Girls With Glasses - HB Mix

[ptalbot]

It's not too unusual to use a little stereo reverb in mastering, but you've got to be really careful with it. It's a great tool for subtly filling in some thin areas of the spectrum and subtly introducing a bit more stereo width without the consequences associated with stereo widening plugs.

If you're really slick (note: I'm not, Dave probably is though ) a panned mono reverb (or cleverly set up stereo reverb) can be employed at mastering to really transparently true up the tonal symmetry from left to right. Suppose throughout the track the mix as presented is noticeably brighter on one side... that's the sort of thing that should be corrected in the mix, but a really short tonal reverb panned to one side (zero predelay)
can fix this and nobody would even know you were doing it. Serious black magic, though... never seems to work for me.

Using verb in mastering for ambiance, though... I'm sure someone out there is doing it and it sounds great, but it sounds like asking for trouble to me.

Yeah, I don't feel confident enough to do it. I'm having enough troubles already with my mixes!

[HbGuitar]

m8, reverb/ambiance is a big subject. i'm not even going to be able to scratch the surface here. i think there are some points that will need a change of reference and a fresh perspective regarding your strategy. my recommendation to you would be to research your butt off.

Having spent last 3 days going through my reference books and online tutorials, I've come to the conclusion that my mistake has been that I've built my reverb pictures in 2D rather than 3D....not knowingly of course.....but through gaps in my understanding, I've ended up developing width and height but very little depth.

On occasion, when tracks have been recorded nicely, especially in situations where close mics aren't too closely mic'ed because of good isolation in a large studio - my reverb picture has worked OK because of the natural depth of the recorded tracks. But most of the stuff we mix isn't like that.....there's often lots of real close mic'ing of instruments and vocals to minimize spill and background noise....or because of the limited dimensions/resources of project studios.

Therefore, it is essential to place each element in 3D.... to push close mics away from the listener if required but also fix them naturally in relation to the other instruments.....and not have it sounding wet and washed out

i think you will find, that when you get this nailed, your placement will be much easier, limiting your need to consider Haas. i think that's good news, because Haas doesn't do mono at all well, and it also brings with it some oddities in the sound because of the comb filtering that's inevitable. yeah, we get comb filtering in reverb too....but it's different to Haas.

so far so good.....I've run a few tests in old mixes and done A/B comparisons and things are sounding good....or at least better . Probably far from nailing it....but from little acorns...... I've certainly been able to reduce the need to use Haas to fix problems.

let's go!

Thanks again Dave for taking the time and effort to communicate what you hear......now back to work!

[pauli]

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.

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.

A lot of that is simply my opinion... many others are probably getting great results with a different approach, but hopefully that's helpful. Reverb is tricky.

[HbGuitar]

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

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

[pauli]

... that treats each channel individually based upon where it will sit in the mix spatially...

That's the ticket, right there. If you go into it with your vision for the song in mind and keep your predelays and decay times under control, you can't go too far wrong. I like to build the ambiance by introducing each instrument as I would when building the balance, then fading in the send levels with the return channels set at unity gain.

Sometimes all that routing can be pretty CPU expensive, and the sort of high spec reverbs you'd use in this situation don't help matters, so I figured out a cool trick to reduce CPU usage and limit how much submixing I have to do. It's often desirable to use longer predelays on tracks that start sinking into the mix before you get enough room sound, but that'd mean a duplicate of the reverb you're using for the rest of the mix with a different pre-delay setting, and that would get nasty really quickly if you were using a convolution verb... so if that becomes a problem, I've found that you can route those channels through a slave delay channel that simply delays the signal going into the reverb, so no doubling up on effects is necessary.

You can use a similar strategy with a slave EQ channel.... you can cut the highs only on the signal that's going into the reverb, and you'll have a much darker reverb return for that individual track while leaving the rest of the channels alone... put a few ms delay on that EQ channel and the reverb return will sound further away from the sound source due to the delayed, dampened reflections... so you could actually use reverb to bring something forward in the mix.

How often do I have the opportunity to use these tricks? Almost never. It's fun to talk about it, though

[HbGuitar]

Hey Pauli - Thanks for sharing your insights....some great techniques you've mentioned. I'll have to have a real study session with it all - I reckon the next few weeks are gonna be all about the 'verb cheers buddy

[HbGuitar]

new version, mix_02

Whole new FX treatment - built from scratch. Overall difference in the listening experience is pretty subtle to the casual listener but to my ears, the mix is now more open with more depth.

[The_Metallurgist]

my immediate advice would be for you to avoid stereo reverbs when mixing. they add far to much spectral crud and can overwhelm a mix very quickly, especially if you run in excess of 800ms decay. i never do....except when it comes to Mastering, but that's a different subject.

