The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Reverb - Stereo vs. Mono
Old 5th October 2003
  #1
Lives for gear
 
bassmac's Avatar
 

Reverb - Stereo vs. Mono

Where do you use stereo?

Where do you use mono?

Old 5th October 2003
  #2
Gear Guru
 
jwh1192's Avatar
are you talking about the sends or the returns ?

john

friend of steve O
Old 5th October 2003
  #3
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Re: Reverb - Stereo vs. Mono

Quote:
Originally posted by bassmac
Where do you use stereo?

Where do you use mono?

I will assume you are talking inputs here.

Well, Some reverb units have algorythm that are taking in account the initial position of the source you are willing to treat. Therefore the basic interest of using stereo inputs are to keep a more accurate stereo image of the sound you are treating. If you have a hard panned left signal, putting mono rev will center it a little too much while using an appropriate stereo reverb will respect more the panning.

Another reason is also puting rev on stereo source, for similar reason

I use it whan I'm trying to achieve a very natural mix ...

makes sense right ?

malice
Old 5th October 2003
  #4
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

now if you are talking mono out, hehe

I'm your man

I love it too

malice
Old 5th October 2003
  #5
Lives for gear
 
bassmac's Avatar
 

send - returns - inputs - outputs... don’t confuse me!

I have a two engine reverb, (TC M3000) and I’m just trying to get the most out of it in real time - into PT. So for drums, vox, a few guitars, I’m wondering if I should set-up maybe a mono room, and a mono plate aux (?) - and buss stuff between the two - or are some things better with both engines used in dual mono or stereo, and panned L/R on a stereo aux?

I’m a reverb ******...

Hi John

Thanks malice thumbsup
Old 5th October 2003
  #6
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
Right now I have a mix up with two stereo verbs and a mono spring on the guitars. I was digging it last night before I quit for the day. I'll find out if it sucks in about an hour or so. I always send in mono and return in stereo. For some reason I never get around to the stereo input thing. Maybe I just got burned from the early rack stuff where the boxes would sum L&R into mono and then process it before splitting back to a stereo output.
Old 5th October 2003
  #7
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Well you tc can do both 2 mono ins (feeding two diferent reverbs) or one stereo reverb.

The issue here seems to be the number of different revs that you need.

If you are not in need of two seperate rev from the M3000, use the stereo feed with stereo rev prg.

If you are short in effect units, better use dual mono reverb.

anyway, when you are heading for natural space recreation, it's better not to mix too many different reverbs (room, plates, hall etc ...)
A good hall should do the trick.
you then have the choice of having one good stereo hall OR
two same hall program with different settings (duration, pre delay etc ...) to have some kind of harmony between short and long fx...

did I confused you, or do you follow me ?

good luck

best

malice
Old 5th October 2003
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Macaroni's Avatar
 

I've got an M3000 too. Here are a few suggestions to help you get started experimenting.

-Use a stereo room/ambience setting for drums (or whatever is suitable for the song), using both reverb engines together in parallel mode, which will give you the best stereo sound.
-Print this to disk in stereo and you'll have full control over a super excellent drum reverb during the mix.
-You can do this for the whole drum kit or just the snare and toms.
-Try using a single engine mono reverb for guitars or other single instruments and pan the mono reverb to the same location as the instruments are panned.
-That will give those instruments a local more focused reverb sound tied directly to the instrument and help to distinguish the reverbs from one another, as opposed to having a big wash of a bunch of different reverbs merged together.
-You could also pan the mono reverb to the opposite side of the instrument to open up the sound.
-You can hear this technique on Steely Dan mixes.
-Print these reverbs to disk as well.
-Use the parallel mode again and dial up a suitable stereo reverb for the vocals and mix this in real time when mixing.

Hope this helps.


Ron...
Old 6th October 2003
  #9
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

I think mono reverb sucks unless the source and the reverb are panned to opposite sides. Stereo reverb also usually sucks because it clumps up around the source unless you reverse pan it and then it clumps opposite the source. Stuff panned to the middle sounds like it's in a tunnel rather than like its on a stage in a nice space.

