194,466 users have contributed to 42,922 threads and 257,973 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 4 new thread(s), 14 new post(s) and 73 new user(s).
Hi Everyone,
I have Vienna Suite and VEP 5 and it has been suggested in videos to use both a convolution verb "and" an algorithmic verb together. To me it seems weird. Why, if I have a convolution space would i want to put an alogithmic verb with that. Wouldn't that diminish the realism? But I am curious. Can somebody school me on this technique and be as detailed as possible being that I'm no the most technical person on the planet :)
Thanks
Mark
I use the converbs from Vienna Suite in VEP. All instances within VEP (all VSL, no 3rd party stuff) are assigned the same converb with panning and wetness levels adjusted to simulate spatial setting and depth.
Later, as part of my mastering step, I will add a hybrid reverb to the overall mix which actually enhances realism to my ears anyway.
The trick is to have converbs and hybrid verbs that compliment each other. For example, you don't want to put a huge cathedral space as your hybrid when your converbs were smaller intimate room spaces but that's how I work. Others may disagree. Generally speaking I don't like to lather my tracks in a lot of reverb anyway so I keep to smaller sonic environments.
This question also interests me and I would like to cue in with an additional aspect of that matter:
Lets assume I use the converb (e.g. a MIRx) from VSL but also overlay a third party string library (say Cinematic Strings 2), which I can't route through the VSL converb (no VE Pro or not possible with MIRx-es respectively). The latter I process with an algo reverb, maybe togheter with the resulting "VSL signal", similar to jasensmith's approach.
Do I run the risk of having the addtional strings sticking out of the mix as not "being in the same room"?
I am aware of the fact that here it is about using them serially whereas I talk about using them in parallel, but still...
I'm thinking about buying a MIRx extension for VI Pro and was about to post a very similar question. :)
Cheers,
Lukas
Hi Jason,
Thank you for your input. When you say you use the converb i assume you use MIR in VEP and that you place your instruments on the stage or within the space of whatever hall/stage/room you're using. But you say you "pan" the instruments. Are you also using using powerpan even though your instruments are placed on the stage? This has also been another curiosity for me in Vienna Suite. If you have your players "placed on stage" do you still use the powerpan plug in?
Thank you
Hi
The advantage of a convolution Reverb (based on a roomprint = IR = Impulse Reseponse) is that it can reproduce a recorded room very well and very "true". So put intrument in such a "real room" it can lead to very natural distances of dry samples as we have them with VSL-Libraries.
But a force is often a weakness in the mean time. Here as well: Such an IR produces always the same and once recorded (static) room. But in reality the reverb is not a static matter. It always moves its signal because all the signals always are reflected a bit the other way round specialy when musicians move a bit their instruments. An Algo-Reverb normally calcultes such reverb signals in a randomly way which corresponds a bit better to the reality.
So using both types means using the advantages of both. For the first part of the reverb we use a convolution reverb (for creating distances or certain roompositions) and for the second part of the reverb (for the tail) we use an Algo-Reverb because some of them caculate really nice and randomly reverb fadings.
The VSL-Suite contains the Hybrid-Reverb. It is a nice combination of both reverbs in one effect.
Listen to mp3. It is such a combination. The Marimba can be shifted nicely in the background thanks the first 100ms of the Schubert-room IR. The Algo-Reverb (always layed with the same level over the signal) support the depth nicely as well with its typical "floating" sound.
Final remark:
Keep all these tips and tricks around using reverb effects (and others as well) always as possibilities. Each mixer makes its own expriences and normally uses then a successful workflow. I am mixing samples since 2002 and used a lot of reverbs since then... The fact that still new products appear tells us that the holy grail still is not with us. So I'm going to wait for the next generation of "new and even better reverbs"... Nevertheless we already have some good products nowadays. But one last thing you should know: All these "good products" only sound as good as the user can handle them...
Best
Beat
If you use MIR, you do NOT use panning. That is its great advantage - to simply place players visually on the stage.
Using any algorhythmic reverb in addition to MIR could be considered simply "sweetening" an already good sound from MIR which allows very realistic placement of sounds. So you can add some additional richness of reverb - if you want. But it definitely is not essential with MIR, more of an option.
