# Orchestra reverb



## filipjonathan (Jan 9, 2020)

Hey guys! 

A quick question. When you're using an aux reverb with your sampled orchestra, how do you eq the verb? Do you cut everything below 100Hz? 80? 50? I would normally cut everything below 300Hz when mixing pop music but since I'm new to the orchestral stuff, I wasn't sure if you actually want the reverb to affect the low frequencies of the instruments.

Thank you!


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 9, 2020)

Experiment and trust your ears!


----------



## filipjonathan (Jan 9, 2020)

germancomponist said:


> Experiment and trust your ears!


Haha a classic advice  I do do that but I need a general tip of what people do. Just like I've mentioned, in pop music you don't need all that low stuff in the verb, but maybe in orchestral, you do? Cause in a concert hall you hear the whole orchestra with a tail. That's where my logic comes from.


----------



## Haakond (Jan 9, 2020)

I usually cut below 100Hz


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 9, 2020)




----------



## dzilizzi (Jan 9, 2020)

It may depend also on whether you are using wet or dry samples. And I'm not an expert on this. At least not yet.....


----------



## Scoremixer (Jan 9, 2020)

One of the biggest differences between various scoring stages and concert halls is the amount of low freq buildup in the room. So assess what your samples are giving you, and adjust accordingly - if you want a starting point then I'd suggest no rolloff. If you're doing huge layered smashy trailer music then start with your pop settings and adjust from there.


----------



## filipjonathan (Jan 9, 2020)

Scoremixer said:


> One of the biggest differences between various scoring stages and concert halls is the amount of low freq buildup in the room. So assess what your samples are giving you, and adjust accordingly - if you want a starting point then I'd suggest no rolloff. If you're doing huge layered smashy trailer music then start with your pop settings and adjust from there.


That's what I was looking for. Thank you!


----------



## Kent (Jan 10, 2020)

trajev said:


> I do do


heh. do do.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 10, 2020)

Generally I use the abbey road trick and cut below 600 or 500Hz (and above 10k). I mostly use the EQ on section busses so it's the same for e.g. all strings. Exceptions are being made when the bass lacks room and the sound I was going for before cutting is clearly ruined. Then, I cut much less or not at all for that specific bass instrument.


----------



## filipjonathan (Jan 10, 2020)

kmaster said:


> heh. do do.


Should I admit I thought that while writing it?


----------



## filipjonathan (Jan 10, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> Generally I use the abbey road trick and cut below 600 or 500Hz (and above 10k). I mostly use the EQ on section busses so it's the same for e.g. all strings. Exceptions are being made when the bass lacks room and the sound I was going for before cutting is clearly ruined. Then, I cut much less or not at all for that specific bass instrument.


Thanks!


----------



## Joël Dollié (Jan 10, 2020)

I cut around 130, I wouldn't go too high because I think the low mids need reverb too to feel like they're part of the room too. The sub definitely doesn't need much if any though. I don't use the steepest filter to keep it natural.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 10, 2020)

trajev said:


> That's what I was looking for. Thank you!




And that is the correct approach I believe. Whenever someone says, "I always" be wary of that person's advice. Good engineers have always said to me on ANY audio topic, "It depends."


----------



## Frank1985 (Jan 10, 2020)

Use your ears!

Oh sorry, this isn’t gearslutz. Sorry for the condescension.


----------



## Bluemount Score (Jan 10, 2020)

Joël Dollié said:


> I cut around 130, I wouldn't go too high because I think the low mids need reverb too to feel like they're part of the room too. The sub definitely doesn't need much if any though. I don't use the steepest filter to keep it natural.


Listen to this man!


----------



## filipjonathan (Jan 10, 2020)

Joël Dollié said:


> I cut around 130, I wouldn't go too high because I think the low mids need reverb too to feel like they're part of the room too. The sub definitely doesn't need much if any though. I don't use the steepest filter to keep it natural.


Thanks!!


----------



## brenneisen (Jan 10, 2020)

Bluemount Score said:


> Listen to this man!



+1; Joël makes things sound great

I also usually cut at 130Hz but:

1. It is context-dependent:

- Only string orchestra? Maybe I won't cut anything at all (or 130 again but on sides only)
- Lots of synths, guitars, busy perc? I can go up to 200

2. It is dynamic


----------



## John R Wilson (Mar 12, 2020)

Joël Dollié said:


> I cut around 130, I wouldn't go too high because I think the low mids need reverb too to feel like they're part of the room too. The sub definitely doesn't need much if any though. I don't use the steepest filter to keep it natural.



