More efficient way to EQ reverb?

How to do this, that and the other. Share, learn, teach. How did X do that? How can I sound like Y?
TimeToProduce
KVRist
138 posts since 13 Feb, 2015

Post Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:55 am

Hello fellow producers!

So I am currently learning reverb - how to use it properly, techniques, etc.
One question comes to mind at the moment..

So I know only one way, on how to EQ reverb and that is (in Fruity Loops)..

- Taking synth, sample or whatever and adding it to mixer channel
- Send it trough another mixer channel
- add reverb (only wet) and then add external EQ afterwards.

But is there another way, more efficient way?
And yes, I know about build in lowcut and highcut knobs. but I want more control.

User avatar
MadDogE134
KVRist
149 posts since 26 Nov, 2007

Re: More efficient way to EQ reverb?

Post Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:34 am

many newer reverb plugs have filter option built in. personally i tend to EQ the reverb itself.. break off both ends and dip about 600Hz to remove a bit of the boxy tone then blend in to taste. but then again... i don't tend to use reverb as an effect as such... i use it to add a natural air or space to parts. cheers

MogwaiBoy
KVRAF
2921 posts since 26 Nov, 2015 from Way Downunder

Re: More efficient way to EQ reverb?

Post Tue Mar 27, 2018 6:00 pm

Yes there is an easier way and that's to use a reverb which has a built-in post-EQ on the wet signal.

Using both a 100% wet reverb and an EQ of your own chosing on an Aux send channel... gives you the same or more flexibility.

The most important thing I have learned about reverb is how to listen to it. Sounds stupidly simple but it was really something I had to develop - to close my eyes and imagine the space. It surprised me how few reverbs can be tweaked to actually psychoacoustically place an instrument in a realistic 3D environment.

That is unless ofcourse you're just going for a big washy modulated space thing!

What "more control" are you looking for?

TimeToProduce
KVRist
138 posts since 13 Feb, 2015

Re: More efficient way to EQ reverb?

Post Wed Mar 28, 2018 1:48 am

When I say more control, I mean boosting and decreasing some specific areas of a spectrum, whereas inbuilt highcut and lowcut allows you only do so little and is actually a filter when I think about it.

When you say inbuilt post-EQ on wet signal, which plugin are you referring to?

"Using both a 100% wet reverb and an EQ of your own chosing on an Aux send channel... gives you the same or more flexibility."

I don't really know what AUX send channel is - especially in Fuity Loops where it seems there are no send channels as far as know. I know that Ableton has sort of send channels, where there is reverb, delay, etc. Correct me if I'm wrong..

_al_
KVRist
324 posts since 28 Oct, 2014

Re: More efficient way to EQ reverb?

Post Wed Mar 28, 2018 3:48 am

FL has sends, but last time i checked, they were not as useful as creating your own.
what i do is reserve mixer tracks 80 to 90 for my sends, and route them all to a "send mix" track (80).
also, from what i remember, FL doesn't let you solo just the reverb on it's own, so i'll give you a workaround for that:

first, set up tracks 80 to 85 (or whatever numbers you like) to be your fx sends (couple with reverbs, couple delay etc). if you want to solo all verbs together, or want to process all verbs further in one channel, then send all your sends into track 80.

ok, now the tricky bit, which allows you to solo sends:

rename the master track to external (this is the immmovable track on the left).
rename track 1 to master
rename track 2 to mix

unroute these tracks, so they don't get routed to master anymore, and reroute like this:
mix into master, master into external.

now you need to route all your standard mixer tracks to mix (2), and all your sends to master(1)
the reason for this is that now, when you alt-left click the light on the reverb channel, it will solo the reverb, but will mute the dry sounds, because the dry sounds have the extra step of mix (2), which isn't included in the solo.

there is an easier way to set this up, by sending your sends to immovable master, and using track 1 as your extra step, but i gave you this way because it gives you an extra mixer channel at the end that you can use for analysis and comparisons. (my routing as actually a lot more complex than what i'm giving lol)

so track 2 for all standard audio
track 1 for audio with verbs etc (this is your new master channel where you put your mastering chain)
and the old master (external or whatever) you can fill with things like lp / hp filters for checking bass levels etc, and some analyser plugins (one for peak, one for rms), and things like that.

with this setup, you will also find you can route commercial reference files to external, and they won't get processed on the master chain


as for EQing reverbs, it depends how you're using them, as some people like to use the verbs to fill the boxy cheap sounding area (300 - 600), and sometimes you just want a nice stereo hissy woosh, but you should try and set up FL like i said and save as template, as it does save a lot of guesswork

User avatar
stardustmedia
KVRAF
1641 posts since 12 Dec, 2012 from Switzerland

Re: More efficient way to EQ reverb?

Post Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:13 am

What do you mean by more efficient way to EQ a reverb? To EQ a reverb you'll need an EQ. I cannot imagine how it can be "more efficient" than just loading an EQ after the reverb on a send.

You should definitely work with sends. Do not put a reverb (plus EQ) on each channel. I'd say, that if you'd need a different reverb differently EQd for too many tracks, you're doing something wrong.

I only put a single reverb on a channel, or create a single send for that one channel, if that reverb is a creative sound. For space in a mix I just use 2-3 reverb sends, that can be fed by all tracks.
Image stardustmedia - high end analog music services - murat

xabilon
KVRer
15 posts since 10 Sep, 2014

Re: More efficient way to EQ reverb?

