REVERB IN MASTERING

[ohad]

hi
how often are you using reverb when mastering?
and in what ways? analog /digital
thanks
ohad

[robmix]

Never. I've never even seen a reverb unit in a high-end mastering room !!!!!

[ohad]

isnt never a hard word?
keep it coming thank you

[pan]

I had a session where a reverb tail was added to smoothe out an ending where the band stopped on a snare hit and the reverb from the mix seemed too short...

It was done ITB after the master was pulled into wavelab though...

n

[stevep]

I have never heard of any effects being added when mastering...........

[just.sounds]

I don't like it very much but sometimes it can help to pull the instruments together.
I like to use altiverb. and someone i know likes the quantec yardstick very much.
In the izotope ozone bundle is also a reverb for mastering purposes. most of the time I use short reverb times to just add the coloration.

[Andy Krehm]

Originally Posted by stevep

I have never heard of any effects being added when mastering...........

All experienced mastering engineers have used reverb occasionally.

Sometimes it's to smooth an ending that had to be cut b/c of excess noise or sometimes b/c it was inadvertently cut by the mixer.

Once in a while, one track in an album doesn't fit ambiance-wise and none of my stereoizing techniques do the trick and so the last resort is a little reverb. I recently mastered a jazz album (trio and vocal) where just a hint of reverb made it sound just perfect. It was an unattended session for a producer in another part of the country. I made the decision on my own and both producer and client loved the results. I didn't even tell them what I had done b/c it was so subtle.

I used to use Altiverb but now mostly use the exceptional reverbs found in my TC 6000.

Please remember that adding reverb on a whole program is only done rarely, and as a last resort, but once in a while, it can really help.

As for other effects, sometime someone wants an intro or interlude spiced up so I'll get out the phaser, doppler, auto-panner, or whatever, and again, occasionally, it will just be the perfect treatment. Adding these sort of effects to a master, however, is even more rare (at least in my work) than adding reverb! BTW, this is a technique I have never done in an unattended session!!

[MIKEHARRIS]

The TC 6000 is often found in mastering rooms...primarily for its multiband compression or the optional GML EQ...and can have excellent reverbs...as noted above.
When equipped with the optional UNWRAP program...the 6000 could yield a new source of revenue re-purposing older stereo material into surround....

[MASSIVE Master]

Originally Posted by ohad

hi
how often are you using reverb when mastering?
and in what ways? analog /digital
thanks
ohad

Rarely, but it happens. Digital - I haven't had my hands on a true analog reverb in years.

[Bob Olhsson]

Back in the early '70s when only major studios had decent reverb, I usually had a touch of EMT plate put on my home studio mixes.

[Nancy M]

I've used it on several occasions, mostly for a clipped tail, however, I have put it over the whole track as well, it's usually very light and I put it last. I use both the TC 5000 & 6000, just depends on what we're looking for.


Nancy Matter
Moonlight Mastering

[Dave Peck]

A couple of years ago I recorded a CD of my own stuff and one of the ME's suggestions was a bit of verb on a couple of tracks. It probably doesn't come up too often, but we tried it and it really improved the tracks.

DP

[Cellotron]

I've used digital reverbs automated post fader in my DAW (SAWStudio) on many occasion to repair tails that either are too noisy or are cut off in the mix. Applicaions like this are by far the most prevalent use of reverb in mastering as far I've been able to see.

Once in a very blue moon I'll also use a convolution reverb (again in the DAW) usually loaded with an impulse of a real space, for material recorded dry where the client requests more ambience - but again this is something I would only add on request. I did this recently for a solo vocal / piano CD to very good effect.

Steve Berson

[Legacy]

It gets used a fair amount here as I see mostly classical and acoustic jazz mastering work. Almost exclusively very small amounts with short tails which can add some depth to many recordings (I like to think of it as "inside reverb" as opposed to "outside" which adds length to the tail. Inside just adds glow and some depth and color). The Sony 777 or TC6000 can add some subtle color to a master that is not as easy to get with EQ. Making an existing ambience sound a little more complex can also cover a few warts of the actual room used for the recording (we aren't always in the best rooms to begin with...).

Best,
Silas

[NathanEldred]

Originally Posted by Legacy

It gets used a fair amount here as I see mostly classical and acoustic jazz mastering work. Almost exclusively very small amounts with short tails which can add some depth to many recordings (I like to think of it as "inside reverb" as opposed to "outside" which adds length to the tail. Inside just adds glow and some depth and color). The Sony 777 or TC6000 can add some subtle color to a master that is not as easy to get with EQ. Making an existing ambience sound a little more complex can also cover a few warts of the actual room used for the recording (we aren't always in the best rooms to begin with...).