What slope setting do you usually use when cutting at 130?


----------



## Silence-is-Golden (Mar 12, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Whenever someone says, "I always" be wary of that person's advice. Good engineers have always said to me


there is a nice contradiction there Jay :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 12, 2020)

I cut the send to the reverb rather than the reverb.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 12, 2020)

Why? To be honest I've never stopped to think about what the difference is, but I saw Al Schmitt do it that way and he's cool and I want to be cool too.


----------



## Joël Dollié (Mar 12, 2020)

Johnrwilsonmusic said:


> What slope setting do you usually use when cutting at 130?



12db per octave


----------



## labornvain (Mar 12, 2020)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Why? To be honest I've never stopped to think about what the difference is, but I saw Al Schmitt do it that way and he's cool and I want to be cool too.


It's simple if you think of a Reverb as a sort of multiplier. Whatever signal you feed into it gets multiplied many times.

So ask yourself the question, if you have a problem in the signal chain, such as too much low-end, would you rather address that problem before it gets multiplied a thousand times, or after?

Of course that doesn't mean you should always EQ before the Reverb, as long as you know what's going on. Sometimes, depending on the Reverb, or depending on the EQ, it might sound good to hit an EQ with with too much low end, multiplied a thousand times and then dial it back a bit.

The world is your oyster.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 12, 2020)

labornvain said:


> Whatever signal you feed into it gets multiplied many times.



Okay... but (devil's advocate) every one of those iterations gets filtered out if you remove everything below [300? 100?] from the reverb return.

In the real world, I only filter some things from the reverb send, for example concert bass drum rumble. In other words I use multiple filters and don't filter everything. So that's probably a good argument.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 12, 2020)

Silence-is-Golden said:


> there is a nice contradiction there Jay :D




When you don't finish the sentence, you distort the meaning. And there is a difference between a single person's absolutist specific advice on what to always do and the collective general wisdom of seasoned professionals.


----------



## Silence-is-Golden (Mar 13, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> When you don't finish the sentence, you distort the meaning. And there is a difference between a single person's absolutist specific advice on what to always do and the collective general wisdom of seasoned professionals.


you are absolutely correct Jay....no worries, it was ment without any malicious intention.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 13, 2020)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Okay... but (devil's advocate) every one of those iterations gets filtered out if you remove everything below [300? 100?] from the reverb return.
> 
> In the real world, I only filter some things from the reverb send, for example concert bass drum rumble. In other words I use multiple filters and don't filter everything. So that's probably a good argument.



By the way, and I'm sure I've posted this before, but sometimes - often - removing mud from a reverb return is all it takes to gain a lot of clarity. I learned that years ago after fooling around endlessly, trying to EQ the actual instruments... only to realize that I was barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 13, 2020)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> By the way, and I'm sure I've posted this before, but sometimes - often - removing mud from a reverb return is all it takes to gain a lot of clarity. I learned that years ago after fooling around endlessly, trying to EQ the actual instruments... only to realize that I was barking up the wrong tree.



I totally agree.


----------



## Living Fossil (Mar 13, 2020)

filipjonathan said:


> ... how do you eq the verb? ...



I guess, i'm one of the "depends" camp, but in addition to the advices given in this thread, I'd like to mention another method, that i use in some cases:
There are situations - usually in connection with massive percussive elements - where i don't want to cut the low reverb _per se _but also don't want to have too much mud.
For these cases i like Boz-Digitals "Gatey-Watey" which is a gate that lets you set the frequency range where it's active and the amount of gain reduction (with the other controls, like attack etc).
So, by setting the threshold to the amount where the low frequencies are no longer a useful part of the music, it gets attenuated.

(of course, there are other similar plug ins, i just happen to like this one  )



https://46ay441bvz3d1clhlhunusa1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/screen-shot-high-res.jpg


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Mar 13, 2020)

Easiest workflow for me is to use a reverb with an EQ built in to cut frequencies. There's several. I'm partial to Exponential reverbs, but Fabfilter Pro-R is exceptionally easy to use (when I tried it). Alternatively, you EQ before to roll off lows and highs to taste/reality, and you can EQ after as well, if needed (usually to reduce any unwanted frequencies again, as opposed to boosting).

