Reverb routing

[MarkkraM]

Dear all,

I'm still struggling in placing my instruments in right depth/room and still maintain a good and solid stereo image of the total orchestra. I read a dozen of posts around the internet, including the VSL forum. My results are getting better, but still not there yet. As all posts are pretty much text based I decided to make a drawing of my current routing. First so I might be able to help others struggling with the 'reverb' part and second, to see if anyone has any suggestions based on my routing.

The drawing:
http://pbrd.co/1kGhyIp

My current setup is:
Logic Pro
VS Ensemble Pro
QL Spaces for reverb
I use various vienna instruments but main focus would be appasionata strings for now.
(I know that VS suite would be a solution but it's not in the budget a.t.m.)

My ideas and strategie upon my current way of working
- Of course all bus sends are pre fade so my first parameter of placing is created.
- As you can see every aux (which is almost every instrument track in logic) has the option of choosing 3 reverbs for placing in room (mic setup (all preface)). (all channels drive me nuts sometimes ;-). I pick short delays for this one.
- In the end all aux tracks go to another aux track (single one before master) where you find another pre fade send to a final 'tail' verb for blending the orchestra.

Questions:
- Any thoughts about the basic setup
- Should i do anything more with the Reverb channels (Eq etc.? )
- What can i do to improve results, what am i missing?
- Some tips and tricks maybe (heard something about dropping eq at certain frequencies).

Well, looking forward to your replies, thnx in advance!

Gr, Mark


EDIT: Typo in drawing, three depths in drawing are: 1, 3 and 3... Of course this should be 1, 2 and 3.

[Beat Kaufmann]

Hi Mark and welcome in the family here!

BTW I had my first post in 2003. I have no more hairs in the meantime - but not because of the VSL products...

Studying your routing plan I have a question:

How are you able to route all the instruments through AUX1 and then the violins "through" Depth1 and in the mean time the percussion instruments "through" depth3?

Who told you to do it the way you have it.

One routing plan can be:

Collect all the instruments which are playing in a certain depth in a BUS- or GROUP-Channel. Route the output of this sum through the corresponding depth (another group-/bus-channel which contains the depth effect)

It can lead to this wiring system (see first page) Sorry, I don't want advertising my presets but I can't show it in a better way than this one.

Important: Pan the instruments from left to right by running them through their corresponding depths.

The meaning is that you define 2-4 different highquality depths. Giving real different depths just by more or less "send signal" isn't the way in case of building a whole

Orchestra.

Just for fun a video with different depths and samples of VSL (done with my upper routing plan):

Hope this gives you another approach

I wish you a lot of sucess

Beat

[MarkkraM]

Hi Beat, Thnx for your reply! I see my drawing did not explain my setup good enough. Thing is, i do this for every instrument track. For example: - Violins -> aux1 (which has 3 busses to choose whichever depth is needed) -> goes to aux 63 which has send for final verb tail - Violas -> aux 2 (etc) -> etc - Clarinet -> aux 3 ... etc - trumpet -> aux 4.... you get the picture The drawing is the explanation for only one channel, as the process wil be repeated on every instrument If I am right, in your setup you do actually the same thing, except, you route all strings to 1 aux, all brass, all wood etc. And in my setup im doing this for every instrument track (except different articulations for same instr). This does lead to a tremendous amount of aux channels though... As far as i can see: pros: i can access and control all reverbs for every single instrument. eg. When choosing a trumpet for solo, i can put it in foreground while rest of brass keep their place (just can do what i want, violins in the back, basses up front whatever :D) cons: lots of individual aux channels. Building the template costs lot of work. Maybe a bit overdone? Another handy thing in this is that the routing is done in the logic Pro part. So, my VEP setup can remain the same. As every instrument has 3 busses (3 depths) on his own aux, i can play with the different depths in all the logic projects. Thnx for your help! Gr, Mark (P.S. .. Vienna Suite installed :D )

[Dietz]

 Hi Mark,

while it is actually a good idea to have individual reverb settings for each and every instrument on a stage, your approach is indeed a bit unusual. In your scenario you would be better off by using a dedicated reverb plug-in as insert for each and every channel. That way you would eliminate the need of all the AUX-sends.

