Some reverbs in real life are crap

[lunik]

My bedroom does not have anything on the walls and is bit naked... it also has a terrible metallic grainy reverb as sound just ping pongs around. Its not even interesting like under a bridge or in a rocky grotto...its just bad. If a vst did this, we'd all think 'yuk'.

This is a curious issue...a 'bad' reverb vst.... if it simulates a bad space accurately, is it really bad? And can you simulate a bad space badly? Presumably. But it might sound good.

[BertKoor]

No, it would sound bad like a toilet, not like a reverb.

Voxengo has an IR generator in which you can draw your own room.

[brok landers]

My bedroom does not have anything on the walls and is bit naked... it also has a terrible metallic grainy reverb as sound just ping pongs around. Its not even interesting like under a bridge or in a rocky grotto...its just bad. If a vst did this, we'd all think 'yuk'.

This is a curious issue...a 'bad' reverb vst.... if it simulates a bad space accurately, is it really bad? And can you simulate a bad space badly? Presumably. But it might sound good.

perfectly said ... i allways stated that a reverb has to do a specific job on the given task ...
that mostly has not much to do with a realistic reverb, but with what we describe as an impression of how we think a real reverb would sound ...
also the situations in which we use reverb are mostly unnatural, exept i.e. in postpro/film soundediting ...
mostly a reverb in nature is recognised by a human beeing when it stands alone, or at least the reverb has a lot of space (in time and frequency) to impress ... where in most musical productions is that the case?
so, in a mix it depends on the "function" that the reverb can provide ...
i i.e. allways thought that the free silverspike roomsimulator sounds like crap when trying it out seperateley ... but i was surprised when i used in a mix ...
so to me, as a reverb has to provide solutions for a variety of tasks, the artsacoustic reverb is the goal ... it allways does what i need to my mix, i extremely rarely failed with this choice ...
also the csr seems to compliment the character of the artsacoustic reverb ... it's just a no-go for me, as it uses a dongle ...

[Kiwburger]

Yeah - very few real spaces sound good. But they always sound real. A bad digital reverb just sounds bad. I never forget showing somebody my recording rig about 16 years ago when I owned a couple of Boss SE50's. I was demonstrating a mix with a lot of reverb, and a sax player friend to me asked "what's all that white noise stuff?". To his ears, as a non-technical musician, he didn't recognise this digital reverb as reverb. I was shocked - but then realised how right he was.

If we listen to too much digital reverb, we start thinking it's real - but we aren't fooling anyone. I also recall hearing a recording a friend made with a videocamera - just people speaking on a tour - and I was stunned at the real, luscious reverb. It turned out to be a natural rock cave. Apparantly people have recorded choirs and stuff in that cave, because it sounds so good. So yeah, it goes both ways. I'd rather have real than fake, where possible.

[lunik]

I suppose a lot of the demand for reverbs grew out of close miking instruments, including vocals?

I close miced drum kits sounds very different than recording the same kit in a room with overheads.

I like dry drums....but they sound very different than they do in real life in a room with someone hitting them.

Most mixes and productions today seem to be complete 'simulacra'

It would be interesting exercice with a live band project to mic everthing with a high quality stereo pair and work on getting excellent sound and balance in the room...not in the DAW. I suspect many today would be scared and disturbed by working in such a brutally honest and hifidelity way. I know I would
"what, I have to play the bass line perfectly in one take, and if I screw up, we have to start over????"


I seem to remember reading that Can's early albums (including the wonderful Future Days) were recorded in a similar way to this way (though I detect some overdubs of fx)...but at least all the instrumentation was just straight down to 2 track - (maybe they were running several mics?)

[Lagrange]

IR and convolution can reproduce any reverb ambient space out there.

[ericj23]

IR and convolution can reproduce any reverb ambient space out there.

alas a bit of a myth - IR's are static - reverbs in rooms are not

PS i think steve albini largely works with room mikes - a certain amount of close miking drums but thats about it

[martian]

in use theres no such thing as a bad reverb, or bad effect for that matter, jus a bad engineer. considering emulation theres bad everything. for me as an engineer correct usage is all thats of concern, see everything for what it is not what it isnt.

[Jason Brian Merrill]

Ratshack reverb.

[Lagrange]

IR and convolution can reproduce any reverb ambient space out there.

alas a bit of a myth - IR's are static - reverbs in rooms are not

PS i think steve albini largely works with room mikes - a certain amount of close miking drums but thats about it

Workaorund: use multiple instances/impulses to create different reverbs..

[emdot_ambient]

...a 'bad' reverb vst.... if it simulates a bad space accurately, is it really bad? And can you simulate a bad space badly? Presumably. But it might sound good.

We ponder.

[lunik]

This gets back to the very simple question "when and how to use reverb".

There seems to be no right answer. Outside of the purist high fidelity approach (which is to as accurately as possible reproduce what a listener in a certain room position actually hears)....it rapidly gets into subjective art/craft.

Theres a such a range of mixing styles and approaches that I've found it very useful to have a clear idea of what emotional impact I am trying to achieve, how much density I want, how wide I want it and how dynamic: then work backwards from there.

A typically decent freebie verb with about 1.0 -2.0 seconds tail is perfectly effective for me for getting background treatments /instruments placed backwards in the mix, or to create more otherworldly passages. I don;t why people we use cathedral verbs and other great big tails in avant-rock/jazz sort of music as they've always seemed way over the top to me.