GateyWatey is awesome. I typically use Boz Big Beautiful Door (though I'd use Pro-G if I had it).

I picked up Exponential R4 recently for $45 and LOVE it - EQ low, high, and has a built-in Gate function. And it sounds amazing to me.


----------



## jcrosby (Mar 13, 2020)

It really does depend, however one simple tip that works regardless of genre, reverb type, etc is to put a sub cut before the reverb. You basically want to shape the signal going into the reverb so you don't excite deeper frequencies which have longer decay times.... The other benefit is that you can always cut more after..

Adding a high pass between 60 and 100 before your reverb's a smart way to handle the sub without leaving you with an overly thin reverb. Having a default cut at 80's a safe place, you can always fine tune form there... Slope-wise 12 dB/octave's a safe default starting place.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 14, 2020)

jcrosby said:


> It really does depend, however one simple tip that works regardless of genre, reverb type, etc is to put a sub cut before the reverb. You basically want to shape the signal going into the reverb so you don't excite deeper frequencies which have longer decay times.... The other benefit is that you can always cut more after..
> 
> Adding a high pass between 60 and 100 before your reverb's a smart way to handle the sub without leaving you with an overly thin reverb. Having a default cut at 80's a safe place, you can always fine tune form there... Slope-wise 12 dB/octave's a safe default starting place.



Nope. With a well recorded orchestral sample library I generally don’t want to alter the sound before it gets to the reverb, personally. I got the library because I was convinced the developer knew how to record the instruments so that they sound good in a mix, or I choose a library from a different developer.

There are, of course, exceptions but as a general approach l I just disagree.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Mar 14, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Nope. With a well recorded orchestral sample library I generally don’t want to alter the sound before it gets to the reverb, personally. I got the library because I was convinced the developer knew how to record the instruments so that they sound good in a mix, or I choose a library from a different developer.
> 
> There are, of course, exceptions but as a general approach l I just disagree.



You're far more experienced than I, and do this for a living. However, I do wonder about this at a high level from my admittedly amateur perspective. If the sample instrument creator has included "raw" recordings, than there'd be room noise (and modes, etc). If the samples are processed, then the'll still have certain frequencies emphasized or removed. 

If "raw" samples, I'd EQ. If processed, I might EQ, but it'd be case-by-case, and also be a matter of what I was trying to layer on top of the samples - and how strongly I was applying it. Combining sampled instruments together from different rooms/chambers or manufacturers would also likely lead to different frequencies being emphasized. But, again, there might only be a small difference that makes no actual difference in the real, audible world.

I believe your strong selection criteria likely guarantees a more positive outcome


----------



## jcrosby (Mar 14, 2020)

jcrosby said:


> put a sub cut before the reverb. You basically want to shape the signal going into the reverb so you don't excite deeper frequencies which have longer decay times .......
> 
> you can always fine tune form there...





Ashermusic said:


> Nope. With a well recorded orchestral sample library I generally don’t want to alter the sound before it gets to the reverb, personally. I got the library because I was convinced the developer knew how to record the instruments so that they sound good in a mix, or I choose a library from a different developer.
> 
> There are, of course, exceptions but as a general approach l I just disagree.





You disagree with having a smart default starting place in your template that can be dialed back or bypassed as needed? Interesting approach.

You also completely misinterpreted what I wrote. You put an EQ before the reverb on the *return*. All this does is reduce sub rumble getting into the reverb tail. Why do you think some reverbs have a pre-reverb EQ?


----------



## sostenuto (Mar 14, 2020)

vitocorleone123 said:


> Easiest workflow for me is to use a reverb with an EQ built in to cut frequencies. There's several. I'm partial to Exponential reverbs, but Fabfilter Pro-R is exceptionally easy to use (when I tried it). Alternatively, you EQ before to roll off lows and highs to taste/reality, and you can EQ after as well, if needed (usually to reduce any unwanted frequencies again, as opposed to boosting).
> 
> GateyWatey is awesome. I typically use Boz Big Beautiful Door (though I'd use Pro-G if I had it).
> 
> I picked up Exponential R4 recently for $45 and LOVE it - EQ low, high, and has a built-in Gate function. And it sounds amazing to me.