The downside is that this setup will still be taxing your CPU quite a lot. On the top of it, controlling all those parameters will be a tedious task. That's the reason why most people stick to three or four AUX-sends and try to emulate "depth" with different patterns of early reflections.

That said, your ideal mixing environment would be MIR Pro :-) ... as a matter of fact, MIR Pro relies on individual, multi-positional and multi-directional impulse responses for every signal source you put into it, while presenting the myriad of necessary parameters for all instances in one (!) inviting, self-explanatory interface.

Kind regards,

[MarkkraM]

Hi Dietz, 

Thanks for your reply! There are indeed a few reasons i wouldn't put a reverb on every single instrument channel.

- CPU killer :-)

- The way i work now, the way you can control the relative reverb mix is quite nice. In logic in left boton i see my instument fader and right beside it the aux fader with the tree depths i can control with sends. By lowering the aux fader i can place the instrument further away in depth too. 

- I think that using a single reverb on each track (60+ sometimes) would be almost uncontrollable :-) 

Yep, Mir Pro would be the solution i guess. But latest investment was suite. Need to controll the expenses for a while ;-) 

Kind Regards, Mark

[Dietz]

@mvo-music said:

Hi Dietz,

Thanks for your reply! There are indeed a few reasons i wouldn't put a reverb on every single instrument channel.

- CPU killer 😊

[...]

Hi Mark,

regarding CPU-consumption, there's not much difference between 63 individual reverbs on 63 AUX-sends or a dedicated reverb plug-in inserted into each of 63 audio channel (... the latter will most likely show a slightly better performance, because no additional routing is needed).

...  or did I completely misunderstand your setup ...?

In any case: It will be a mess workflow-wise. 8-]

Best,

[MarkkraM]

Hi Dietz,

haha, yes i'm affraid you misunderstand[:D]. Later on i will post a logic file to explain. 

But the thing is, each instrument has his own aux (except different articulations), every aux has 3 busses (bus 1, 2 and 3 (pre-fade) (those busses are the same on all auxes, so, 3 instances of (in my setup) Spaces (near, mid, deep). And i use a final tail verb. So the amount of instruments does not influence the amount of reverbs. All time, 3 instances of ql spaces for depth and 1 for tail. (4 total) .

(In my drawing you could copy the first 3 channels a zillion times, they will all route to the 3 depths and final aux (for tail), but all instrument will have full control individually).

haha i hope im not too confusing :) 

Kind regards, 

Mark

[Dietz]

@mvo-music said:

Hi Dietz,

haha, yes i'm affraid you misunderstand. [...] so, 3 instances of (in my setup) Spaces (near, mid, deep). And i use a final tail verb. So the amount of instruments does not influence the amount of reverbs. All time, 3 instances of ql spaces for depth and 1 for tail. (4 total) .[...]

Mark

Oh, I see! 8-) ... I got this wrong, hehehe.

[Beat Kaufmann]

[quote=mvo-music]Questions:

Hi Mark

Thanks for your answer to my first post. So even if you had some questions you seem to be convinced by your system.

There are lots of possibilities and ways to get a mixing result and that's the only thing which finally counts.

So some of of us spend lots of hours to build a huge template which shall cover all coming possibilities...

But if they would be honest to themselfs they work more (and always) for their templates than for the music projects in the end.

That's the reason why I personally turned my workflow and prefer today another way: I always keep on starting from the beginning again.

Of course I use some setups for each single instrument but that's it.

The avantages are

• every time a bit another sound over all - listen to the examples here on the right - every piece got another mainsound.
• I only load and wait for the samples which I'm really using.
  

The disadvantage of this workflow isn't really one: You can say that it is a lot of work building each time the mix of an orchestra. But one counter-argument is that even those with templates have to adjust their template every time with the current situation.

So, over the years I work this "every-time-build-the-whole-mix-way".

About my Reverb-Concept

My workflow hasn't a fix reverb-concept. I mainly use several convolution reverbs (SUITE, Altiverb, HOFA,...) for creating 2-4 fix depths but I also use MIRx for giving extra depths to some instruments like choir, percussion and so on. An Algoreverb (just for tail) in the output channel melts all the tracks and groups to a nice mainresult in most of the cases.

