KVR Audio

Music Engineer · Post by **Music Engineer** » Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:04 pm

EQ before or after the reverb? makes absolutely no difference when both are linear and time-invariant systems (which is a reasonable assumption in most cases)

D.Wako · Post by **D.Wako** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:26 pm

mike goodwin wrote:I bet he is talking about HiFi Boom's rspv-01. It is very nice. It has quickly become one of my fave reverbs. I own CSR as well as Wizoo. It just has a nice quality to it. Transparent it is not though. Not in the slightest.

http://www.hifiboom.6x.to/

Is rspv-01 a vst plugin or is it audio? I cant find the DLL in there?

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:33 pm

poonna wrote:CSR and AAR seem to be good at dense reverb sounds to my ears, while VariVerb Pro seems better at subtle, transparent reverb. Now VariVerb Pro is a bit expensive and not quite stable yet. Do you know of any alternatives that would give similar characters but cheap or free?

Nebula2 at 20$ would be a pretty good start. Heavy on CPU and RAM usage though. Some of the presets in the library can be pretty transparent.

Cheers!
bManic

ozmoz2008 · Post by **ozmoz2008** » Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:50 pm

napalmbob wrote:OT a bit: does it matter if the EQ is before or after the reverb? I've always used one after, to EQ the tail. But has anyone noticed a distinct, musical difference with it EQing the material before the reverb?

Yes it does! reverb react to sources...change the source...you change the reverb

Reverb should be in your last plugins processes in a channel chain...normally...but then again there is some exceptions

To the OP:
Transparency could also mean less dense...less cloggy...so it's good also to tweak some knobs on the reverb...I know that CSR reverbs can be adjusted to fit most tastes ...you should try to work with it a little more maybe IMO

I also like Fusion Field and some weird stuff on RaySpace

sounddesigner · Post by **sounddesigner** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:08 am

mike goodwin wrote:I bet he is talking about HiFi Boom's rspv-01. It is very nice. It has quickly become one of my fave reverbs. I own CSR as well as Wizoo. It just has a nice quality to it. Transparent it is not though. Not in the slightest.

http://www.hifiboom.6x.to/

He could be. It's one of the few SCOPE reverbs that are free that i'm aware of. But i could be sleeping on others cause i never searched hard. I agree with you that rspv is not transparent, tho it does seem to have some sense of space and some depth iirc, its been awhile.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:22 am

Ah also try the free "Tila" reverb. You'll have to do a search of the forums here on KvR though. This one is really nice and can be transparent.

Cheers!
bManic

tattiemannie · Post by **tattiemannie** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:12 am

Robin from www.rs-met.com wrote

EQ before or after the reverb? makes absolutely no difference when both are linear and time-invariant systems (which is a reasonable assumption in most cases)

.... yes, but only if reverb is the only effect in the chain.

mystran · Post by **mystran** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:29 am

bmanic wrote:Ah also try the free "Tila" reverb. You'll have to do a search of the forums here on KvR though. This one is really nice and can be transparent.

Cheers!
bManic

Nah, I'll save the trouble and reply to this post so people can search my signature instead.

spinedoc · Post by **spinedoc** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 5:38 am

s4w2th wrote:Make sure not to use early reflections and EQ the send as said before. I've had good results with focusrite safire reverb, not exactly free though. But it is extremely clean.

To me the ER without the tail are what make the verb sound transpatent, just imparting the sense of no being dry but no long drawn out reverb sound. So the ER is what you may just want to focus on. You can do this with some plugs by lowering the time, like a short plate. Think ambience verses reverb.