Have Gatey Watey, and adding Big Beautiful Door since $29, now at Plugin Boutique. THX !


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 15, 2020)

jcrosby said:


> You disagree with having a smart default starting place in your template that can be dialed back or bypassed as needed? Interesting approach.
> 
> You also completely misinterpreted what I wrote. You put an EQ before the reverb on the *return*. All this does is reduce sub rumble getting into the reverb tail. Why do you think some reverbs have a pre-reverb EQ?


You are correct, I did not read carefully enough.

That said, I think “sub rumble” is an overrated factor and you would have to prove to me that in a blind test of two versions of the same piece that you could pick out which one had employed this and which did not. Maybe you can, I don’t know, but I wouldn’t recommend people lose any sleep over it.


----------



## ceemusic (Mar 15, 2020)

Cutting eq isn't always the solution, overlooked tools like compression can work wonders as well depending on the material.


I hear so much music today where verb is overused. I prefer to sense the space rather than to hear the effect over the music.


----------



## Living Fossil (Mar 15, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> That said, I think “sub rumble” is an overrated factor and you would have to prove to me that in a blind test of two versions of the same piece that you could pick out which one had employed this and which did not. Maybe you can, I don’t know, but I wouldn’t recommend people lose any sleep over it.



In my experience there can be low rumble that won't be a problem on speakers but may cause distortions on laptop speakers.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 15, 2020)

Living Fossil said:


> In my experience there can be low rumble that won't be a problem on speakers but may cause distortions on laptop speakers.



You can't worry about every single listening environment. No matter how good your mixes are, your speakers, your room, etc. there will be some translation differences. I don't give a crap what my music sounds like through a laptops speakers because I suspect most laptop users use headphones, earbuds, or an external speaker.


----------



## Living Fossil (Mar 15, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> You can't worry about every single listening environment. No matter how good your mixes are, your speakers, your room, etc. there will be some translation differences. I don't give a crap what my music sounds like through a laptops speakers because I suspect most laptop users use headphones, earbuds, or an external speaker.



Jay, i was refering to your remark about blind tests, where - on laptop speakers - in some cases it would be easier to spot the difference as on regular speakers.

I wasn't writing that *you* should _give a crap _about what your music sounds like through laptop speakers.

For me - and maybe for other people reading in this forum-, there are projects where i do indeed care about how my music translates to laptop speakers, so my remark wasn't an advice what you personally should or should not care about.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 15, 2020)

Living Fossil said:


> Jay, i was refering to your remark about blind tests, where - on laptop speakers - in some cases it would be easier to spot the difference as on regular speakers.
> 
> I wasn't writing that *you* should _give a crap _about what your music sounds like through laptop speakers.
> 
> For me - and maybe for other people reading in this forum-, there are projects where i do indeed care about how my music translates to laptop speakers, so my remark wasn't an advice what you personally should or should not care about.




Understood, just giving my opinion, which people are totally free to disregard if they don't find it helpful or valuable. And you still are going to have to prove to me in a blind test that even on the laptop speakers you will hear it. But I don't discount the possibility.


----------



## Living Fossil (Mar 15, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> And you still are going to have to prove to me in a blind test that even on the laptop speakers you will hear it. But I don't discount the possibility.



I don't know how to set up a "blind test" for this one, since it depends on the laptop.
My MBP2010 is extremely sensible to rumbling content, which in the same time is inaudible on the MBP2015.
And i'm not speaking about subtle differences, but extremely obvious ones.
But i guess if i would tell you that i can keep the sound of a violin apart from the sound of piano, you still would insist on a blind test and not believe me.


----------



## jcrosby (Mar 15, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> You are correct, I did not read carefully enough.
> 
> That said, I think “sub rumble” is an overrated factor and you would have to prove to me that in a blind test of two versions of the same piece that you could pick out which one had employed this and which did not. Maybe you can, I don’t know, but I wouldn’t recommend people lose any sleep over it.



It’s physics, right down to how a speaker reproduces sound.

Below 100-ish hz you have significantly less room for overlap. Part of of a defined low end is the percussive impact of key elements, (including melodic percussive instruments). A reverb tail hanging around down at 50 hz is going to fog the time domain, obscuring the impact of percussive instruments that need to be felt equally as much as be heard. (

It’s no different from the approach of using an EQ to give space to elements that need priority in the sub. Low frequencies decay longer. Not only does cutting unnecessary information with an EQ reduce frequency overlap, it also reduces overlap in time. Adding more information in the time domain via reverb just means unnecessary clutter.