I'm sure that your Reverb-Concept will show certain developments as well over the time.... Once more: The result counts in the end.

Beat

PS If you have the possibility: Show us a piece - done with your concept. Thanks in advance.

[MarkkraM]

Hi Beat, 

Thanks for your reply, i will send in an audio example soon! Especially your point on the 'mailsound' i totally agree, making music still is the main goal, not the pre patching part ;-) 

One question, what kind of algorthmic reverb for tail you use, and other people? 

Regards, Mark

[Beat Kaufmann]

@mvo-music said:

what kind of algorthmic reverb for tail you use

This is probably a fateful question because 1000 people will now tell you that their reverb is the best. 

So do I! [;)]

I mainly use Breeze and B2 today. They produce a very natural sounding tail. I can't find any better PlugIn at themoment...

I also use them for enhancing my real recordings.

Some people are using the Valhalla (cheaper and obviously good as well). There is also the reverb Phoenix (Exponential Audio) which produces nice tails but it has some mixing irregularities between wet/dry and the EQ-possibilities for the tail signal are too small, so that I never used it... 

Of course there are also Hardware Reverbs such as the Bricasti M7, Lexicons and so on...(another price league).

Beat Kaufmann

[William]

@Beat Kaufmann said:

This is probably a fateful question because 1000 people will now tell you that their reverb is the best. 

So do I!

I mainly use Breeze and B2 today.

I use only MIR. I would never go back to all of those complicated setups of the past.  I remember using Altiverb for example - many different microphone placements, only one sound source - exactly the opposite of what is needed for orchestral music.   I guarantee anyone who tries MIR will never go back to what they used to have.   It is the most perfect reverb ever created for orchestral instruments.

[civilization 3]

@mvo-music said:

- What can i do to improve results, what am i missing?
- Some tips and tricks maybe (heard something about dropping eq at certain frequencies).

I'm using VSL Hybrid Reverb from rather finely positioned channels; so that for certain effects I'm taking the 'XFade' control to a low number which makes the reflection a smaller field, vs 100% which is completely diffuse.

EQ, well it depends on the space, doesn't it.

I demoed MIR Pro extensively. I loved it but for certain things I really preferred working with Hybrid. I like working with the tail and most of the time I was using MIRacle on the master bus in VE Pro with a send from a pretty dry room bus. I'm not doing traditional symphonic and naturalism doesn't really suit most things I do.

[William]

 Well yeah, if you are doing non-traditional-orchestra mixes, other reverbs would be appropriate. I just mean for doing VSL orchestrations, MIR is an amazing tool which simultaneously solves all problems of mixing.  I remember using many different approaches in the past for this or that problem, and MIR puts those all together.  The only thing one might really need to add is some additional EQ and hardware reverb like Lexicon but even those are optional since MIR has excellent EQ as well as specifically tweaked instrument profiles, and the MIRacle plugin which gives you an algorhythmic type additional reverb wash.    

[Beat Kaufmann]

This post shall support all of us who still are fighting for getting a nice orchestra mix with "common" effects...

...because there is no thread without a Halleluja for MIR but never such a Halleluja for all the mixers with common plugins.

Without any doupt MIR (and MIRx which I use as well) is a great help for mixing all the orchestra instruments.

But we shouldn't forget that MIR is an effect... Since we have MIR - and a lot of users use it - we lost the diversity of mixes which we had before .

Today all the orchestras sound more or less the same or similar way. Sometimes I don't know why the samples are recorded dry and not

directly with the MIR-sound. So now...

To all MIR users: Don't forget what your dry samples are able to with "simple convolution reverbs" - coming also from VSL by the way.

Why always the same sound from the balcony... Your VSL-samples can do much more...

Listen to this short Pre-Mix as an example (The Appassionata Strings, some Brass instruments, Piano, solo Viola, solo Violin, Percussion...) - without MIR. Does it sound really bad? Either way it sounds different to MIR, but it also comes with a nice depth and transparency, warm strings...and this without all the gadgets of MIR. For new approaches I invite you to... from time to time.

