(23-11-2014, 05:18 AM)pauli Wrote: It also sounds like you've got a pretty fixed approach to reverb based on what you've described, but IMHO there are too many factors to consider when choosing reverbs to work that way.what I've described is at best is a truncated description of my methods.....I wouldn't say its fixed.....anymore than i would say my compression choices are fixed, or my EQ treatments are fixed.. ...but hey ho...one mans meat and all that
(23-11-2014, 05:18 AM)pauli Wrote: Something worth considering is that the depth field can be managed by means other than ambiance... quite often after setting a rough balance I find it helpful to alter the tonality of various tracks to place them further in the depth field and rebalance the mix as necessary. Once you get the tonal properties of depth in roughly the right place, it's a lot easier to give tracks the proper ambiance, and oftentimes that ambiance will help you true up the tonality at the same time.
True..the old brighter is nearer, duller is further away EQ treatment is a pretty vital technique and I don't use it enough if I'm honest.....but one still needs a depth strategy that is independent of tone...e.g. acoustic guitar recorded with mic 6 inches from sound box....not ideal.....but one doesn't always want to have to make it dull to push it back into the mix, especially if the song/artist wants a bright tone.....so an effective reverb approach is required......not saying I've got all the answers.....but i've seen the light so to speak.....and i am developing a new strategy...more an amendment really... that treats each channel individually based upon where it will sit in the mix spatially.
cheers