And that isn’t to say there aren’t use cases for adding reverb in the sub. You can extend or create a boom with reverb, but expecting that boom not to obscure other instruments down there is unrealistic without giving one priority, (temporarily via automation, ducking, etc). The main point is that it's smart to prioritize stuff under 100-ish hz, an easy place to start is by cutting unnecessary sub information from reverbs and delays. 

But since I don’t expect you to put any weight in my comment I’ll let Alan Meyerson do the talking for me:

_I also don’t like to EQ reverb returns. _*But I do roll off the low and high frequencies to the send of the reverb*_. _*This is important so that the reverb doesn’t become cluttered*_. *There usually is a lot of low mid and low-frequency buildup that happens in a reverb. I don’t want to add to that with sounds that have it in the first place.*_

https://film-mixing.com/2016/07/28/film-score-mixing-with-alan-meyerson/


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 15, 2020)

Living Fossil said:


> I don't know how to set up a "blind test" for this one, since it depends on the laptop.
> My MBP2010 is extremely sensible to rumbling content, which in the same time is inaudible on the MBP2015.
> And i'm not speaking about subtle differences, but extremely obvious ones.
> But i guess if i would tell you that i can keep the sound of a violin apart from the sound of piano, you still would insist on a blind test and not believe me.




Not at all. If you say that happens on your specific laptop, I believe you. But since it doesn't on your other, I am not going to worry about people in your situation and I recommend others spend little time doing so also


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 15, 2020)

jcrosby said:


> It’s physics, right down to how a speaker reproduces sound.
> 
> Below 100-ish hz you have significantly less room for overlap. Part of of a defined low end is the percussive impact of key elements, (including melodic percussive instruments). A reverb tail hanging around down at 50 hz is going to fog the time domain, obscuring the impact of percussive instruments that need to be felt equally as much as be heard. (
> 
> ...



Well, Alan is mixing for theaters and venues that have a lot more range reproduction than where my far more modest endeavors end up, so maybe that is true for him.

And heck, maybe I am just wrong. It has happened before and will again.


----------



## Living Fossil (Mar 15, 2020)

Ashermusic said:


> Not at all. If you say that happens on your specific laptop, I believe you. But since it doesn't on your other, I am not going to worry about people in your situation and I recommend others spend little time doing so also



I like to use that laptop to check stereo mixes, exactly for the reason that it's a non-high end- scenario.
(I have no car since years, so the car radio won't do it...).
However, i guess I'm not the only one who takes such things in account. I remember that at the time (almost 20 years ago) when Waves brought "MaxxBass" on the market, one thing about this plugin that get mentioned often was the fact that it makes it easier to get convincing basses on such devises as laptops without creating those rumbling distortions.

But of course, everybody has to set his/her priorities individually.
In a forum like this, where people are around who happen to produce music for internet content, i think it's an aspect worth mentioning.

(i for myself care much less about mono compatibility... but that's related to the fact that my music isn't played in clubs  )


----------



## Beat Kaufmann (Mar 16, 2020)

One is the low and highcut settings. But it is also important for those who use convolution reverbs to know which frequencies particularly amplify the impulse responses used. Often the room impulses have quite "crooked frequency responses". For example the IR "Maria Strassengel Church". 





You can clearly see how lower frequencies are emphasized, with two special peaks at 90Hz and 250Hz. 
_By the way:
By sending pink noise through the reverb (100%wet), you can see relatively quickly where a reverb emphasizes frequencies._

Then, if the plugin offers it, you can use the internal EQ to balance the reverb if you don't like the typical room sound. 





---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Compare the sound before (mp3) and after correction (mp3)*

Please, it is not a matter of whether the one example sounds better or worse in your ears. Rather, I want to show that the reverb itself can influence the sound in such a way that a lowcut or highcut alone may not be of any use under certain circumstances or may cut off too much.

All the best 
Beat


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 16, 2020)

ceemusic said:


> Cutting eq isn't always the solution, overlooked tools like compression can work wonders as well depending on the material.
> 
> 
> I hear so much music today where verb is overused. I prefer to sense the space rather than to hear the effect over the music.



Sure, there's more to mixing than getting the reverb right.

