Replies

  • Good thread John and one that will yield many different answers. 

    I use VSLs' Mir Pro and MIRacle but sometimes also use an outboard TC m3000. MirPro is very good at spatial placement and does a good job of placing the same instruments by different companies in the same place. Because of this, it tends to become the reverb in common for all samples sets, but not necessarily the dominant one across the whole orchestra.

    I know you have SFA sounds, me too and in order not to loose the AIR studio sound (of which I am very fond, having worked there!), I tend to just feed a little of the samples into MIRpro to help with unifying, but not so much as to obliterate the AIR sound - I do retain SFAs' seating arrangement when placing in Mir.  I have found that a little feed of MirPro does not harm the beauty of SFA's samples as long as it is done with discretion.

    With other sample sets, I have found it necessary to bus them to MirPro and turn the dry sound completely down in order to create the illusion of depth as some have been recorded with closer micing than would be done in an orchestral setting.

    Once groundwork like this is done, I then add a 2nd reverb as another glue in a subtle manner, across some sections and have sometimes added a 3rd overall reverb too.

    You are no doubt aware of some who use different settings of the same reverb for each section of the orchestra, this is something I have not tried yet because I get a satisfactory sound with the way I use my reverbs, but it looks worth exploring and a lot of people seem to be doing this as even more control can be had on the room and how it responds.

    Using multiple sound sets together, recorded in different ways requires the need for more trickery than one reverb can provide  in order to achieve a sense of homogeneity in a mix imo - at the very least, several instantiations of the same reverb should be used as mentioned above as the theory behind it makes sense when considering how early reflections and tail length can alter in the placement field.

    As to justification, well for me I am going for realism and absolute music, rather than media these days and so, if it sounds convincing to my ears, then any modus operandi is justified. At the end of the day, my ears are the arbiter, but at one time, the dictates of the small and sometimes big screen dictated a different approach.

    I know we have recently touched on this, especially using reverb creatively. Here is  an example of a real world approach to creative reverb use. In my score for Father Christmas, at one point he finds himself in a French restaurant with a string trio playing in the background. I wrote the trio music and it was used in the film as digetic music. As he gets more and more drunk, I wrote orchestral music to be superimposed onto the trio music as obviously non-digetic (score). This was recorded separately and mixed on top in post production. The trio, being digetic was fairly dry, however the drunken orchestral music was bathed in excessive reverb to induce a drunken musical fog. It was easy to get a good differentiation between the two musics because of the different sounds and it worked well enough.

    Sorry, rambled on too long, so let us hope others chime in. Ray could make a good contribution here I bet...

  • Since reverb by definition is the reflection of sound waves, what happens when an acoustic instrument or group plays out doors?  Without an enclosure the reflections are either minimal or nonexistent and in my experience the sound outdoors is quite different. 

    So do outdoor concerts sound bad?  I don't think so, I think reverb is really just a form of distortion. Distortion is defined as any alteration to the original condition of a sound.  Distortion can be pleasant or unpleasant of course. I think we've just become conditioned to expect at least some reverb and people use it to conceal other problems, why not just turn it down?

  • "Do you apply the same reverb across all your music? Across all your orchestral music? If not, what justifies your choice?"

    Absolutely not- you should look at your reverb choices to reflect the type of room, or if you're going beyond room, 'atmosphere' you're trying to re-create. In the sense of orchestral music, or when you're trying to make the recording sound as if performed live in a real setting, I go for trying to re-create the type of room I feel the piece would sound best in. This ranges from reverbs that mimic concert halls, wooden rooms, living rooms, bathrooms, warehouses, etc- it all depends on what you as the artist feel best fits the piece. 

    Now of course, you can break the boundaries of 'realism' and go for more un-realistic sounding reverbs. Atmospheric and decay that exceed what you'd find naturally. 

  • Thanks for policing my posts, Ray.  I didn't realize there was a specified timeframe for acknowledging each response to an open-ended question intended to serve the group.  Funny there's a rule about that and not a rule about being obnoxious...

    Ray Kemp said:

    David,

    I wouldn’t bother about giving an opinion directed at the op. He’s had a week now to acknowledge those already posted but hasn’t bothered. Me and John have history but that doesn’t excuse him not replying to others.

    Ray

  • Thanks, Mike.  Definitely agree re: the need to play around when trying to mix different libraries and the creative potential for use of reverb.  Based on our conversations (and some other stuff I've been working on recently), I've modified my workflow.  I standardly set Spitfire now to a mix of tree and close mics but am now bouncing the MIDI output to sound files before adding any reverb (and to allow me to do additional mixing tweaks).  So, I am still using Finale linked to Cubase as the drafting tools, but adding an additional level of fine-tuning solely within the DAW...

    Mike Hewer said:

    Good thread John and one that will yield many different answers. 

    I use VSLs' Mir Pro and MIRacle but sometimes also use an outboard TC m3000. MirPro is very good at spatial placement and does a good job of placing the same instruments by different companies in the same place. Because of this, it tends to become the reverb in common for all samples sets, but not necessarily the dominant one across the whole orchestra.

    I know you have SFA sounds, me too and in order not to loose the AIR studio sound (of which I am very fond, having worked there!), I tend to just feed a little of the samples into MIRpro to help with unifying, but not so much as to obliterate the AIR sound - I do retain SFAs' seating arrangement when placing in Mir.  I have found that a little feed of MirPro does not harm the beauty of SFA's samples as long as it is done with discretion.

