters a great deal if the music is flawed as music or perceived as being flawed by anyone else. musically incorrect. what does that mean? means nothing.

you can write whatever you want but the ideal thing is to get it to sound as good as possible as a sound. i think thats what is mostly important and then things like reverb is just a peripheral. 

when using things like spitfire you already have a choice of room mics and just adding some extra reverb at the end might make some difference. i use for example a lexicon hardware unit pcm96. i dont think it makes much difference if whats gone before doesnt sound great in the fist place. it still sounds bad but with extra reverb. 

eq ing away muddy parts is probably more important initially. i am not a pro but a hobbyist btw.


----------



## Samulis (May 4, 2013)

George Caplan @ Fri May 03 said:


> i dont think it matters a great deal if the music is flawed as music or perceived as being flawed by anyone else. musically incorrect. what does that mean? means nothing.
> 
> you can write whatever you want but the ideal thing is to get it to sound as good as possible as a sound. i think thats what is mostly important and then things like reverb is just a peripheral.



I agree. While one might point towards the orchestration as the flaw, it's very much true that there are thousands of "professionals" who haven't even picked up a book on the subject (which is ironic since you can find excellent free resources online in regards to orchestration). In the long run, there is no such thing as 'incorrect' music... if you believe such, good luck living with the _genre_ of ambient music or the like.

I'm no expert, but here are my thoughts nonetheless...

In regards to this piece, I feel it is indeed a bit too wet (as mentioned by someone else on the first page). One of the issues with using cellos and F Horn (as well as other mid-range instruments) is that both like to get muddy real fast if you aren't careful. To get "real" sounding staccato or marcato hits, you do need a bit of something on there to enhance the release of the instrument in most cases, so you're always in a bit of a pickle there. As said, common fixes are EQ or adjusting the reverb with an EQ so it's less noticeable in the mid region. 

You can also do some minor orchestration and composition changes and use a clarinet/Cor Anglais and bass clarinet/bassoon setup to take on the mid ranges (move a few notes of the chord over), upper and lower mid respectively, in a bit cleaner of a way- clarinet has a great lower end timbre-wise and bassoon in its upper-mid range is gentle enough. Your piece is calm enough that utilizing woodwinds in this fashion will probably be suitable. Another plus- woodwinds always seem to work a little better with reverb compared to strings and horns, at least to me. Alternately, you could use some F Horns at a forte or fortissimo, just one part or perhaps two instruments, not to overdo the mids. The sharper timbre at a forte makes the instrument transcend the mids issue a bit better. Also consider using less voices (albeit at the risk of a less full sound) in your chords, or, move the voices around more as I suggested above. A common mistake in using orchestral instruments is to use say, a 10-person cello section (or worse, a full orchestra patch) and have five voices at once. What you hear is actually something close to what 50 cellos would sound like... unless you're Mahler, that's not realistic (although in digital music not intended for performance such as that for minor games or just plain fun, does that really matter?). A smaller section sound in those chord passages might work better and won't get muddy as easily. I also believe there are "smart virtual instruments" which will account for your voices and split the section accordingly, unless I am out of the loop too much on that.

I'd also try duplicating the marcato cellos (the ones doing the Hobbit-esque ostinato for the first half) quietly on the left and perhaps with a very slight delay, a trick I heard elsewhere. That can balance things out a bit more, perhaps. Try a few different things like that and that might clean up the mud a bit without altering the reverb too much.

Regarding reverb choice, I think what you have on the doublebasses is a bit too heavy and reflective. Avoiding mud in the low end should be the first priority when selecting a reverb. I recommend grouping reverb by range, not section, or by a combination, unless you're cheap like me and use one reverb for the whole thing (which isn't necessarily a bad thing- makes continuity, saves RAM if you have a poor setup). 

Lately, I've been using EWQL SO completely dry or with just the slightest bit of convolution myself... it's quite wet as-is and some mixing on top can provide a decent enough sound for something like a game score where it's going to be dropped down to a 192kbps .mp3 regardless of how much you argue about the importance of quality sound.

The answer to your question honestly changes depending on what this music is intended to be; are you trying to replicate the sound of an orchestra? Or are you trying to make digital music that has a cinematic sound and is more for fun (like video game music)? If you want the primary, these fellas left you an awfully large pile of excellent information on that, all of which sounds very promising. If the latter, do what you wish and take all this _cum grano salis_.

Regardless, good luck with your piece!


----------



## quantum7 (May 8, 2013)

Great thread.....well....most of it.


----------