But what you're saying about sensing the space is just one choice - a totally valid one, but if we're talking about sampled orchestras, the most common sound people go for is "big."

That means big reverb, and the "conventional" sound is a scoring stage + Lexicon Hall - wet and nasty.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Mar 16, 2020)

"Pop" production is a very different thing, of course, because you're almost certainly going to use discrete reverbs for different instruments. You might have an overall space for glue, but it's unlikely that you're going to run a lead vocal through the same primary reverb as the bass drum.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 17, 2020)

Here is one thing I can say that my guess is all the experts will agree with, and that Beat was gently hinting at:

When it comes to EQ, take the Hippocratic oath, which is "first, do no harm." If you don't _fully_ understand what you re doing and the effect it has on the sounds, you may well violate it. Most of you, certainly me, are not world class engineers. Because THEY do doesn't mean we SHOULD do.

That said, there is only one immutable rule in audio and that is "if it sounds good, it is good" so certainly you should do what sounds good to your ears.


----------



## mikeh-375 (Mar 17, 2020)

^^ true, but ears also need to be cultivated. Assuming all things are equal, what sounds good to one set of untrained ears might be a horror to more experienced ears...and vice versa I suppose. Did I just end up where you left off?


----------



## Christian64 (Mar 17, 2020)

Are there free reverbs as good as the paid ones?
600€ for Altiverb whaow...
It’s very difficult to buy paid software when you don’t really hear a difference with free software.









The 10 Best FREE VST/AU Reverb Plugins


Discover the best free reverbs in the world, where to get them, and find out what's special about each one




www.loopmasters.com





I also think that I don’t take enough time to work on my reverbs!!


----------



## Dietz (Mar 17, 2020)

Christian64 said:


> 600€ for Altiverb whaow...


:-D ... -> https://www.ebay.com/p/1236883851


----------



## Christian64 (Mar 17, 2020)

😱

I FINALLY THINK THAT ALTIVERB IS NOT EXPENSIVE ENOUGH !!


----------



## Living Fossil (Mar 17, 2020)

Christian64 said:


> It’s very difficult to buy paid software when you don’t really hear a difference with free software.



As long as you don't really hear a difference, just use the free ones.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Mar 17, 2020)

Living Fossil said:


> As long as you don't really hear a difference, just use the free ones.



Same goes with inexpensive products (e.g., Valhalla, Klanghelm, Tokyo Dawn, etc.). More $$ doesn't necessarily = better!


----------



## Living Fossil (Mar 17, 2020)

@PaulieDC :
No offense, but maybe read through this thread a bit before posting.

Things like the "Abbey Road trick" are complete nonsense for orchestral stuff.
(as you can read, when you go through this thread)


----------



## Vin (Mar 17, 2020)

Christian64 said:


> Are there free reverbs as good as the paid ones?
> 600€ for Altiverb whaow...
> It’s very difficult to buy paid software when you don’t really hear a difference with free software.
> 
> ...




You don't have to spend crazy money to get a good quality reverb nowadays. You can get Exponential's Phoenixverb for €10.

There are some objective characteristics that set higher end reverbs apart, but as you become more experienced, you'll notice that reverbs are often a matter of taste and familiarity.


----------



## robgb (Mar 17, 2020)

Christian64 said:


> Are there free reverbs as good as the paid ones?


Yes. There are also low cost reverbs. Check out Dragon Fly reverb, which is completely free. Great little verb. I second getting Exponential's Phoenixverb. It's excellent. Melda Production has a free plugin pack that includes a reverb that's very nice. It also includes a convolution reverb.


----------



## PaulieDC (Mar 20, 2020)

Living Fossil said:


> @PaulieDC :
> No offense, but maybe read through this thread a bit before posting.
> 
> Things like the "Abbey Road trick" are complete nonsense for orchestral stuff.
> (as you can read, when you go through this thread)


No prob, I deleted my post. I don't _fully _agree that it can be written off as complete nonsense, but to each his own, things are subjective.


----------



## Living Fossil (Mar 20, 2020)

PaulieDC said:


> No prob, I deleted my post. I don't _fully _agree that it can be written off as complete nonsense, but to each his own, things are subjective.



I have yet to hear an orchestral arrangement where it would make even the slightest sense to cut the reverb below 600 Hz. If you have such a situation there's probably a serious problem with the arrangement.