Now I'm mixing vocals the demands on a verb seem much higher - in fact the demands on EVERYTHING seem much higher with vocals.

On playback... the track will interact with the room of the listener. This doesn't seem to get mentioned much.

Thus a mix with dry drums and electric bass, played back in a disco or a club.... presumably would sound more like there was an actual band there than if those instruments had already been placed in a room via verb previously, thus doubling the actual reverberation.

Then there is the use of reverb/delay to simulate altered states of conciousness (think dub reggage) which is a quite peculiar situation... using an adjusted simulation of real spaces in an audio recording to provoke or enhance
an internal sensation of spaciness that is not directly attributable to any actual physical location.

Do many states of conciouness have a parrallel with or relationship to an acoustic space, real or simulated? (religious spaces are often carefully designed)

So even if mixing is often really just a fabrication...what the mixer is trying to do is create an internal space within the listener with the intention of a paticular 'vibe', 'feel' or emotion.

in use theres no such thing as a bad reverb, or bad effect for that matter, jus a bad engineer. considering emulation theres bad everything. for me as an engineer correct usage is all thats of concern, see everything for what it is not what it isnt.

[yemski]

Acoustic spaces have always been used to enhance musical performance, the most obvious example is Cathredrals and Church music. But we can go further back than this even. Sites of archaeological interest, where religious rites were performed, such as Lascaux in France (site of the famous cave paintings, 40,000? Bce) seem to have been chosen as much for their acoustic properties as much as anything else.

The reference to Dub Reggae is particularly interesting here. Possibly it's use of time based effects to create changes in consciousness, relates to some sort of need to relate to the numinous through sound.

On a more technical note, my personal preference is to record in as neutral a room as possible, and add reverb later to give cohesion to the seperately recorded instruments in the mix. I find this method more flexible.

A combination of IR and more conventional verbs works well for me. I also use Reverb a lot as a "special" effect rather than just a spatial effect. Infact at the moment I'm working on a set of "weird" Ir's in the style of spectral relativity, etc, for commercial release. I will be posting some free sets here soon. Any feedback would be welcome.

[lunik]

Yes..theres an old (iron age?)ceremonial cave or space somewhere in Uk or Europe...its on the net but sadly I forget details.......anyway, it was recently discovered there is a specific resonance in the space of about 7hz or something in the subsonic range which is known to cause a range of pschological effects (ie alter conciousness).

The builders of the space were no slouches when it came to acoustic physics and acoustic psychology.

Upon briefly experimenting with certain substances, I was stuck by how similar the derangement of thought/mind matched the echoing sound used in dub. I actually found it very unpleasant, though listening to dub I do not.

Coil released a CD called Time Machines which supposedly is supposed to accurately create sonically 4 different types of mind-altering chemical. Its created with pretty standard analogue synths, and I find it being one of the best coil releases I've heard... though many hate it. Its definitely rather peculiar.
I have no idea wether its affect on the listener is in anyway similar to the chemicals they take their name from.

Music also seems to affect timne... different music seems to affect the perception of time. Just slowing a tempo or dropping the drums...suddenly 2 minutes does not seem very long.

Whenever I play my demos or track to a friend...they always seem to go on A LOT longer than when I am by myself listening to them and I regularly think to myself "lord...I need to shorten this!". Possibly this is down the mild anxiety/excitement of presenting a creation to someone for the first time.

Acoustic spaces have always been used to enhance musical performance, the most obvious example is Cathredrals and Church music. But we can go further back than this even, sites of archaeological interest, where religious rites were performed, such as Lascaux in France (site of the famous cave paintings, 40,000? Bce) seem to have chosen as much for their acoustic properties as much as anything else.

The reference to Dub Reggae is particularly interesting here. Possibly it's use of time based effects to create changes in consciousness, relates to some sort of need to relate to the numinous through sound.

On a more technical note, my personal preference is to record in as neutral a room as possible, and add reverb later to give cohesion to the seperately recorded instruments in the mix. I find this method more flexible.

A combination of IR and more conventional verbs works well for me. I also use Reverb a lot as a "special" effect rather than just a spatial effect. Infact at the moment I'm working on a set of "weird" Ir's in the style of spectral relativity, etc, for commercial release. I will be posting some free sets here soon. Any feedback would be welcome.

[AdmiralQuality]

I used to work as a summer job in a Popsicle factory. There were these giant, cylindrical, stainless steel popsicle juice holding tanks. (I forget the volume, but they'd be maybe 10 foot diameter and 20 to 30 feet deep. No hard edges inside. Cylinder with somewhat flattened hemispherical caps.)

For fun, when nobody was around, I'd stick my head in them and sing and whistle. The reverb was INCREDIBLE! Thick, CREAMY... you couldn't make out any discreet echoes at all... it just sounded like the components of your voice were sustaining. It didn't really sound like reverb. Its hard to describe, you just have to try it.

Did the same thing on a brewery tour once too. Big empty vat... sounded amazing. I wanted to bring recordings, play them into it, and record the sound, to use as an effects chamber. You could lower a small speaker on a wire to get it all the way to the bottom, then mic at the top, and you'd get an almost perfectly wet signal.

If anybody is into collecting impulse responses... you might want to try one of these! Or like I said... take a portable DAW to one and use it as a chamber on your effects send mix, then bring that recording back and insert it into your song.