I agree with this. Saying 'never use reverb' smells of elitism or fear to me. I think that a lot of people don't talk about the fact that mastering is as much or more art, than science or technique. It's just like music...you learn all the scales and inversions, and then you forget it and use intuition (and dare I say talent even in the context of the engineer). If it sounds good, then that's ALL that matters in the end.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Andy Krehm

All experienced mastering engineers have used reverb occasionally.

Sometimes it's to smooth an ending that had to be cut b/c of excess noise or sometimes b/c it was inadvertently cut by the mixer.

Once in a while, one track in an album doesn't fit ambiance-wise and none of my stereoizing techniques do the trick and so the last resort is a little reverb. I recently mastered a jazz album (trio and vocal) where just a hint of reverb made it sound just perfect. It was an unattended session for a producer in another part of the country. I made the decision on my own and both producer and client loved the results. I didn't even tell them what I had done b/c it was so subtle.

I used to use Altiverb but now mostly use the exceptional reverbs found in my TC 6000.

Please remember that adding reverb on a whole program is only done rarely, and as a last resort, but once in a while, it can really help.

As for other effects, sometime someone wants an intro or interlude spiced up so I'll get out the phaser, doppler, auto-panner, or whatever, and again, occasionally, it will just be the perfect treatment. Adding these sort of effects to a master, however, is even more rare (at least in my work) than adding reverb! BTW, this is a technique I have never done in an unattended session!!

Cool , Thats whats great about this site.... I learn something every day



steve




.

[stevep]

NathanEldred .If it sounds good, then that's ALL that matters in the end.

Yes !




.

[Jerry Tubb]

Originally Posted by ohad

how often are you using reverb when mastering? and in what ways? analog /digital

Once in a while we'll add reverb to a dry acoustic songwriter type recording, usually live, puts a nice glow around it. We used to use outboard digital reverb, now it's plug-ins. I think it's been about 10 months since I used reverb on a track, but when it's needed, nothing like it.

~JT~

[ohad]

i think its all come to this
if it sounds good its good
keep it coming
thanks ohad

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by robmix

Never. I've never even seen a reverb unit in a high-end mastering room !!!!!

Do you get out much?

[cheeky b]

Originally Posted by robmix

Never. I've never even seen a reverb unit in a high-end mastering room !!!!!

I've never been in a mastering room that doesn't have either a TC 6000 or 5000 - perhaps it's an Australian thing.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by pan

I had a session where a reverb tail was added to smoothe out an ending where the band stopped on a snare hit and the reverb from the mix seemed too short...

It was done ITB after the master was pulled into wavelab though...

n

I fix short-cut-tails with reverb all the time. This is an especially useful tool when restoring old analog tapes where they truncated the decay when they spliced from decay to leader. A tetch of verb decay and sometimes a touch of tape hiss in the DAW and you can get amazingly natural results. If you're good with crossfades and such.

BK

[ohad]

Originally Posted by bob katz

I fix short-cut-tails with reverb all the time. This is an especially useful tool when restoring old analog tapes where they truncated the decay when they spliced from decay to leader. A tetch of verb decay and sometimes a touch of tape hiss in the DAW and you can get amazingly natural results. If you're good with crossfades and such.

BK

hi bob thank you for your post .what about reverb or effect on the whole song?
thank you
ohad

[Lagerfeldt]

Actually somewhat "thinner" or low density reverb can work better in mastering than fat sounding ones.

I too rarely use reverb in mastering, but I think I've done it a handful of times either by client request or because it simply suited the song with a touch of reverb.

I manually program the reverb for the material, and find that de-essing the send and rolling off the very low end works wonders.

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by ohad

hi bob thank you for your post .what about reverb or effect on the whole song?
thank you
ohad

Hi, ohad... the answer: sometimes. But never without consulting and discussing with the client. Just because I think that a song could benefit from more reverb doesn't mean it needs it.

But there is one very important criterion to me in the context of reverb, and I think this should be everyone's motto, whether the verb is used in mixing or mastering: A GOOD REVERB CHAMBER IS ONE WHICH ENHANCES THE CLARITY AND DEFINITION OF A RECORDING, NOT HURTS IT.