Post Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:41 am

stardustmedia wrote:I cannot imagine how it can be "more efficient" than just loading an EQ after the reverb on a send.
Loading an EQ before the reverb on a send :D

User avatar
stardustmedia
KVRAF
1641 posts since 12 Dec, 2012 from Switzerland

Re: More efficient way to EQ reverb?

Post Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:53 am

xabilon wrote:
stardustmedia wrote:I cannot imagine how it can be "more efficient" than just loading an EQ after the reverb on a send.
Loading an EQ before the reverb on a send :D
You mean those 16 tracks will have 16 different sends to an aux each with a different EQ-setting, and those 16 EQ-aux have again 16 different sends to 16 different aux loaded with 16 different reverbs? :hihi:
Image stardustmedia - high end analog music services - murat

MogwaiBoy
KVRAF
2921 posts since 26 Nov, 2015 from Way Downunder

Re: More efficient way to EQ reverb?

Post Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:02 pm

TimeToProduce wrote: When you say inbuilt post-EQ on wet signal, which plugin are you referring to?
The one that springs to mind immediately is Fabfilter Pro-R. It even has a second EQ which acts as a frequency-dependent decay control. So you can for example instead of cutting low frequencies from the reverb, you could just shorten the decay of them so they don't build up too much energy. That provides quite serious flexibility especially for aux sends.

Kinh
KVRian
1158 posts since 26 Aug, 2012

Re: More efficient way to EQ reverb?

Post Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:58 am

I dont know'z how the eff fruity loops works butz in ableton you can group Z reverb, duplicate it, den turn off de wet for one and add eq or whateva on Z uva in Z group. Shiiiit it soundz kinda complikated but it aint'. I dontz know if ya can do dat shit in FL dough

hyperbits
KVRer
8 posts since 8 Jan, 2019

Re: More efficient way to EQ reverb?

Post Sun Jan 13, 2019 4:20 pm

Sounds like the method you have for using reverbs is already pretty good. If you want to take it to the next level, there’s 2 things I can recommend:

Don’t limit yourself just to EQ after a reverb. You can use other plugins to further process your reverb, making it sound better and more unique. I’ve used the Xfer OTT Compressor and Soundtoys’ Decapitator on my reverbs. Don’t be afraid to try new things on your reverbs, as long as you know WHY you’re trying them. Some subtle saturation or multiband compression can do great things for your reverb sounds.

I like how you focus on efficiency in your question. Being more effective and optimizing your workflow when producing should definitely be a priority. For reverbs, I definitely recommend trying out different reverbs on your productions and choosing one favorite reverb plugin and setting for each reverb type (room, plate, hall, spring, etc.). For example, whenever you come across a great sounding room reverb and use it in one of your tracks, save it as a preset so you can recall it more quickly next time. You can even use an EQ after the reverb to get rid of unnecessary low end, and have that be part of your “room reverb preset”.

Once you’ve done this for each reverb type, you can take it further and create a template in your DAW, with all your sends and reverbs already set up. You can do the same with delays. Now, everytime you start a new track, you’ll already have all your favorite reverbs and delays set up and ready to go! Using templates will save you minutes (if not hours) of precious producing time.

If you want to further improve your efficiency when producing, I definitely recommend checking out this post, which has a ton of tips for all things production related, including workflow, reverb, mindset, EQ and much more: https://hyperbitsmusic.com/103-music-production-tips/

Cheers!

moncholo
KVRer
6 posts since 14 Jan, 2019

Re: More efficient way to EQ reverb?

Post Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:58 am

I agree that you shouldn't limit yourself to just EQ after a reverb. I try all kinds of things on my reverb tracks.

I've used transient designers before the reverb to reduce the initial transients of whatever I'm feeding the reverb. I've found that many times, it's those initial transients which make the reverb sound very obvious, keeping it from working in a more subtle manner in the mix.

Also, a definite +1 on FabFilter Pro-R if you're looking for a reverb with great built-in EQ options. However, I think if you're going for efficiency, I'd definitely recommend saving your reverbs as presets once you find a sound that works for you. Finally, since we're on the subject of EQing reverbs, I definitely recommend you look up the Abbey road Reverb Trick. I'm sure you'll find it useful.

perfumer
KVRist
144 posts since 4 Oct, 2018

Re: More efficient way to EQ reverb?

Post Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:23 am

stardustmedia wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:53 am
xabilon wrote:
stardustmedia wrote:I cannot imagine how it can be "more efficient" than just loading an EQ after the reverb on a send.
Loading an EQ before the reverb on a send :D
You mean those 16 tracks will have 16 different sends to an aux each with a different EQ-setting, and those 16 EQ-aux have again 16 different sends to 16 different aux loaded with 16 different reverbs? :hihi:
Well, he can have several group channels with different eq settings, or also with gate, multiband or whatever, sending into one (or several) reverb channels. Group 1 for bass heavy type 1, group 2 for bass heavy type 2, group 3 for mids, etc. Or by instrument type, or by song section. Not necessarily 16 for 16. This would provide more fine-tunability, but of course one has to know what one's doing.

Ah_Dziz
KVRAF
2403 posts since 2 Jul, 2005

Re: More efficient way to EQ reverb?

Post Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:56 pm

I process the crap out of reverb on auxilary tracks. Heavy compression can do cool shit. Also a de eeser on the way into the reverb (or a dynamic EQ, pretty much the same thing) can stop certain frequencies from being excited in the reverb. Modulation effects on the front end of the verb can also add some variety if you don’t have access to a clean enough sounding reverb.
Don't F**K with Mr. Zero.

Return to “Production Techniques”