For a jazz track one verb on a buss and buss each track to this verb.  Set each send to about -3db, although bass instruments toms, kick and bass -6db and even -9db.  Use a convolution verb too, if you have Perfect Space this is a good choice...probably the blues club.  Get rid of all the dry signal and have the overall wet signal set at -3db.  You see the pattern ;).
 
Try using Sonars Tape sim if you have a version of Sonar that has the tape sim and level the verb out -18db, and use the console emulator across all the tracks including the master and verb buss to fatten transients...it will take some time to train your ears to hear the console emulator but when you can hear it...you will go ah ha!
 
Peace Ben

BenMMusTech
it will take some time to train your ears to hear the console emulator but when you can hear it...you will go ah ha!

I have trouble hearing that.  I will try the settings you suggested. 
 
I installed the trial of the MultiAnalyzer that Sharke suggested.  It took a bit of tinkering to get the hang of that.  I ended up stretching out the sampling average because the conflicts were popping around to fast to internalize anything.  I also dialed back the threshold of the conflict band to the point where the conflicts popped out only occasionally.  That led me to reorganize the stereo placement of several instruments and to notch some of the conflicts.  Even though these were subtle changes I do feel like I can hear the difference in punchlines of the dry material.  That's progress for me.  And that made it easier to hear the verb effects.  I ended up using less reverb than in previous attempts.  I think it definitely sounds better.
 
Thanks, everybody, for the suggestions.
 
Now I have a philosophical question.  Compared to 30 years ago, the range of practical effects available to the engineer is vastly increased.  Are the tools expanding faster than our ability to learn?

Tip: use the Pause function on MMultiAnalyzer to freeze the display for closer examination.

i think the use of reverbs strongly depend on your "perspective" of the mix. I think in 3D when it comes to mixing and usually have a vision on how I'm gonna apply my reverbs

cparmerlee

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?

I'm not sure about stereo awareness on it. I don't think so. I think it's just working on the overall frequency content of the track, whether that be mono or stereo. Which is a good thing, since it's akin to mixing in mono, i.e. you're not using stereo separation as a crutch.

I just thought of a EQ strategy with MMultiAnalyzer that I might try sometime.

It's based on the principle that you start with the most important track and bring in each element in turn in descending order of importance, with a view to making cuts in each successive track so that they don't step on the more important ones.

What you could do is, after you've EQ'd each track, send it to a temporary bus with a copy of MMultiAnalyzer on it. This bus is thus the summing of all EQ'd tracks so far. Then, as you EQ each new track, insert of copy of MMultiAnalyzer on it and do a collision detection with the summing bus. This should both reveal which areas to cut in the new track to prevent it stepping on anything else in the mix. Obviously as you add more tracks to the bus, the more cuts will be required on the new track.

Another technique would be to forego the temporary bus and just stick a separate instance of MAA on each track after it's EQ'd. When you go to EQ each successive new track, instead of inserting MAA on it, enable all of the previous tracks in MAA and look at the collisions. You should be able to see, from the gaps in the collision bar, where there is "free" space left in the mix. You can then EQ the new track with a view to fitting it into that space. Once you've fitted it into the mix, insert MAA on it and add it to MAA's collision list.

sharke

cparmerlee
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?

I'm not sure about stereo awareness on it. I don't think so. I think it's just working on the overall frequency content of the track, whether that be mono or stereo. Which is a good thing, since it's akin to mixing in mono, i.e. you're not using stereo separation as a crutch.

There are some buttons on the right side of the display that seem to limit the analysis to one side or another.  It didn't seem to have any real effect, but that just might be my unfamiliarity with the tool and the process.

bitflipper
Tip: use the Pause function on MMultiAnalyzer to freeze the display for closer examination.

Damn I need to take some more advantage of that. Right now I'm just kind of meditating on those blobs and hovering my mouse over where they seem to appear the strongest, in order to get a readout of the frequency value. 

Just an editorial observation ... After the recent discussion about LANDR, I really do think the next frontier for tools is "expert systems".  If the analyzer can detect the conflicts, it ought to be able to automatically duck competing tracks.  Conceptually, this isn't all that complicated.  The real challenge would be to come up with a UI that allows the user to impart his/her sense of priorities/goals.

cparmerlee
If the analyzer can detect the conflicts, it ought to be able to automatically duck competing tracks.  Conceptually, this isn't all that complicated.

This already exists.  It's called MSpectralDynamics from the same folks that brought us MMultiAnalyzer.