You're describing a more advanced way of reverberating. Beat suggested to set 3 various settings for 3 different depths - to achieve that with one external unit you simply have to render three (dry) tracks each containing the instruments you want to have to reverb in that part, e.g. the brass and timps and percussion should be rendered together to one file, then set with reverb 3 far back in the stage.

What you described is the IMO even more realistic use of it after that step with adding only as little reverb as necessary to create the right depth between the 3 sections you could render all the new 3 reverberated files into one and play that through your (one) external reverb unit. That way you can control the ambience and give it a certain feel, like the Concertgebouw for example. You could also try to get your hands on one and sample that to use it with a convolver like SIR or in Waves. That is also a way to achieve it without the hardware and all at once if your PC is capable of it.

Hope this helps,
PolarBear

@Neil C said:

Thanks for that, Beat. I understand that but I'm not sure I'm achieving it.....
Best
Neil

Hi Neil
Yes my answer was very short, sorry. Thank you PolarBear for all the additional explainings!
Neil I've seen in an other topic that you're working with SX2. So check out the following example: Produce or take a short audiotrack with (for example) strings and a second one with some brass-sounds. Then open the audio-mixer and insert in both tracks ReverbA (SX2, internel ReverbPlugIn).
Take these ReverbA-Settings:
For the Strings-Track
Predelay 0.00ms
Roomsize 50
Reverbtime = 0.80s
Filters 0dB
Mix dry 100
Mix wet ~30
For the Brass-Track
Predelay 40.00ms
Roomsize 50
Reverbtime = 0.80s
Filters 0dB
Mix dry 100
Mix wet ~50

Of corse you will not get the reverb-/depth- quality. But you will recognize, that the brass-instruments will be behind the strings... (same roomsize, same Reverbtime). I hope you will hear the meaning of my "different depths".
After that it's up to you to "create" such depths with your M2000. The dry-/wet-mix, the predelay-parameters, the first reflections and the frequency-equalizing-parameters are playing a leading part while creating different depths. I think this is no problem for your M2000, isn't it?
Check also http://community.vsl.co.at/viewtopic.php?t=3640

Good luck [[;)]]
Beat Kaufmann

Thanks very much guys - I will need to digest and experiment - this is stretching my brain!
I'll get on to it!
Neil

Ok - thanks very much. I think I understand - and I'm going to now explain how I should use these interesting new tips in my setup.

I currently use my M2000 as AUX 1/2 on my 02R96 desk. It gives a pleasing accoustic (normally an orchestral hall), and I mix 'live' with no mix downs. Ideally, I'd have three reverb units - one on each AUX SEND and vary the settings and the amount - but until now I've just varied the amount.
To enhancemy mix, I've been adding extra reverb in two ways:

1. some symphonic chorus via the internal fx on the desk
2. by adding some local presence (smooth plate) using NFX1 in Giga.

My theory was that if I was recording a symphony orchestra I'd have two types of mic placement: local and distant. In this way, the NFX1 has provided the local reverb, leaving the M2000 for the distant / ceiling reverb - with the 02R96 adding some extra feel......
But its not enough. The brass swim around.... and there's not quite enough clarity or variation generally.
So, perhaps I should now add the depth in Giga and keep the 02R96 and M2000 doing their existing jobs?

Any thoughts?

Neil

I keep repeating myself here: [:D]

for CLOSER instruments use longer predelays.
for FARTHER AWAY instruments use shorter predelays.

This will mimick the relative distances of instrument groups to reflective surfaces in a concert hall with respect to a central listening position in the audience.

Please check the second page in the thread that Beat refers to:

http://community.vsl.co.at/viewtopic.php?t=3640&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Cheerio,

Peter

Neil
Peter Roos and I fight an old "spacewar".
He believes: The farther an instrument shoud sound the shorter predelay-times you use.
I believe: The farther an instrument should sound the longer predelay-times you use.

Important to know: I (also Peter?) speek about the delaytime of the first reflections.
Listen!
Example 1 > Predelay=0ms
http://homepage.hispeed.ch/beat.kaufmann/Example1.jpg">

Now I only changed the predelay from 0 to 50ms and...

Example 2 > Predelay=50ms


What on earth... [[:|]] ? The violin sounds closer [*-)]:

Good luck [:D]
Beat Kaufmann
_________________________________________________________________
PS [H] Peter [H] keep [H] cool [H]

Hmmm - clear as mud, heh? I've now read the original space war:

http://community.vsl.co.at/viewtopic.php?t=3640&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

My conclusions: add more predelay to those instruments that are further away. I know the science is complex, but the results of this approach seem to work well.

So, in a concert hall are we talking 10ms for strings, 30ms for woodwind and 50ms for brass and percussion?

Could I get the same effect by setting my single M2000 to 50ms (furthest instruments) and varying the amount of reverb (AUX 1/2) depending on the instrument? I know it would be easier with three units! Could the NFX1 reverb (aux in giga) or my 02R96 internal fx help?


Thanks for your help (esp the demo, Beat!)

Neil

Neil,

I'm sorry, but if you think that longer delays are required, you should also delay the original sound. This is the factor that most people seem to miss in this discussion.

Think of it differently: instruments far in the back of a hall are relatively closer to reflecting surfaces than instruments in the front. So much closer, that the first order reflections will arrive at nearly the same time at the listener as the direct sound.

Now, do this imagery for the instruments at the front of the stage. Here the direct sound arrives at the listener much sooner than the first order early reflections, simply again as a result of relative distances to both listener and reflective surfaces. This is really just a matter of simple geometry.