----------



## ceemusic (Mar 24, 2020)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Sure, there's more to mixing than getting the reverb right.
> 
> But what you're saying about sensing the space is just one choice - a totally valid one, but if we're talking about sampled orchestras, the most common sound people go for is "big."
> 
> That means big reverb, and the "conventional" sound is a scoring stage + Lexicon Hall - wet and nasty.



I know, it's reminiscent of the 1980's gated reverb on the snare..it gets quite nauseating after a while.


----------



## Ashermusic (Mar 24, 2020)

I don’t go for “big” necessarily, but being a composer of a”certain age” I will confess to a predilection for “lush.”


----------



## PaulieDC (Mar 24, 2020)

Living Fossil said:


> I have yet to hear an orchestral arrangement where it would make even the slightest sense to cut the reverb below 600 Hz. If you have such a situation there's probably a serious problem with the arrangement.


I'll take that as good advice and do some critical listening and testing. What I'm used to for mixing may NOT apply at all, and unless someone steps up and points that out, you can't know.


----------



## John R Wilson (Mar 24, 2020)

I think one of the best things to do when using reverb is to use a much shorter reverb decay time for shorts and longer decay times for longs. Its easy to drown a track in a reverb and to loose definition, i've had this problem in the past. Also on wet samples I don't apply any additional reverb to the bass instruments and have found cutting reverb at around 130 Hz does help.


----------



## JohnG (Mar 24, 2020)

jcrosby said:


> _I also don’t like to EQ reverb returns. _*But I do roll off the low and high frequencies to the send of the reverb*_._



That's what I do too -- the send, not the return.

I think it's best to write great music and not fuss too much. FWIW, a reverb I use frequently (get it? 'frequently'?) has a low cut around 60 and a high cut around 2k. But I've seen quite a few variations, with good results. [edit: I write almost exclusively orchestral underscore for TV / movies / games and, moreover, I almost always have live elements, if not a full live replacement of the orchestral sounds. If I worked on songs/ pop records I would have a totally different approach.]



Christian64 said:


> Are there free reverbs as good as the paid ones?



Although you can produce plenty of material with the effects that come free with DAWs (or free from other sources), my answer is "it depends."

Some considerations:

1. What kind of material -- I think a 'good' reverb matters a lot more on live material, especially voices, whereas very inexpensive /free spring reverbs sound cool on retro / surf music. Maybe not as fine on an operatic alto singing or a string orchestra;

2. How it's going to be consumed -- Will you have a Famous Record Producer listening in his Finely Tuned Room? Or, alternatively, listening through rubbish? My kids listen to the iPhone speaker half the time -- not even through the bluetooth speakers we have;

3. The conspicuousness of reverb in your mix -- I like reverb and use quite a bit, so I think it matters a lot -- not everyone does.

We've had a number of discussions about this in the past. I like expensive reverbs and think they make a big difference on the kind of material I write. Others differ.

Kind regards,

John


----------



## PaulieDC (Mar 25, 2020)

ceemusic said:


> _"That means big reverb, and the "conventional" sound is a scoring stage + Lexicon Hall - wet and nasty."_
> I know, it's reminiscent of the 1980's gated reverb on the snare..it gets quite nauseating after a while.


What's a better way to approach Reverb for these wet libraries like SSS, etc?


----------



## PaulieDC (Mar 25, 2020)

Johnrwilsonmusic said:


> I think one of the best things to do when using reverb is to use a much shorter reverb decay time for shorts and longer decay times for longs. Its easy to drown a track in a reverb and to loose definition, i've had this problem in the past. Also on wet samples I don't apply any additional reverb to the bass instruments and have found cutting reverb at around 130 Hz does help.


Ah, you just answered, at least in part, my previous question, thanks! I pays to read back a bit, even just the page we are on. #TailBetweenLegs


----------



## John R Wilson (Mar 28, 2020)

Just wondering what everyones approach is to early reflections. Im currently using the BBCSO and EWHO which I believe has the early reflections built into the samples on the main, mid and surround mics and most other sample libraries have this baked into the samples already. So I was wondering if I should still use the early reflections on my reverb send FX or turn these off so I can just add on a reverb tail. Currently I've got EW Spaces 2 set up as my main reverb FX. I then just adjust the decay time but spaces doesn't give you any options to turn of the early reflections.


----------