Thank you, Beat. So, if I'm understanding correctly, place the instrument on the stage of a convolution reverb and then send this wet signal to a single aux channel containing the algo-reverb? Should all instruments set on the stage signal be sent to the same channel containing the algo? Thank you 😊
Hi
The advantage of a convolution Reverb (based on a roomprint = IR = Impulse Reseponse) is that it can reproduce a recorded room very well and very "true". So put intrument in such a "real room" it can lead to very natural distances of dry samples as we have them with VSL-Libraries.
But a force is often a weakness in the mean time. Here as well: Such an IR produces always the same and once recorded (static) room. But in reality the reverb is not a static matter. It always moves its signal because all the signals always are reflected a bit the other way round specialy when musicians move a bit their instruments. An Algo-Reverb normally calcultes such reverb signals in a randomly way which corresponds a bit better to the reality.
So using both types means using the advantages of both. For the first part of the reverb we use a convolution reverb (for creating distances or certain roompositions) and for the second part of the reverb (for the tail) we use an Algo-Reverb because some of them caculate really nice and randomly reverb fadings.
The VSL-Suite contains the Hybrid-Reverb. It is a nice combination of both reverbs in one effect.
Listen to mp3. It is such a combination. The Marimba can be shifted nicely in the background thanks the first 100ms of the Schubert-room IR. The Algo-Reverb (always layed with the same level over the signal) support the depth nicely as well with its typical "floating" sound.
Final remark:
Keep all these tips and tricks around using reverb effects (and others as well) always as possibilities. Each mixer makes its own expriences and normally uses then a successful workflow. I am mixing samples since 2002 and used a lot of reverbs since then... The fact that still new products appear tells us that the holy grail still is not with us. So I'm going to wait for the next generation of "new and even better reverbs"... Nevertheless we already have some good products nowadays. But one last thing you should know: All these "good products" only sound as good as the user can handle them...
Best
Beat
Thank you, Beat. So, if I'm understanding correctly, place the instrument on the stage of a convolution reverb and then send this wet signal to a single aux channel containing the algo-reverb? Should all instruments set on the stage signal be sent to the same channel containing the algo? Thank you 😊...
See the added image below. As I mentioned above this is one possibility of mixing samples. The shortened IRs of the convolution reverb are giving certain depths for certain instrument sections and the Algo-Reverb adds the nice and sweet tail over all in the output channel of the mixer. This Algo also "glues" all the spaces and depths together so that the listener gets the impressen that all the instruments are in "one big room". Once more: To handle all these reverb things is an art so to say which needs some (a lot of) experiences...
Best
Beat
This question also interests me and I would like to cue in with an additional aspect of that matter:
Lets assume I use the converb (e.g. a MIRx) from VSL but also overlay a third party string library (say Cinematic Strings 2), which I can't route through the VSL converb (no VE Pro or not possible with MIRx-es respectively). The latter I process with an algo reverb, maybe togheter with the resulting "VSL signal", similar to jasensmith's approach.
Do I run the risk of having the addtional strings sticking out of the mix as not "being in the same room"?
You do run that risk. In my experience layering strings (or any other instruments) positioned in different rooms works well only under a very special set of circumstances (reverbs of very similar sound combining into a natural, organic sounding whole). I would always advise sticking to processing all components of a compounded strings sound with the same reverb.
Best,
Goran
You do run that risk. In my experience layering strings (or any other instruments) positioned in different rooms works well only under a very special set of circumstances (reverbs of very similar sound combining into a natural, organic sounding whole). I would always advise sticking to processing all components of a compounded strings sound with the same reverb.
Thank you. So, if I use it in a more distinct role (not just slightly beefing up the sound), it will most likely be a problem...
I'm thinking about getting a MIRx extension but I'm also planning to purchase the CS2, that's why I'm asking - but I'll cover that in a separate thread maybe... as it moves a bit away from this thread title.
The thing is - I don't want to afford VE Pro and/or MIR Pro just for the reverb - that's plain overkill at my level...
Best,
Lukas
PS.: Beat, thank you for your detailed explanations!
