Strategies for using reverb

Reverb is probably the most used effect of them all.  I just wonder if there is any consensus of best practices.  I realize there are always artistic choices, but I am just looking for ideas.
 
The material I am working on at present is a set of accompaniments for a jazz combo.  The source is all MIDI, and most of the MIDI instruments are inherently dry.  It isn't a large number of tracks -- usually piano, bass, drums, guitar, and maybe an extra lead guitar, organ or string track.  I do try to place these instruments in the stereo field where they would logically be on stage.
 
In the past, I have dropped Breverb on each of the tracks that I thought needed reverb, and then I'd try to find a Breverb preset that sounded best while soloing that instrument.  Recently I have been going the route of sending each of the tracks to a single stereo reverb bus.  I use a single instance of Rematrix Solo.  And I pan each channel's verb send to the opposite side of the stage.  I usually kick up the delay setting just a little bit.
 
That single verb setup seems simpler.  I'm not sure it is giving me better results though.  Some of these accompaniments seem to lose punch if I go too far with that.  They seem to sound better with less reverb.
 
I guess the reason I ask is because when I listen to professional recordings, many of them use much more reverb than I do, yet maintain a punch.  That suggests to me that the engineers are being more selective about what instruments and frequencies are getting reverb.
 
Another question relates to the fact that many of the synths (strings, electric pianos, Addictive Drums, etc) have their own reverb.  Is it best to use one or the other -- and not double reverb, so to speak?  I definitely do that with Addictive Drums because I prefer some reverb on the snare, but try to keep the kicks clean.
 
Anybody have any ideas about this?  I could post some MP3s if that would make it easier to comment.  These aren't intended to be commercial level products.  They are just backing tracks for a little combo, but I'd like them to sound good.
 
Here is a link to "Heard it Through the Grapevine"
https://app.box.com/s/h30...16wibebln9mb2jbk2j100u

Join puremix.net for free (no, I have no affiliation) and purchase the Creating Spaces With Reverbs video. I predict it will be the best $20 you'll eve spend on an educational video.

smallstonefan

bapu
Join puremix.net for free (no, I have no affiliation) and purchase the Creating Spaces With Reverbs video. I predict it will be the best $20 you'll eve spend on an educational video.

Totally echo what Bapu said. No other video or explanation has ever come close - that video was a giant "aha!" moment for me...

And I got the tip from James on this vid, so it's a self referencing system.

...of his original validation.
 
I think I'm caught up.

bapu

smallstonefan
...of his original validation.
 
I think I'm caught up.

We're even steven.
 
We're the same James.

Ahhh I get it.  You guys are demonstrating how reverb works.  :)

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.

   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.

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.

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.

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. 

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

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.

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.

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.