What I really like is feeding a mono send to both channels of a stereo reverb or to two mono reverbs that are panned hard left and right. That way the reverb comes from all directions like it does in a real room. One thing to watch out for is cheap reverb units that create "stereo" by providing phase reversed outputs. Another reason to ALWAYS check mono!
Old 6th October 2003
  #10
Mindreader
 
BevvyB's Avatar
 

Is it me or is the TC3000 'samey'

I mean, most of the reverbs sound pretty similar

When I'm clicking through the presets I never go from one sonic space to another, always sounds like I'm clicking through the same algorythm that's had its parameters changed

Saying that, it's quite transparent, but I find it makes things sound bigger without actually adding a 'reverb' effect

If you know what I mean put your hand up
Old 6th October 2003
  #11
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

not a very great fan with tc rev, although I haven't tried extensively the 6000.

I have work a lot with the 5000, but had to struggle much in edit mode to get somethink I like...

taste are subjective matter of course

malice
Old 6th October 2003
  #12
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Bob, I tend to agree with what you said about stereo reverb, but sometimes, you want to add reverb to a source that you don't want to spread left to right too much.

About mono verb, panning opposite to the source is precisly what I like to do sometimes. As well as putting verb on a gtr, keeping it mono gives a sort of "coming all from the amp" vibe for vintage kinda mix stuffs ...

malice
Old 6th October 2003
  #13
Jam
Lives for gear
 
Jam's Avatar
 

Personal opinion obviously but in the modern/alternative style I do mostly you tend not to use obvious reverb ( unless as a special effect ) so I like mono - mono for vocals in an attempt to keep them up front and positoned. But on Bv's mono-stereo and stereo-stereo using the verb as part of the sound and to control their relative mix position

Jam
Old 6th October 2003
  #14
Lives for gear
 
bassmac's Avatar
 

Ron - Your tutorial helped a lot. Thanks for chiming in - and welcome to Gearslutz! Since you have a M3000, do you have any favorite presets for male vox?

malice - I do get what you're saying - thanks. So... do you like to set-up one stereo hall or room and just buss a few things to it - in small amounts, so all the tracks sound like they're in the same space? That's what I tend to do myself - I think it keeps it simple and uncluttered - IMAO (in my amateur opinion)

BevvyB - I agree about most of the M3000 patches sounding similar. Since this is my only reverb, I have nothing to compare with, but when I here people speak of "lush" Lexicon verb - I don't think I have that here. I think I might like it though.

Bob - Are you saying I'd be better off using my two verb engines as dual mono - panned R/L on a stereo aux, as opposed to parallel input as Ron had suggested?

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Old 6th October 2003
  #15
Lives for gear
 
Macaroni's Avatar
 

Hi BassMac - I like the Slap Back preset #108 in full stereo. Depends on the song of course, but that's good starting point. Put some headphones on and listen carefully to some Steely Dan mixes - Aja, Gaucho, 2 Against Nature. Glad to be of help.

Also, don't be afraid to do a bit of basic editing. You'll find that adjusting the delay, pre-delay and eq are the 3 key areas you can make quick adjustments that may make it fit better in the mix.

I don't agree at all about the reverbs sounding the same on the M3000. They are excellent and extremely versatile IMO. There's no question in my mind that the M3000 is a top of the line unit.

I also had a Lexicon PCM-81 which has super good quality Lexicon reverbs, and it's true that they sound different in the mix than the tc, but I found that a combination of them always worked well. Variety is the spice of life and mixing. In fact, I almost always end up using the tc on vocals with excellent results.

I sold the PCM-81 and bought a Lexicon MPX-1, which is way above their cheaper prosumer units and is very close to the PCM-81, with a dedicated LexiChip just for reverbs. You can get them in excellent condition on eBay for $400+/- (I paid $360 for a 1 year old unit) and you'll have wonderful Lexicon reverbs and multi-fx for not too much money.

Ron...
Old 6th October 2003
  #16
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by bassmac
malice - I do get what you're saying - thanks. So... do you like to set-up one stereo hall or room and just buss a few things to it - in small amounts, so all the tracks sound like they're in the same space? That's what I tend to do myself - I think it keeps it simple and uncluttered - IMAO (in my amateur opinion)
Yeah that's it, but I do that when I really want a very natural mix.
What I do often is to chose a patch, then copy it and change some parameters like duration, pre delay etc so that my long and short reverb is somehow similar.

you can do that if you chose to mono input rev in your M3000 using two engines. If natural is what you seek, that might work.

malice
Old 6th October 2003
  #17
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

