Reverb avoidance and mono reverbs

[chagzuki]

I tend to use 5 or 6 reverbs (all Exponential, bought in the sales last year - Valhalla before that) of different lengths but similar sizes, if you know what I mean, using a vca fader to control the overall level. I set it to "just right!" then lower it a couple of dbs.

Is Pheonixverb worth picking up for a few quid? I'm not sure how the algorithm differs from R4 other than that people describe it more naturalistic. However, it may be the case that Nimbus goes on sale in the near future.

[mholloway]

Cheers, I'll have a look at those. I'm sure you're right for the majority of use-cases; the standard for reverb plugins is now so high across the board. However, I'm doing stuff with unusually dense arrangements and that openness, that 'air', is crucial to avoid losing the outlines of the parts.
Most of the reverbs I've tried do perfectly well at being smooth, fluid, glassy, etc., but not so much 'airy'.
Sonible Smart Reverb for instance, totally pristine, pure sound, but glass-like and kind of dead. UVI Sparkverb: more airy, but kinda like clouds. R4, kinda thick but er, spacious. Chromaverb, however, you can take all the body out of it but the volume and tone seems to stay the same, and it's almost like it's not there.

btw, I said those two Valhalla plugins have Density knobs, but actually they don't -- however, the diffusion knobs on both are playing the same role, nonetheless.

[Old Nick]

I tend to use 5 or 6 reverbs (all Exponential, bought in the sales last year - Valhalla before that) of different lengths but similar sizes, if you know what I mean, using a vca fader to control the overall level. I set it to "just right!" then lower it a couple of dbs.

Is Pheonixverb worth picking up for a few quid? I'm not sure how the algorithm differs from R4 other than that people describe it more naturalistic. However, it may be the case that Nimbus goes on sale in the near future.

I got it for £10, at that price I would say yes. R4 can be clean, if you turn off all the "dirtifiers". To be honest, it's the one I use the most (R4, that is).

[MC-909]

I use Valhalla a lot and I never encounter any issues. Don’t know about the mono part specifically though. I already duck the verb send with a compressor triggered by the input of the signal itself, maintains some clarity that way. Good luck!

[Skyfall72]

Let’s keep the train running

First of all a hard fact, reverb software has come a long way and it has gotten better and better but.. there are only a less than handful that even come close to the hardware counterpart. I have invested in all high end reverb software such as Altiverb, lexicon, cinematic rooms, 2C audio! Melda and more but I always feel that something is still not sitting right in the mix.
You can only push so much and yet the feeling is still lacking that 10 to 20% of that record ready sound-if that what you are after. There is a reason why the hardware is expensive because they just give that clarity,focus and depth without muddiness. So there I said it.

In software I found using a reduced stereo or mono keeps the clarity and also avoid the phase issues and most of the time you would want just the ER to carve a space around the instrument then another separate reverb and or delay just for the tail when it’s needed ( automation)
You also must likely to EQ your ER and Tail to fit.
A little goes a long way or make ‘em part of your sound

[MogwaiBoy]

I like to use mono reverb to simulate extreme depth/distance. Sounds cool, like it's down the end of a tunnel. Good for contrast/separation.

[Rastkovic]

So whilst I experiment with that I'm curious to hear other people's approaches: does anyone here really use mono reverbs, and does anyone here find reverbs in general to create problems of clarity in mixes?

I put an EQ in M/S mode behind the Reverb, I cut everything below 250hz in the side channel. When I use Reverb on bass, I made a lowcut at 250hz with a standard EQ on the Reverb.

So, no problems with clarity in mixes here.