Where do you EQ your reverb's at?

[StephenWiley]

Just wondering what others do. I normally roll my reverbs off around 1.5k - 2k with a 12 or 24 pole filter. This obviously gets rid of a ton of clutter, and things in that range don't really need a reverb. Especially below 500hz. I don't cut anything off the top.

[tonemaker]

For me it varies from tune to tune and depends upon which instrument I am adding effects to. Sometimes I put EQ on both the reverb input and it's output.

It really varies way too much to pick any number in particular.

[Boddhisattva007]

What I've been doing lately and I don't know if it's technically wrong or not is having something like two different reverbs (a plate and a hall for example), one is low cut and only effects the higher frequencies while the other is followed by a band pass for the mids... I would like to hear what others do as well. I've heard that it not good to use more than two reverbs because of mix coherence, but i wonder if anyone uses more.

[lord_bunny]

I'm not an electronic music guy but I think this applies to all genres. I roll off the low end, and depending on the spatial availability, the highs as well. Band passing is great, especially if you have a dense mix and you don't want a verb on something rythmic stepping on the highs of the vocal.

What i've started doing everywhere with eq is starting the mix making things as small as I can acceptably make them within the context of the mix, and then opening them up slowly in order of sonic priority. This includes reverbs as well, keep them small (but not to where everything is "telephone filtered") and then see what you can get away with without stepping on anybody else.

[StephenWiley]

Good input. I've never really toyed around with using band passes or cutting the high's. (Havn't done a lot of work with vocals. They are not as prominent in Electronic compared to most other genres)

I saw a little talked about why you might want the high frequencies cut, but really didn't understand the comment about rhythmic step downs or whatever. Reverb, for me, is always the last effect applied to a track, so any EQ'ing for that said track has technically already been done. The reverb shouldn't create reverberations into lower or higher frequencies, correct?

One other tip I read about recently that I've found can bring a unique sound is not having your reverb 100% Wide. Mono it up a bit and then pan the reverb tails. It sounds good, especially with plate. Can be a good technique for helping reduce clutter.

[Kimakaz]

Originally Posted by lord_bunny

What i've started doing everywhere with eq is starting the mix making things as small as I can acceptably make them within the context of the mix, and then opening them up slowly in order of sonic priority. This includes reverbs as well, keep them small (but not to where everything is "telephone filtered") and then see what you can get away with without stepping on anybody else.

Hmm, im liking this concept. Will try this next time around.
My problem is that i start with all parts so full (no special concept behind that at all), and have to work my way down to have a cohesive mix.

[kdgh]

I EQ the verbs in the plugin/source itself.
I don't really EQ it tho. Maybe cut off some low end. Besides i like to chop off the high as well. It will makes your mix a bit more deep.

IMO it's more about the length of the verb. I always try to tune the length and decay to the groove/swing of the track.

[lord_bunny]

My comment about reverb interference relates to the decay time of verb. If you have any decay at all, it may have energy in a vocal or lead instrument range, and that may not be a good thing. I tailor the verb to what I want to sustain... or you could send the snare to a bus, eq the highs out and send that bus to the reverb... whatever works.

As far as width, this is a big thing. Space is limited sometimes and a wide lush verb is expensive in terms of sonic real estate. Sometimes a narrow verb can give you a sense of depth to a mix, so sometimes making a comprimise isn't such a comprimise.

[atma]

i'm a huge fan of impulse response reverbs, so more and more i tend to try and avoid eq'ing them to maintain the hyper-realistic sound of a particular space. i prefer a more judicious approach based more upon selecting appropriate sounding spaces for particular sounds and to some degree the way they're routed—e.g., all my drum sounds might be set up on individual channels, so the snares and hats can be sent to a reverb in a higher ratio vs. kicks, etc.

but i think my intention tends to differ a bit—i don't use reverb so much as an effect but instead to move sounds (especially flat/dimensionless computer-generated ones) into a realistic space that seems beyond or outside of the speakers. so things like pre-delay and early reflections are things i focus on more than carving into the spectral response of a reverb tail—again that's a consideration i take into account when choosing an appropriate sounding space to place a specific sound within.

[Mardi Gras]

Have never EQd reverbs

[StephenWiley]

Originally Posted by lord_bunny

As far as width, this is a big thing. Space is limited sometimes and a wide lush verb is expensive in terms of sonic real estate. Sometimes a narrow verb can give you a sense of depth to a mix, so sometimes making a comprimise isn't such a comprimise.

Yea....I've been learning this a lot lately. Reverb, along with some other FX, can allow you to shape the depths of a particular track. for instance if we're talking rock music, most of the time you want the drums sounding towards the back, vocal up front, etc. Dropping a touch of delay and reverb on the drum bus will not only set them back in the mix it will also make the drums sound more realistic (if its not a real recording.....I do dance music so everything is almost always sequenced) - And when it comes to using a reverb to help put different instruments in different places of the mix i turn to my emt plate 140 every time. such a damn good tool