A reverb that not vanish

[Turello]

I have 2 very old nearfields Fostex (when called Foster!)... now, If i put a send reverb on vocals, snare etc (usually 24/30%) and listen in SOLO all is perfect, when I leave the SOLO button reverb vanishing... I assume these nearfield are guilty but with Valhalla Shimmer (for example) and some other don't happens... I'm a maniac of plates and halls in some instruments and this has become a problems on Nuendo 5...
I can't buy other nearfields at moment and also I'm attached to these 2 monitors (tweeter not perfect but deep bass and precise mid)

any advice on other reverbs up to the task?

Thanks in advance and forgive my poor english (unfortunately not my first language)

[sascha]

Turello, you shouldn't blame your speakers or the software in the first place. What you encounter is most probably the masking effect, which is very pronounced with reverberation, but is generally something to learn and deal with when making music. Masking is often the no.1 error in mixing and divides bad or mediocre mixes from the good ones.

Many people run into that problem by not seperating the dry & wet signals enough, and by making the wet too diffusive. First aid: dial up the predelay, especially with vocals, 30-50ms is often no problem with medium halls or plates. This isolates the main signals from the reverb tail, so that no washy 'wall of sound' appears and the voice remains up-front and clear. This can still be a problem with up-tempo music, though; the more predelay, the more risk of messing with rhythm.

Then, consider making the reverb tail more sparse, dial in less density or diffusion. Diffusive reverb sounds pleasing when soloed but tends to be too washy and bulky in the mix. Analogy: it's like having to swallow a large and massive chunk of something which refuses to run down your throat... so keep it 'fluffy'.

Also, have an eye on the frequency response. A wide spectrum does rarely make sense with the wet signal. Usually, one cuts away stuff that's not needed. A reverb tail with cozy low end might sound fantastic in solo mode, but will interfere with the other (bass) instruments, so cut away everything that you don't need for the impression of 'reverb'. It's like making a sculpture: you remove stuff until you end up with what you want. Put this into focus, meaning: you can make the wet part louder this way and it won't interfere that much with the rest any longer.

[mystran]

Sometimes it might be worth adjusting the predelay slowly near the desired range until the most pronounced energy peak from the reverb approximately aligns with the rhythm. This really needs to be set by ear (since such a peak is typically not right at the beginning of the tail), but when slowly adjusting the predelay, some settings will usually result in less rhythmic confusion than others.

But since sascha didn't mention this explicitly: the basic rule of thumb for predelay is that more predelay (within reason) moves the dry sound towards the front, while small predelay usually moves the sound in the back of the mix. Whether the actual reverb is obviously audible isn't even that important, the effect of the reflections will be perceived anyway. So it's critical to use some predelay for sounds that should be in front.

Finally, if you want the reverb tail to be explicitly audible, the easiest way to do that is to use a modulated reverb (and that's probably why you observed that Valhalla Shimmer didn't vanish like more static reverbs). Since modulation usually moves the reverb tail frequencies around, the brain doesn't usually mask them out as easily and you'll perceive the reverb tail partially as a separate sound.

[xh3rv]

It can be very nice to EQ somewhere before a verb, but still on the verb's own chain, as well (e.g., channel 1: dry / send 1: eq->verb). Possibly more of the verb character gets through, and feels less drastically attenuated.

[Turello]

first of all thanks to everyone for these thought-provoking answers...

Sascha, really could a 24% (in send) create a masking effect??? :-O and also, I usually put the lead vocal very forward...
Just to us understand better, this is my archetype of reverb on vocals... ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsgdSpH_rsM ), this problem affect especially toms and snare and also i'm very violent with HPF and LPF and for example i not use reverb on electric ROCK bass...

Dear Mystran, you are as always enlightening and tomorrow I will not hesitate to try with your Abstract Chamber what you explain
here as it is also to use the reverb to create depth (what a nice word!)

xh3rv: In fact, until now I usually boosting treble because I think it is the only way but this may create other problems, for example: the snare shot when beat masking the guitar solo...

[sascha]

first of all thanks to everyone for these thought-provoking answers...

Sascha, really could a 24% (in send) create a masking effect??? :-O and also, I usually put the lead vocal very forward...