    With other sample sets, I have found it necessary to bus them to MirPro and turn the dry sound completely down in order to create the illusion of depth as some have been recorded with closer micing than would be done in an orchestral setting.

    Once groundwork like this is done, I then add a 2nd reverb as another glue in a subtle manner, across some sections and have sometimes added a 3rd overall reverb too.

    You are no doubt aware of some who use different settings of the same reverb for each section of the orchestra, this is something I have not tried yet because I get a satisfactory sound with the way I use my reverbs, but it looks worth exploring and a lot of people seem to be doing this as even more control can be had on the room and how it responds.

    Using multiple sound sets together, recorded in different ways requires the need for more trickery than one reverb can provide  in order to achieve a sense of homogeneity in a mix imo - at the very least, several instantiations of the same reverb should be used as mentioned above as the theory behind it makes sense when considering how early reflections and tail length can alter in the placement field.

    As to justification, well for me I am going for realism and absolute music, rather than media these days and so, if it sounds convincing to my ears, then any modus operandi is justified. At the end of the day, my ears are the arbiter, but at one time, the dictates of the small and sometimes big screen dictated a different approach.

    I know we have recently touched on this, especially using reverb creatively. Here is  an example of a real world approach to creative reverb use. In my score for Father Christmas, at one point he finds himself in a French restaurant with a string trio playing in the background. I wrote the trio music and it was used in the film as digetic music. As he gets more and more drunk, I wrote orchestral music to be superimposed onto the trio music as obviously non-digetic (score). This was recorded separately and mixed on top in post production. The trio, being digetic was fairly dry, however the drunken orchestral music was bathed in excessive reverb to induce a drunken musical fog. It was easy to get a good differentiation between the two musics because of the different sounds and it worked well enough.

    Sorry, rambled on too long, so let us hope others chime in. Ray could make a good contribution here I bet...

  • Do you have QL Spaces set as an insert or a send?  My understanding is best practice is as a send (all wet, no dry), which at a minimum would let you tweak specific levels for each instrument family.  Depending on the piece, I find I might tweak the amount of reverb for the string section vs. winds/brass, etc.

    Dave Dexter said:

    I use QL Spaces as a single reverb (I think the San Francisco hall) in the master channel and have all my samples set dry. I've tried using different reverbs to create virtual distance and depth in sections - it never sounds as good to my ears, though I'm no expert on it. Direction/virtual space placement is handled by Logic's direction mixer plugin.

    My increasing lack of interest in midi means I'm unlikely to be changing or refining my approach - so far it's served well enough in mockups and some pro work. Earlier, before I wrote with traditional (read: proper) instrumentation and orchestration, I used QL Space far more heavily because it blurs mixing issues and weaknesses. It's hard not to feel a bit of a cheat when adding reverb to my orchestral mockups makes them sound so much better, but then a completely dry orchestra - were it possible - would likewise sound much worse than one in a great space.

  • Hi David, I was primarily wondering if folks have a *default* go-to orchestral reverb setup.  Agree it should be tweaked based on the project and instrumentation

    David Lilly said:

    "Do you apply the same reverb across all your music? Across all your orchestral music? If not, what justifies your choice?"

    Absolutely not- you should look at your reverb choices to reflect the type of room, or if you're going beyond room, 'atmosphere' you're trying to re-create. In the sense of orchestral music, or when you're trying to make the recording sound as if performed live in a real setting, I go for trying to re-create the type of room I feel the piece would sound best in. This ranges from reverbs that mimic concert halls, wooden rooms, living rooms, bathrooms, warehouses, etc- it all depends on what you as the artist feel best fits the piece. 

    Now of course, you can break the boundaries of 'realism' and go for more un-realistic sounding reverbs. Atmospheric and decay that exceed what you'd find naturally. 

  • I've been to lots of terrible sounding outdoor concerts, but I think that is often because the players have trouble hearing each other in those setups and because of the lack of reverberation, the audience primarily hears the players that are closest to them.

    Ingo Lee said:

    Since reverb by definition is the reflection of sound waves, what happens when an acoustic instrument or group plays out doors?  Without an enclosure the reflections are either minimal or nonexistent and in my experience the sound outdoors is quite different. 

    So do outdoor concerts sound bad?  I don't think so, I think reverb is really just a form of distortion. Distortion is defined as any alteration to the original condition of a sound.  Distortion can be pleasant or unpleasant of course. I think we've just become conditioned to expect at least some reverb and people use it to conceal other problems, why not just turn it down?

  • Yeah, load Spaces on an FX Track and Send your other tracks to it.  In Spaces FX track, you set the Dry signal all the way down (-120 db) and Wet all the way up (0db), so all that is coming out is the reverb.  You control the amount of reverb on each track by how much of it you "send" to the FX track.  I believe this is the preferred way to set up reverb (gives you more control and is much less processor-intensive)

  • Hey John,

    Don't forget to try the ambient mics too with SFA. In fact as I write I am using a combo of close and ambient (2/3rds ambient and close is full on) and ignoring the tree. This gives a slightly less in your face sound and is quite nice, although I do have a glue over it too!

    Are you aware of Proximity, this free plug-in is very useful to sink instruments further back in the stereo field...

    http://www.tokyodawn.net/proximity/

    You might find it useful when mixing SFA with other vsts'.

    mikehewer.com

This reply was deleted.