Music Engineer · Post by **Music Engineer** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:15 am

tattiemannie wrote:Robin from www.rs-met.com wrote

EQ before or after the reverb? makes absolutely no difference when both are linear and time-invariant systems (which is a reasonable assumption in most cases)
.... yes, but only if reverb is the only effect in the chain.

we were specifically talking about reverb->EQ vs. EQ->reverb here, i think. and that is indeed equivalent - this is a mathematically proven fact (associativity of convolution)

ozmoz2008 · Post by **ozmoz2008** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:29 am

[quote="Robin from www.rs-met.com]
.... yes, but only if reverb is the only effect in the chain.[/quote]
we were specifically talking about reverb->EQ vs. EQ->reverb here, i think. and that is indeed equivalent - this is a mathematically proven fact (associativity of convolution)[/quote]

Interesting...from what we've experience in the studio is that when you let bad frequency pass through the reverb it seems to be enhanced by it...longer tails...I can it's not in your mathematical scheme? Please explain.

Also often the reverb have it's own stereo(or more)tracks and the dry signal is also having it's own tracks...

So it's easy to have some hi pass or low pass on the reverb to control it's behaviour and still have the hi or low with the dry signal, so if you follow this procedure I really do get how come it is supposed to be the same before or after...it is not what we've experience?

Thanx for your explaining your point...I'm really interested to hear more.

Music Engineer · Post by **Music Engineer** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:59 am

ozmoz2008 wrote:Interesting...from what we've experience in the studio is that when you let bad frequency pass through the reverb it seems to be enhanced by it...longer tails...I can it's not in your mathematical scheme? Please explain.

i don't see a contradiction here. sure, if you let 'bad frequencies' pass into the reverb, they will be lengthened by the tails. if you filter them out before, they wont. but you may equally as well filter them out afterwards

So it's easy to have some hi pass or low pass on the reverb to control it's behaviour and still have the hi or low with the dry signal, so if you follow this procedure I really do get how come it is supposed to be the same before or after...it is not what we've experience?

well, i didn't say that filtering the dry signal is the same as filtering (or EQing) the reverb channel.

signal-------------------------->
........|
........---EQ -> reverb--------->

is the same as:

signal-------------------------->
........|
........----------reverb->EQ---->

but different from:

signal---EQ--------------------->
................|
................--reverb-------->

..please forgive this incredibly poor ASCII art

poonna · Post by **poonna** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:47 am

I guess, that the order of EQ and reverb doesn't matter, perhaps is true only for convolution reverb where there's no modulation going on. Otherwise it should have some differences.

ozmoz2008 · Post by **ozmoz2008** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:48 am

Robin from www.rs-met.com wrote:
ozmoz2008 wrote:Interesting...from what we've experience in the studio is that when you let bad frequency pass through the reverb it seems to be enhanced by it...longer tails...I can it's not in your mathematical scheme? Please explain.
i don't see a contradiction here. sure, if you let 'bad frequencies' pass into the reverb, they will be lengthened by the tails. if you filter them out before, they wont. but you may equally as well filter them out afterwards

So it's easy to have some hi pass or low pass on the reverb to control it's behaviour and still have the hi or low with the dry signal, so if you follow this procedure I really do get how come it is supposed to be the same before or after...it is not what we've experience?
well, i didn't say that filtering the dry signal is the same as filtering (or EQing) the reverb channel.

signal-------------------------->
........|
........---EQ -> reverb--------->

is the same as:

signal-------------------------->
........|
........----------reverb->EQ---->

but different from:

signal---EQ--------------------->
................|
................--reverb-------->

..please forgive this incredibly poor ASCII art

Thanx for your post.

I get your point, it is when you have both wet and dry signal on the same channel in insert...since there is only one eq applied to the signal.

Another thing to experiment then!

Music Engineer · Post by **Music Engineer** » Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:55 am

ozmoz2008 wrote:I get your point, it is when you have both wet and dry signal on the same channel in insert...since there is only one eq applied to the signal.

Another thing to experiment then!

like

signal->EQ->reverb->

vs.

signal->reverb->EQ->

this is the simplest case and here it also should not make any difference. if it does, then it means that the reverb and/or EQ are not linear time invariant (LTI) systems. which might be the case. but being a pedantic purist (at times), i think they actually should be LTI

Transparent reverb?