24% is a number hard to comment on through remote diagnosis... so I can only say: it depends

Just to us understand better, this is my archetype of reverb on vocals...

The example is a sparse mix, not much going on there. For instance, quite the opposite to a full-blown metal tune w. 10+ tracks of layered rhythm guitars heading for the 0dB mark, and someone playing the piano over it while the guttural voice of the front man needs to come through crystal clear...
The more distorted instruments you have, the harder it gets. With only a few - and clean - instruments it's a much easier job.

In the example, the reverb is a combi of reverb + delay, probably dly->rev. The delay makes it more pronounced, creates more attention than reverb alone. This relates to what I said above: make the reverb tail sparse and less diffuse to make it cut through. Generally, drums or anything transient, are probably best with diffuse reverb tails, as otherwise any audible echoic pattern creates 'holes' in the impulse response and makes the signal sound 'rough'. With vocals, or any more steady-state signal, the opposite holds true: less density/diffusion creates 'space', literally makes room for the sound. Like mystran said, modulation also helps, but should be used with caution. On recursive reverbs, modulation increases density over time by spreading out the echoes, but with long tails, chances are things become too dense again, so one has to outweigh things.

Oh, and we haven't talked about early reflections yet, only 'tail'. Our ears and brain detect spacial information (size/width) mainly through the first incoming echoes. That's why many reverbs have an ER-to-tail mix control. It's not important at all to have reverb tails in order to create 'space'.
[Real rooms have a smooth transition from ER to tail through propagating echoes, making the sound more dense over time. But, historically, the most prominent artificial reverb algos create density through allpasses and delays in series, but these had limited numbers and sizes (memory!) and therefore needed high feedback, thus tending to sound more like a 'block' of something. That's how seperate ERs came in along the way.]

Another thing: try ducking a reverb return (a comp on its output with the vox track as its sidechain). This way, the reverb remains quiter throughout the main vocal passage but becomes louder on pauses. Of course nonone forces you to only take the vox track as the key signal, so why not another instrument?

I'd recommend to invest some time and study production tricks, there's a lot you can read on that topic, and many helpful hands-on tutorials on youtube.

[Turello]

@Sascha: i've did an European school of Audio Technicians here in Sick-cily (but I also admit I'm so undisciplined because the room was full of girls who went to this school and I am easily distracted with their smiles!), anyway in analogic world, with a cheap\economic Lexicon\TC reverb hardware and a Mackie\Soundcraft Mixer (I supposed for tension and electricity) i've never had of this problems... this is very strange to me!
So I think I'm going back to go over some of the lessons of that school...

Thanks all for precious suggestions and it is an honor to speak with you because I use your digitalphisphones plugins...

[xh3rv]

xh3rv: In fact, until now I usually boosting treble because I think it is the only way but this may create other problems, for example: the snare shot when beat masking the guitar solo...

A nice thing with EQ-before-verb, it allows for some narrowly targeted, peaking boosts on e.g. the crispy part of a snare or some nearly ambient high frequencies on a guitar. The same can be done with EQ-after-verb but I think, the sort of spatial cues Sascha's excellent advice mentions get mangled a lot more this way. It's surprisingly different between EQ'ing verb input vs. verb output.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

what a great set of concise info/tips. thanks

[Turello]

@xh3rv: good idea (sure i'll try) but btw consider that the sending channel addict some db, just for example in rock music i usually don't go over 5 db peak on snare... could be become a problem not for ambiences\reverbs but for the mix, i hope you understand (Engl not my first language) what i wanna say

[Winstontaneous]

Sascha/mystran, those are some awesome observations. I just got NI's Reverb Classic RC24 and RC48, my first "big-boy" reverbs, and it's fun to explore the effect of pre-delay and EQ on top-flight algorithms.

I must recommend Andy Farnell's awesome book "Designing Sound"because it covers not only physics and DSP, but also psychoacoustic phenomena like the masking discussed above. Knowing how we process what we hear is critical to making sound do what you want.

[Turello]

Winstontaneous: thanks for the precious information... Maybe I'll buy when it comes out the Italian edition...