Take a paper, draw some lines and do some goniometric math. [[;)]]

Beat: spacewars no sound in space there is, says Master Yoda! [:D]

My experiments led to the opposite from your conclusions... No predelays merges an instruments with the ER's, making it appear as a more distant sound source. Longer predelays separate the original sound from the ER's and make it stand out as closer.

By the way, I think you should try to re-do your comparison with the harpsichord and first take out the initial spike of your impulse. IMHO, you are now introducing a first order echo, a bit in the same way as rock guitars a often double tracked. I think this leads to an artificial sense of depth, like with the rock guitar. I get the impression that the first spike is a measurement of the original signal from your graphs and not from the first reflection (but I may be terribly wrong!).

Anyway, let's be happy with what we are learning through fora like this and above all, let's agree to disagree [:D]

Great ambience here!

Peter

Peter, Beat

Before I go any further down this complex road (!) can we agree on definitions:

Predelay?

Early reflections?

Any other important setting?

Thanks

Neil

@Neil C said:

So, in a concert hall are we talking 10ms for strings, 30ms for woodwind and 50ms for brass and percussion?

Neil

I do not maintain, that my theory is the right one, but you will reach acceptable results.
As I always say: Try and believ your ears!
I'm very interested in new experiences!

Try with 50ms? Yes try it.
Try also to produce the 3 different depths with ReverbA (No Reverb only PreDelays > as I recommended in an upper topic). And then thru Aux and M2000 for giving reverb.

I think you're close the solution, I've recommended you first:
Mix all strings together and record them thru your M2000 (10ms) to (in?) a new track called "strings with depth1"... same procedure with woodwinds (30ms) > new track "woodwinds with depth2" and also for percussion (50ms)... Finaly you will have three new tracks with its needed depths. Mix them now (in cubase) to a final-track. Voilà! Quality? Maybe totaly bad...
Thats our (your) way.
(Sorry my English)

Beat Kaufmann

@Peter Roos said:

Neil,
I'm sorry, but if you think that longer delays are required, you should also delay the original sound. This is the factor that most people seem to miss in this discussion.
Great ambience here!
Peter

Hi Peter
Peter: Great ambience here! I agree totaly

Peter:...you should also delay the original sound. I do not agree totaly

This isn't important - from my point of view. We produce musicfiles. And they shall sound like a listener in the concert-room recognize them.
Peter, think you are a listener - 20m away from the orchestra. The "point zero" of recognizing a coming-sound is after the directsound-delay ...yes?. Some ms later - the first reflections will reach you! So important is only the time-difference between direct- and indirect- sound. But: The farther you are the more decrease the directsound-level. This relation of directsound-level and reflection-level gives us the impressen of far away or close. Far = less direct-sound/more indirect-sound and vice versa. Our old fight, isn't it? [:D]

Now - good news! I believe that I understand more and more, what you mean:
Your statement is, that the time between the direct- and the indirect-sound decrease the farther you are away from the origal-sound-source. I agree... when we speek about a "sound-source-listener-distance" around 60m-80m and more. For this situation you are right: There are only some ms between direct- and indirect-sound... and the direct-sound-level is so low, that you can forget it. > We know that sound as mudy cathedral-sound.

On the other hand I think we would like to simulate a studioroom, a chapell, a concert-hall or other concert-rooms - like I've done it with my violin-example. This means a "sound-source-listener-distance" of around 10 - 30 m.
With this situation you have a clear and loud direct-sound-part and also a very clear part of delayed reflections. And for this situation my theory seems to work... as the example2 shows us.
(10ms= depth 1, 25ms depth 2, 40ms=depth 3 > Neil)

But Peter, let me now turn the strategy:
When I'm wrong - then I need a better solution - based on your theories...
Do you agree, that the violin in Example2 sounds farther away then in Example1 [*-)]: (I've changed the harpsi to violin-examples > No more echo!) So or so...

I own the Samplitude Roomsimulator, the Acoustic Mirror and SIR.
Can you give me a setting for one of the upper effect-programs which pay attention to your theory(ies) but with the same effect of my simple predelay-settings [*-)]:
I will love you for such a setting [[[;)]]]

BTW
I've decided to buy the Gigapulse-VST-Effect. ...Christmas you know.
From then on we will have peace in space... [:D]

With love [[[;)]]]
Beat

I've always used predelay as a way to get away with using a lot of reverb while mainting clarity. It certainly does have an effect on the space, but to me it makes it larger more than it moves the instrument farther away.

It's also important to remember that there are frequency cues to tell us how far something is away (brighter = closer). That's one of the reasons a close-miked instrument sounds close-miked even if it's made to seem farther away, i.e. it's a different sound.

So, after much thinking and studying - and typing here! - I've got some great results.

Thanks to everyone - Beat, Peter et al - who helped me to understand much more about this complex issue of reverb. My advice is listen to what everyone thinks and try it! Then modify and LISTEN. I'm very pleased.

Cheers
Neil

All very useful. I've digested it all and definitely improved my mix....

Thanks very much - and the main thing I have been reminded of is to experiment and listen very carefully.....

Neil

@Neil C said:

- and the main thing I have been reminded of is to experiment and listen very carefully.....

Neil

This is the healthiest advice one can get!!

I've enjoyed following along in thread and have also learned a great deal about how other people perceive sound in an effort to recreate it.

Thanks everyone.

@Neil C said:

[...] modify and LISTEN. I'm very pleased.
[...]

That's what mixing is about. Great posting, Neil, even half a year later!

/Dietz