i read that you use delays a lot more than reverbs but on the few records that i own that you mixed i never really noticed much in the way of delays. they are used very subtly.

do you favour certain types of delays (tape/digital etc...) for their transparency and what is it in general that you prefer about delays over reverbs.

(ps i love the retriver record - a real "classic" sound for a newer record. thanks for the inspiration!)

I don’t know what records you are referring to, but my guess is you’re right, it’s subtle because any more than that would be distracting to the song. Some records are meant to be dry and some wet. What does the song call for?

A record like Grandaddy “Sumday” has little or no reverb or delay from my end. I’m using a lot of different sounding compressors to give the record depth and to bring out the natural room reverbs of the instruments. Some records, like the one I’m mixing right now for a band called “The Open”, have all my analog delays firing along with spring reverbs, plate reverbs, room reverbs, it’s got it all. It’s fun time.

Sometimes the point of using these delays or reverbs is to help add depth in a very subtle way. There might be reverbs and delays going on, but they are to be felt, not heard. I assume that is the case on the kind of records you like that I’ve mixed.

hi micheal - thanks a lot for the reply. the album i was thinking of in particular
was the ron sexsmith "retriever" record.

since i wrote that question last week i read that you use "delayed plates" or "delayed reverbs" - does that just mean playing with the predelay or is that adding a delay and then reverbing the delayed signal?

usually it's just delaying the plate meaning the predelay. And yes, that record had no delays and very short rooms. The direction on that record was to keep it raw and un processed sounding.