Many people have not experienced the sound quality of a reverb chamber like the TC Electronic VSS4 and there are very few of this quality. The difference is that when you add a well-tuned (you have to tune every verb) VSS4 in a mixing situation it does enhance the clarity of the sound. The instruments become more defined in space and the depth increases without it sounding muddy or washy or any of the other problems often associated with just plain bad reverbs.

So, that's the first criterion: If you're going to add a verb, then pick a good one!

The second criterion: Sometimes what a recording needs is early reflections, not reverb, and especially multiple mono-panpotted recordings, or even stereo-miked recordings made in a dead room without sufficient reflections to buttress and enhance the location of the instruments. I received a classical recording of a brass band that they recorded themselves with in a dead, pillow-stuffed livingroom and then they used a "cheap" reverb on it; not a bad sounding reverb, but one of those that applies a "generic wash" without decent early reflections. Instead of using EQ, I applied carefully colored early reflections with the VSS4, without using any of its reverb. The difference: Suddenly the recording took on a depth and clarity of its own.

It's never the same nor as good as a 2-mike recording made in a proper space, but with skill it can be great.

The third technique or approach: And please excuse the plug, but since I am now the proud papa of a newly-granted U.S. Patent I'd like to take this opportunity to announce it to my fellow Gearslutz. After a long process with the U.S. government and my patent attorney, I have just received U.S. Patent number 7,076,071, which covers the algorithms behind my K-Stereo and K-Surround processes, which I have licensed to three companies, Z-Systems, Weiss, and Digital Domain (my own company).

If you want to learn more about K-Stereo, read on. Otherwise, please excuse my brief interruption for what is a commercial product.

----------

K-Stereo is a unique process which can bring out and enhance the depth, dimension, and clarity of a stereo recording without the problems that come from adding reverb to an existing recording. Hard as it may be to believe, it's exactly like having a control on the reverb returns of an existing recording after it has been mixed. If a recording has a dry snare drum and a wet vocal, for example, you can enhance the wetness of the vocal without affecting the snare! Or, you can use it subtly to compensate for the slight loss in depth when a recording is reduced to 16 bit, or more strongly to enhance the depth in a recording WHEN APPROPRIATE. Reverbs that were a bit unidimensional in a recording take on more of a multi-layer quality.

Just like EQ or any other technique, K-Stereo is not a process that you just "apply automatically." I use it on a small percentage of mixes that come in, and if a recording does not need it, then K-stereo can make it sound washy or ugly or if pushed too far, reduce the level of the vocalist in the mix, or bring out the booth in which the percussion was recorded. It's meant to be a polishing technique, the icing on the cake, not the steak and dumplings! But the key is that instead of adding reverb, which can muddy up an existing recording or mix, K-Stereo can enhance what good sound is there but may have been too small.

Interestingly, the more squashed and compressed and squeezed a master or mix, the less useful K-stereo becomes because it just doesn't help. In other words, K-stereo is a natural kind of enhancement. But it works on all types of music, just doesn't help a squashed recording.

[ohad]

hi bob... thank you again
you are just on the money
1.i was only talking about top end reverb emt tc lexicon or quantec.
2.best of luck with your new baby may he bring you lots of joy and $$$. sounds like
a great tool, i would love to hear it.
thank you all again
ohad

[cerberus]

Originally Posted by bob katz

I am now the proud papa of a newly-granted U.S. Patent I'd like to take this opportunity to announce it to my fellow Gearslutz. After a long process with the U.S. government and my patent attorney, I have just received U.S. Patent number 7,076,071, which covers the algorithms behind my K-Stereo and K-Surround processes, which I have licensed to three companies, Z-Systems, Weiss, and Digital Domain (my own company).

congrats!

Just like EQ or any other technique, K-Stereo is not a process that you just "apply automatically." I use it on a small percentage of mixes that come in, and if a recording does not need it, then K-stereo can make it sound washy or ugly or if pushed too far, reduce the level of the vocalist in the mix, or bring out the booth in which the percussion was recorded. It's meant to be a polishing technique, the icing on the cake, not the steak and dumplings! But the key is that instead of adding reverb, which can muddy up an existing recording or mix, K-Stereo can enhance what good sound is there but may have been too small.

you have helped me develop my signal chain this way using off the shelf software. i've been showing results in the wump exhibitions at brad blackwood's forum... and here at gs, where i mastered a track as a demonstration; here i intentionally used the madsen effect to make the mix seem bigger and more vivid: http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.php?t=67257

after i read the patent, i refined my process (your process!) further. in fact most mixes i recieve are too small! i am finding the effect useful on a high percentage of jobs now.

the process can be effective at low levels where it cannot actually be heard... it seems to modulate sounds that drop into the noise floor in a converse fashion to the way dither uses noise to modulate sound in this area..except that this is correlated noise..it does a lot more than dither...much more audible at similar levels. in order to replicate my amazing results, one would need to start with an appropriate amount of dynamic range.