I have a bank vault in my building that makes a wonderful reverb, as well as a long thin "shaft" that runs down part of the building. I have been experimenting with putting up near fields and micing the results. I have been finding that x/y and m/s work well, but oddly, I have gotten some great results from micing the corners, with negligible phase cancellation.
Old 6th October 2003
  #18
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

My experience has been that even a little of the wrong reverb sounds horrible while you can use amazing quantities of the right reverb and things just keep on sounding better. Certainly reverb that draws attention to its self is a question of fashion but nothing glues a mix together or makes it sound killer on the air like a great reverb that doesn't draw attention to its self.
Old 6th October 2003
  #19
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
My experience has been that even a little of the wrong reverb sounds horrible while you can use amazing quantities of the right reverb and things just keep on sounding better. Certainly reverb that draws attention to its self is a question of fashion but nothing glues a mix together or makes it sound killer on the air like a great reverb that doesn't draw attention to its self.
Right on. It seems like appropriate reverbs make things bigger, and blend with the timbre of the track. Innapropriate reverbs seem to standout and actually take up space in the mix.

But, there are always exceptions to the rule- thinking of surf music here.

Bob, how are the mics in reverb chambers typically set up? Or are their any rules at all?
Old 6th October 2003
  #20
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
My experience has been that even a little of the wrong reverb sounds horrible while you can use amazing quantities of the right reverb and things just keep on sounding better.
Agreed,

my rule of thumb being to lower a little of it once I found it and set what I'm thinking is the good level ...

malice
Old 6th October 2003
  #21
Lives for gear
 
malice's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by toledo3
I have a bank vault in my building that makes a wonderful reverb, as well as a long thin "shaft" that runs down part of the building. I have been experimenting with putting up near fields and micing the results. I have been finding that x/y and m/s work well, but oddly, I have gotten some great results from micing the corners, with negligible phase cancellation.
That's a way to do it.

You can use spaced OMNI as well.

You avoid phase cancelation problems as long as you respect the 3:1 rule.

little reminder for those who are not aware. omni mics must be separate from each others by three time the distance from the source (in this case, the nearfield monitor)


malice
Old 6th October 2003
  #22
Lives for gear
 
toledo3's Avatar
 

Hmmm, I will have to try out some omnis.
Old 7th October 2003
  #23
Gear Addict
 
Marshall Simmons's Avatar
 

in regards to recording an impulse for reverb, you want to have the left channel and right channel as decorrelated as possible below 300hz. That way the upper frequencies can still have good localization information, and the lower frequencies can have the spaciousness. You can position the mics so that bass frequencies are completely decorrelated (left and right speakers are completely different) by seperating the omni's in a spaced pair so that they are atleast 1/2 the wavelegnth apart for the lowest correlated frequency you want.

i'm doing research on this based on the idea propsed by Dr. David Griesinger of lexicon.

Marsh
Old 7th October 2003
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Alécio Costa's Avatar
 

I tend to make a mix of several reverbs. I do not own any very expensive unit, so basically, my basic reverb sound is the combi of:
2 SPX 900´s from an 02R
2 SPX 900´s from an 01V
1 Lexicon MPX1
1 Digitech TSR 12
Lexiverb 1.0 or 2.0 within PT TDM environment

I love the 80´s thick stereo chorus/room/hall/gates.
Lots of people hate that
lol


Old 7th October 2003
  #25
member no 666
 
Fletcher's Avatar
I have always run my reverbs mono in, stereo out. Not for any lofty reasons... just because it's one send, one effect... and I find that by ****ing with the predelay times and reverb times from side to side I can get **** to trail off in the opposite direction of the panning of the original [with out eating up aux sends any more than necessary...]
Old 8th October 2003
  #26
Gear Maniac
 
drmad69's Avatar
 

I have been trying, instead of hard panning the reverb return, soft panning so that say the vocal is \/ and say the drusms are more _ _

That has seemed to localize the sepereate verbs for me?

But I'm a newbie, anybody see a issue with that?
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 46 views: 17625
Avatar for Voyage.One
Voyage.One 28th July 2010
replies: 85 views: 18273
Avatar for FiL.dUbz
FiL.dUbz 12th August 2014
replies: 117 views: 42088
Avatar for grabme
grabme 21st August 2020
replies: 51 views: 11073
Avatar for GBP
GBP 1st September 2019
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump