jeteague
    A good reference for understanding reverb in mixing is Mike Senior's  book "Mixing Secrets".

Thanks.  I have the book, but I had concentrated on other chapters when I got it.  I forgot there was specific coverage on reverb.

jeteague
    A good reference for understanding reverb in mixing is Mike Senior's  book "Mixing Secrets".  There is a chapter dedicated to reverb.  He breaks the use of reverb into five different functions: blend, size, tone, sustain, and spread. 

Senior says that reverbs should always be done on separate buses.  I'm OK with that, as it is easy to do in Sonar.  I have not done this in the past, but will probably make that SOP going forward.
 
I am studying what Senior has to say about each of those 5 uses for reverb.  For now, I will probably concentrate on blend and size as these seem to be the first order uses -- the other 3 being more advanced and subtle. 
 
His approach seems to imply (but he doesn't exactly state) that he would use 5 separate reverb buses, because the shape of the reverb could be different for each of those 5 uses.  Is this a correct reading of his advice?  Do any of you normally set up multiple reverb buses along the lines Senior suggests?

   I am still finding my way through this myself, so apply salt as needed.   I think that Mr. Senior means that we should consider what each track needs and if it requires processing to sit well in the mix, and we figure that reverb may help, we need to think about HOW it might help.  Does the track need blending, sustain, etc.?  I believe the idea is to use the reverb as a specific functional tool rather than a sort of sandwich condiment that is simply slathered on to the bread (that is, the track). 
  So, you might need to apply five differing reverbs to the track but that is unlikely.  I got the impression that it was just fine to apply a reverb at the track level when it was just a single track that required a bit of help.
   Finally, multiple tracks, may need some help and then, reverb buses make more sense.
   I took all this to heart because I was applying reverb to the whole sandwich (mix) by rote and my sandwiches were less delicious due to that.

I tried to apply some of Senior's suggestions to the  material shown above.  It ended up coming out about the same.  I am coming to several conclusions:
 
1) My monitors may not be good enough to help judge these subtleties.  I have a pair of Yamaha MSP5s.  They have a good sound, but they aren't going to give the full low end.  And I have them mounted about 10 feet from my workstation.  That's probably farther away than most people would use these monitors.
 
2) The program material is probably too dense to use reverb very aggressively.  Most of that originated in Band-in-a-box, and then I modified the MIDI from there.  There isn't a lot of space for reverb to do the job of blending.  It gets muddy really quickly, even if I put a high pass filter on the verb to keep the LF dry.  I think I should practice Senior's suggestions on more open material first.
 
This is the file after breaking the reverb into separate buses for blend and size:
https://app.box.com/s/vqzdn6ob920puv6kjcvlvnvxv1fje3mp
 
I also tweaked the instruments to make them a little less muddy pre-reverb.  I tightened up the timing of the bass, which helped the overall groove a lot I think.

Mike Senior's book is excellent.  An even more comprehensive one is Izhaki's Mixing Audio, in which he has a very in depth entire chapter devoted to reverb.  Most highly recommended for this mixing topic and many others as well.

Sometimes I find that I can dispense with reverbs entirely and use delays to create space instead. It creates a nice sense of space and depth without adding mud or losing punch. Mind you, working mainly with electronica styles I'm not always looking for a "realistic" sense of space. 
 
One thing to consider is that you don't always want your reverbs at 100% width. Experiment with Channel Tools or similar to narrow the width of a reverb to 75%, 50%, even lower. I'm not a fan of mono reverbs unless it's for a specific tone shaping/sustain role on a single instrument, but I will sometimes go as low as 30-40% width (easy to do with ValhallaPlate which has a width control). If you're using multiple reverbs, experiment with having different widths for all of them. For example, sometimes I'll have a short ambient/room reverb, a mid sized plate reverb and a hall reverb. I'll set the short reverb to 100% width, on the basis that it's the closest to the listener, then the plate to 65-70% and the hall to 40-50%. The idea is that if you're going for a front to back depth with your reverbs, they're going to sound narrower the further they are away. And the added bonus is that they're not stepping on each other at the sides so much. 
 
Also remember to experiment with pre-delay times if you're worried about losing punch. And don't be afraid to stick EQ's both before and after the reverb. I high pass around 400-500Hz and low pass around 10kHz before the reverb, to control the frequencies going in, and then I will make a cut or two after the reverb to stop it stepping on the other instruments. To this end, Melda's MAutoAnalyzer is an absolute boon. I LOVE this plugin for EQ'ing because it shows where your frequency collisions are very quickly, and it works just as well on reverbs as any other tracks. 

I usually put a verb a single bus, but if I'm going for a more natural sound from sampled instruments (especially strings or brass) I find I really need to treat the whole signal. If your samples are very dry, you might benefit from some subtle ambience added directly as an insert effect, in addition to your overall verb. I think Valhalla room is excellent for this purpose. Any verb with early reflection controls will probably work.

sharke
Melda's MAutoAnalyzer is an absolute boon.

Just to make sure I am on the right track, is this the product you are talking about?
https://www.meldaproduction.com/MMultiAnalyzer
 
I can see where that would be very helpful.  I think many of my "reverb issues" are really clutter issues that should be handled upstream of any reverb decisions.
 
At some point, I came across an equalizer that allowed size-chaining such that peaks at a certain frequency on one track could automatically duck the same frequencies in another track.  And that was in real time so that the ducking only happened when there were frequency conflicts.  I can't seem to find my notes on that product.

cparmerlee

sharke
Melda's MAutoAnalyzer is an absolute boon.

Just to make sure I am on the right track, is this the product you are talking about?
https://www.meldaproduction.com/MMultiAnalyzer
 
I can see where that would be very helpful.  I think many of my "reverb issues" are really clutter issues that should be handled upstream of any reverb decisions.
 
At some point, I came across an equalizer that allowed size-chaining such that peaks at a certain frequency on one track could automatically duck the same frequencies in another track.  And that was in real time so that the ducking only happened when there were frequency conflicts.  I can't seem to find my notes on that product.

Yes that's what I'm talking about. You insert an instance on every track that you want to analyze and all tracks that have it inserted will appear in every instance of the plugin. You can then select which tracks you want to compare, and as the music is playing these black "hotspot" blobs will appear on the graph in the frequency ranges in which the compared instruments are colliding the most. I mainly use it to EQ two instruments which I feel are crowding each other. An example scenario when comparing two instruments is that you'll see collisions at, say, 500Hz and 1200Hz. So I will cut one instrument at 500Hz and the other at 1200Hz. Which instrument gets which cut depends on which instruments I decide "need" those frequencies the most. It's amazing how well it works - instant boost in clarity and separation. 
 
There are lots of ways you could use it. You could put it on an instrument bus and on a vocal track, and find out where the instruments in general are fighting with the vocal, and make a modest cut on the instrument bus. 
 
Of course you're still using your ears as the final judgment. MMultiAnazlyer just helps you get into the ballpark much quicker. 

sharke
You insert an instance on every track that you want to analyze and all tracks that have it inserted will appear in every instance of the plugin. You can then select which tracks you want to compare, and as the music is playing these black "hotspot" blobs will appear on the graph in the frequency ranges in which the compared instruments are colliding the most.

Cool.  And it is stereo-aware, right?  If piano and organ are colliding, and I move piano to the left and organ to the right, the analyzer will show the collisions reduced?