Interestingly, the more squashed and compressed and squeezed a master or mix, the less useful K-stereo becomes because it just doesn't help. In other words, K-stereo is a natural kind of enhancement. But it works on all types of music, just doesn't help a squashed recording.

based on what i have just said, this is a fact to me and it's no mystery why. by the time i apply "ersatz k-stereo", i've usually added significant amount of dynamic range to the mix. in most cases, i am able to pull the dynamics of a mix into a shape suitable for the process. the reason not to use it on every job would be that the client can't afford to pay for enough time for me to bring the mix to that level, or it is a restoration job... in exhibitions such as wump, i use it every time lately.

the discrepancy between what you recommend and what i find seems to come from:

1. i maintain a pure floating point signal path throughout the mastering process. i pass these signals around the limiter, never through a limiter such as l3, absolutely never.

2. i am very manipulative in general in order to get "natural" or even "surreal " dynamics. my signal path is highly parallel, yesterday i made a master for the wump exhibtion using over 30 parallel signal paths with tight control over delays... the music was an "electrified" string quartet.. (think kronos quartet) very very subtle job... i think my best ever...k-stereo made the decay so divine i want to eat it. it helped make the hihats sound like real [metal] cymbals again too... and on the violin and cello cresendoes... one can -feel- overtones modulating like flames reaching into the listener's chest.

3. reverb is out of fashion... especially eighties style.. i really feel that the tc-6000 seems to have embarrassed everyone who doesn't own one into backing off. to me the entire reverb landscape looks like: convolution 'verbs, the classic [lexicon] 80s sound, and the 6000. [to answer the original question: i did use convolution reverb on a master in january... it was electronica containing a few samples, but no acoustically recorded tracks at all; so that doesn't count. almost never then.]

4. i have a very complex parallel chain, ersatz k-stereo is a helper, but there is a role in this chain for the smallest of helpers.... i work very incrementally, so i never expect a miracle from any one process... i control delays in this chain. i often add delays... so the actual part of the process that is now derived from the k-stereo patent is indeed "icing on the cake"... it would be incorrect to take a simple chain and just add k-stereo, because then i think it would "stick out"... one has to work on the microdynamics everywhere before the signal is ready to be processed with this very subtle tool....

i also often have madsen effect on bass enhancement... very important because my ersatz k-stereo array often works below the noise floor where bass really isn't. so a secondary madsen enhancement on bass, which in this case is an "artifact" not present in the mix needs to co-exist.

so i would say that a really good engineer who gets really good mixes might find themselves using k-stereo on more than half their jobs. but that is all qualified... the light sabre itself can't make one an instant jedi master.

i've invested years in learning stereo enhancement... it's so important to me.... because i got into engineering for this reason... in terms of other aspects of engineering... the beatles records already had it nailed, so stereo was the only thing i felt i could improve on...

i can say for sure that k-stereo is solid science. however i am dyslexic with math... so my ersatz k-stereo is constructed and tuned by ear, it does not really follow the patent, of which i have a very superficial understanding of the mechanics. but the concept owes directly to the patent, and to bk's direct and generous suggestion to me on internet forums that i should attempt to harness the madsen effect.

and now i am like...holy sh*t... because i add the process towards the end of a great mastering session and it always gets better...such a small incremental improvement -is- magic to me, because it always happens just when it seems that the sonics can't possibly get any better. it is like when you look with one eye, and then open the other eye.



jeff dinces

[bob katz]

Originally Posted by cerberus

congrats!

in fact most mixes i recieve are too small! i am finding the effect useful on a high percentage of jobs now.

Be careful to assess the pros and cons of applying a process this often. I would hesitate to say "most mixes [I receive] are too small". That's assuming a lot. But I think it is fair to say that "many mixes these days are too small, especially in-the-box mixes made by inexperienced engineers working in project studios."

BK

[robmix]

Originally Posted by mixerguy

Do you get out much?

More than most