I'm confused about that... Are you saying you are using mono reverbs only?
Or do you use stereo reverbs but pan the send away from the source, or what exactly?
And you are using reverb in mastering? That's quite unusual. What do you use it for, and how?
Sorry to ask so much questions, but ambience/depth/spatial placement is one of the (many) areas that I'm struggling with, and you seem to have developed some useful practices.

it's difficult talking in general terms because each mix has it's own needs, at least within the individual's Vision Thang, so the approach can alter and sometimes it can alter pretty significantly. i shouldn't really use the word "never", because it's not a rule....and if there is a rule, i'll try and break it anyway, especially if i lean towards creative self-indulgence. it happens!

if you can understand the principles of sound and how we hear things to enable us to differentiate between proximity and distance (eg pre-delay), it becomes much easier in finding a solution to specific circumstances that we come across in any mix. the risk is that we stick to a specific setup and apply this across all mixes we undertake.

try experimenting on a close miked instrument. pan it hard to one side and mess around with some EQ presets and see how it sounds to your ears. then place it down the center, play with the reverb emu's panning. try mono, try stereo. does the preset bring the instrument closer, or does it drop it back in the mix....how far can it be dropped back, what sort of illusions of distance and "space" can you achieve? look at the parameter settings between the presets, as this can often give informative lessons too and help us to understand how parameter changes affects our illusion and comprehension of space. really crank a parameter from minimum to maximum so your ears get the shock treatment to help better understand the differences and how it impacts on our illusions.

i really wish i could help more, but this is a mighty subject to which there are no ideal solutions or set-ways to operate other than within the science...or outside of it if you wanna be really creative and obscure. ultimately, how we each apply ambiance and mess around with delays (delays are also part of the equation of space...so it would be unwise to neglect this side of things), is a signature of the engineer. yeah, EQ and compression is anther signature, but nothing will leave an impression more on a mix than ambiance and delay applications and where those instruments appear in the panorama.

on the mastering thing, again it depends. on my own mixes, i'll take a different approach in the mix with my ambiance strategy if i plan to drop some ambiance glue in the master. again, my approach isn't everyone's cup of tea but that's what makes us all different. if i'm mastering another's mix, then it depends on what they've done beforehand. quite often there's no opportunity and hence no benefit from doing so.....but if i have a rapport with the client, what i can do on the master might make a difference to their song beyond what they've done in the mix, to help it deliver even more emotion.

flexibility is the key....and knowing when to do what and to which instrument will be an intuitive thing rather than a calculated, pre-determined strategy based on habit and comfort zones.

in the first 10 seconds of a song, everything must make sense, whether consciously or subconsciously or we can lose the audience; it should engage their interest so we want to hang in for the other 240 seconds....ambiance and delay is part of that crucial equation. if it doesn't make sense, we will disengage.

Patrick, please do have a go at some mixes in the Library and let the forum help you.....importantly as a composer and arranger, the experience can also feed back into how you approach your own arrangements too. feel the fear... do it

catch ya laters,
Dave

[ptalbot]

Thanks Dave, that's good advice!

I intend to crank some mixes from the library at some point, and I will take the opportunity of posting here and get bashed and learn from it, it's just that I find that I spend already so much time on my own songs (not only on the mix part, but the songwriting/pre-production/arrangement is something I spend most of my free time on) and I always seem to be in the middle of a new one...

Again thanks for taking the time to give some pointers, it's much appreciated!
-Patrick

[The_Metallurgist]

new version, mix_02

Whole new FX treatment - built from scratch. Overall difference in the listening experience is pretty subtle to the casual listener but to my ears, the mix is now more open with more depth.

v2 mix has better clarity and sounds less congested with subsequently more space between the instruments. the vocal on v2 has more presence too, which is a bonus, and takes a step forwards in the mix as a consequence. the placement of the egtr in the v1 mix is badly smeared and less focused in the panorama as a consequence, with it seemingly occupying more width and potential masking issues. but in the v2 it is clearly coming from the left and has it's place. i think this egtr is a good example perhaps of not having to use Haas for the placement.

i think i'm hearing mp3 artifacts, unless it's aliasing from somewhere....it's in both v1 and v2 mixes in equal amounts, so i guess it's the encoder working against you.

you are a great sport Hb, for grappling with this subject and with such relish and determination; you're obvious energy and enthusiasm is fantastic. well done for picking up the gauntlet in the recommendation....i respect that massively.

one thing i did stumble on in a post above where you mentioned, to quote:

"...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"

if the Artist want's a bright tone and the instrument is back in the mix, they are messing with science and our understanding of depth and space. treble gets lost to air with increasing distance - fact. now, if an Artist want's to put out the wrong psychoacoustic message in their song and cause a distraction (to most people it will be subconscious, but to the knowledgeable it will be very conscious!), then so be it. it's only right that it is their final decision of course, but it's only right that we should at least tell them the risks they are facing. if it's only their immediate friends and family who are the audience, then nobody is going to lose their career.....but if it's someone who's seeking the respect and admiration of a wider audience, and one i might add, that's far less forgiving(!), then they'd be wise to take your advice on board generally, eh?

if the tone imparted by the instrument isn't the right message for the depth as we'd expect and in accordance with the laws of science (along with the appropriate change in volume/gain/level), do please take note that no reverb will ever be effective, indeed, it will be a contradiction. no artist want's contradictions because they are a distraction from the emotion the Artist is wishing to convey. unless....the Artist is intentionally seeking contradiction....this is Art after all

keep up the great work!
D.