Now to all those without MIR: Fight on with your effects for keeping the diversity and a wide variety of interesting mixes...

Now I hope to survive this post...[;)]

Beat

[William]

That is an odd attitude for someone posting on this Forum.  To fight to NOT use VSL products?

But anyway I've done many mixes without MIR.  I have been mixing samples since the late 80s believe it or not. Before any of the current systems, before even MIDI, using Roland, EMU, Korg etc. samplers, played without any computer and recorded on multitrack tape recorders.  And ever since then...  But now, with MIR there are not a lot of "gadgets" - that is the whole advantage, you don't need a lot of gadgets - like separate plug-ins, hardware, whatever for every single element of a mix.  That is when you really need "gadgets" - when you don't have MIR. 

Though of course you can do a mix without it. But my point is it is so perfect for orchestral use that it makes the process easy, which was never possible in the past. 

[Beat Kaufmann]

@William said:

That is an odd attitude for someone posting on this Forum.  To fight to NOT use VSL products?

Dear William, this I didn't say.

The history of this thread in short:

1. mvo-music (new to VSL) had a reverb routing question  >>> soon Dietz answerd with "MIR".

mvo got the SUITE EFFECTS and he wants to use all the reverbs of it...

Later on...

2. mvo-music asked about algorithmic reverbs  >>> your answer, Willam, was  "MIR".

Not everybody has the money for buying MIR but nevertheless quite every answer to a mixing-question here is MIR.

mvo-music could think that he is really doing something wrong when he is cooking his menus with common/usual ingredients.

So I thought to tell here him and others that spaghetti also can tast well when they are cooked with tomatos, onions and several spices instead of using the best "easy-to-use-Ketchup" .

And further I said that you get more different spaghetti-menues (also bad ones of course) with tomatos, onions and several spices  than with Ketchup.

That you have to fight with all these separate ingredients for getting a tasty tomato sauce you confirmed, thank you.

Finally I also said that since we have MIR all the menus taste a bit of Ketchup.

And I also offered a mp3-menu, done with several ingredients but also with a little Ketchup as well (percussion).

This was the content of my post above, my dear William - now translated into the world of kitchen of course.

After such a lot of tomato sauce I will spice my next menu with Worcestershiresauce....[:D]

Best

Beat

[civilization 3]

@Beat Kaufmann said:

This post shall support all of us who still are fighting for getting a nice orchestra mix with "common" effects...

...because there is no thread without a Halleluja for MIR but never such a Halleluja for all the mixers with common plugins.

Without any doupt MIR (and MIRx which I use as well) is a great help for mixing all the orchestra instruments.

But we shouldn't forget that MIR is an effect... Since we have MIR - and a lot of users use it - we lost the diversity of mixes which we had before .

Today all the orchestras sound more or less the same or similar way.

You aren't speaking for me. At the moment I can't justify the expense of MIR in two ways, the more salient thing being I'd need to at least double my computing power to justify the cash. But I completed several projects with it and I miss it.

If you have a lack of diversity in mixes that's one thing. MIR Pro has a number of very different sounding rooms, widely variant mic presets, different stereo configurations for the main room mic, mic at the back of the room, et cetera. So if you're unable to obtain diversity, that's you, not me. Why always the same sound from the balcony? You tell me. I did other things, I pointed players at the most reflective wall and played around with it. I think I came to it from a different worldview than yours.

//the best "easy-to-use-Ketchup"// No, I was throwing chipotle and hot mustard on it through your ketchup container.

However I have what for me will be a more convenient workflow through experience with Hybrid Reverb, and I like special reverb like slapback and other things that use the late reflections. There are presets like 'Nice Piano Hall' which is fantastic and that to replicate with MIR would be, well it wouldn't be that satisfying to do because it's not quite the right tool.

Now it is true that a lot of what is posted here has a sameness of sound through the same kind of unexamined use of the very same tools in every case. I don't love the sound myself, if only because it reeks of 'obviously samples, quite good samples yes, but this lacks a sort of breath of life' which takes some massaging.

