Though this has been a very technical discussion of equipment I'm sure I will never own due to not being a billionaire several times over, I'm wondering what Dietz thinks about this problem put in very non-technical terms -
I think it is absolutely FORBIDDEN to use more than one type of reverb, because that is contrary to my entire goal of creating in the simplest way the natural sound of instruments within a space. The exact opposite of what I'm trying to do is found on pop recordings, where you hear strings with heavy artifical reverb tails while the singer is upfront and dry, etc. I am not talking about what engineers have or have not done on recordings, but rather the experience of a person sitting in a concert hall listening to orchestral music. If you tried to create that most directly, it would involved one reverb dry/wet level for everything, because the sound is actually coming from all the instruments at about the same ambient level at any one position. So in effect, you would have to use a rather wet amount on percussion, which is always in the back of the orchestra, but which is always traditionally mastered very dry. And the violins would have no more reverb than the percussion. But that is opposite of what is done on recordings, for good reason.
What I've done is to cheat, and I'm wondering if that is basically your approach. You HAVE to use more reverb on strings, because psychologically they need more "space." And you HAVE to use less on percussion or harp or they become muddy. Likewise for other things, like solo woodwinds, etc. So I attempt to tweak only one reverb type very delicately and subtlely, and hopefully a listener thinks it is all one level of dry to wet, though it actually isn't.
Is this something like what you do? Do you have any tips for someone with limited means. I am using a Lexicon externally because I've never heard any software reverb I liked.
I think it is absolutely FORBIDDEN to use more than one type of reverb, because that is contrary to my entire goal of creating in the simplest way the natural sound of instruments within a space. The exact opposite of what I'm trying to do is found on pop recordings, where you hear strings with heavy artifical reverb tails while the singer is upfront and dry, etc. I am not talking about what engineers have or have not done on recordings, but rather the experience of a person sitting in a concert hall listening to orchestral music. If you tried to create that most directly, it would involved one reverb dry/wet level for everything, because the sound is actually coming from all the instruments at about the same ambient level at any one position. So in effect, you would have to use a rather wet amount on percussion, which is always in the back of the orchestra, but which is always traditionally mastered very dry. And the violins would have no more reverb than the percussion. But that is opposite of what is done on recordings, for good reason.
What I've done is to cheat, and I'm wondering if that is basically your approach. You HAVE to use more reverb on strings, because psychologically they need more "space." And you HAVE to use less on percussion or harp or they become muddy. Likewise for other things, like solo woodwinds, etc. So I attempt to tweak only one reverb type very delicately and subtlely, and hopefully a listener thinks it is all one level of dry to wet, though it actually isn't.
Is this something like what you do? Do you have any tips for someone with limited means. I am using a Lexicon externally because I've never heard any software reverb I liked.