But my other uses of reverb is way outside of acoustic naturality, while your music never seems to be. So I think certain of your opinions are not traveling as well as you might assume. For one, I don't think advocacy of the one tool is dismissive of all other tools. Even William's provided for that Lexicon. Which I don't love, I would use MIRacle which is a stunning hybrid usage.

I've been around for a while and I was always very touchy with reverbs, for me convolution is a godsend and multiple imaging multiply so.

[Dietz]

@Beat Kaufmann said:

[...]

Without any doupt MIR (and MIRx which I use as well) is a great help for mixing all the orchestra instruments.

But we shouldn't forget that MIR is an effect... Since we have MIR - and a lot of users use it - we lost the diversity of mixes which we had before .

Today all the orchestras sound more or less the same or similar way. Sometimes I don't know why the samples are recorded dry and not

directly with the MIR-sound. So now...

To all MIR users: Don't forget what your dry samples are able to with "simple convolution reverbs" - coming also from VSL by the way.

Why always the same sound from the balcony... Your VSL-samples can do much more... [...]

There's no doubt about the fact that VSL samples are extremely versatile, but I can't really subscribe to several of your statements.

First of all: MIR is not "just an effect". Actually, MIR has been part of VSL's plans since 2002. It has been made with the main goal in mind to supply a holistic mixing solution for our sampled instruments, based on multi-sampled orchestral halls. Due to this unique approach, these halls (a.k.a. "Venues") can be _played_,  much like an instrument. ... not exactly what I would call an "effect". - But even if you don't want to follow that comparison: MIR Pro is more like a spatial mixing console, not a reverb effect (or anything else).

Secondly: MIR RoomPacks cover a wide range of different Venues, like the 15 m² and 0.3 seconds of ambience in case of Studio Weiler's "Stone Room", up to some 650 m² and over 8 seconds reverb in case of Steinhofkirche. I can't really see any reason for using "the same sound from the balcony" all the time if you don't want to. (... which balcony, BTW?). Paraphrasing your words: "Your MIR Venues can do much more!" 😉

And thirdly: Like in the real world (when recording an orchestra in a good hall), a good MIR-mix will _of course_ need additional work and tools, like a proper (hand-tuned) microphone setup, good placement of the instruments, some EQing, and maybe even additional effects like dynamic processing or algorithmic reverb sweetening. I can't remember that there has been a _single_ official statement that MIR is a fire-and-forget solution for all mixing tasks. Presets like the ones offered for MIRx can make mixing easier, no doubt - but like convenience food they won't replace gourmet cooking (if you get my drift).

You're of course entitled to share your opinions here, Beat, but I think that this semi-official counterstatement should be tolerable, too. So please feel invited to re-discover MIR Pro! 😉

Kind regards,

[Beat Kaufmann]

Hi Dietz

Thanks for your answer and all the details about MIR. I assume that you mentioned them for newbies and MIR-interested people.

I never had the intention to start a fire here about MIR. I realized that MIR-emotions can go high even if I just say "MIR yes - but not only".

That's probably because MIR solved heavy mixing problems of a lot of musicians. So I can understand that MIR is very important for them.

Once more from my side here: Nothing against MIR !!!

I also hope that some users here can accept that MIR not can cover (all my personal) mixing aims - as civilization 3 mentioned as well.

Therefore I also need to use common effects (convolution and algo-reverbs). Once more my little Premix-Example from above for showing what I mean.

Of course it also shall show to newbies and others that mixes are possible with common effects such as the VSL Hybrid-Reverb or the VSL Convolution-Reverb as well.

Hi mvo-music

Sorry for distroing your thread. You rember I said some posts above:

"This is probably a fateful question because 1000 people will now tell you that their reverb is the best."

And further below I said: "Now I hope to survive this post..."

This you can learn here: The subject reverb, reverb-tools, reverb systems, reverb-handling, how to create depth etc. is a very emotional topic - in every forum!

This is probably because you need to spend hundreds of hours until you find your way.

MIR indeed can shorten the way of mixing an orchestra... And now for a last time: You also can get good results with Hybrid-Reverb for example... 😉

Learning which parameters can modify the virtual depth (and more) with common reverbs is always a good basis for your mixing future.

Now I hope that this last sentence not starts a fire again.

Now I wish you a lot of success

Beat