Stop me before I (over)use Reverb again!

What's wrong with this picture...

I spend literally years trying out great acoustic guitars before settling on one. It has wonderful tone. Each note is a chorus of lovely harmonics along with the primary tone. A chord is an orchestra. The sustain is wonderful. The sound, when played well, is magical.

Then I get a decent quality interface, and a good quality condensor mic.

And I record some tracks, and end up with recordings that sound remarkably, almost shockingly, like the real guitar. It is amazing, especially considering the really poor location I have available for recording.

But then I feel compelled to add too much reverb (and echo) in Garage Band, simply because I can, and because it sounds so cool.

As my daughter said when she listened to my recorded tracks: "the effects are cool, but without them the recording sounds exactly like what I hear when you play your guitar!"



Yes, these are the ruminations of a newbie at recording, but my urges to manipulate the sound too much are really awfully silly!


What I'm seeing is that reverb (and echo) effects are a lot like enhancing sharpness, contrast, and saturation in photo editing. In photo editing these things are frequently overdone. Sometimes they can make a mediocre photo look a bit better, but often they end up simply degrading photos that were pretty good to start with.

When I was first trying to record guitar using the built-in mic on my iMac computer the raw recording was pretty awful sounding but could be improved greatly by adding reverb and some echo. But with my good mic the sound quality is so good that hardly any enhancement - or maybe no enhancement - is needed.

What I'm seeing is that reverb (and echo) effects are a lot like enhancing sharpness, contrast, and saturation in photo editing. In photo editing these things are frequently overdone. Sometimes they can make a mediocre photo look a bit better, but often they end up simply degrading photos that were pretty good to start with.



See, you're on the way ...... at least you know it can be too much, of course the hard part is reining yourslf in, so, go practise !! :wink:

totally understand the reverb-overkill problem! what i've learned to do is turn it up til it sounds juicy and 'verb-drenched, then dial it back to the point where you don't really notice the reverb ... at that point it may *seem* like there's none on the track, but when you turn it all the way off, you realize there was plenty there at the dialed-back level — usually just enough.

as for the GB echo, i've learned to use it only in specific situations (like slapback, doubling or cascading long echo), rather than as a general-usage effect like reverb ... the echo can make the instrument/voice set weird in the mix ... not sure what it does technically, but it's almost like some sort of phasing muddle.

LESS IS MORE.

Learn it. Live it. Love it.
:cool:

Woodman has it sussed.
It is important to not 'hear' the reverb in 99% of cases.

Also investigate the use of pre-delay- it can really help with helping the reverb sit well.

You might find this webpage to be of some use.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may00/articles/reverb.htm

simply use two tracks for the guitar ... one dry and one with reverb ... mix to taste ... problem solved ...

hmmm, I thought this was going to be based around an amp and over using the reverb....

when you touch the reverb button always lower by half of what you really wanted to have it at, that way you force yourself to fix that problem

or just quit using reverb

as gearmanndude says, "reverb sucks"

but I still secretly use it from time to time (just a pinch of it)

honestly I think Rangercaster has the best solution, didnt event think of that one.

Yes, 'verb is good ... but, like a drug, so watch your dosage.

I think Enya is addicted. :grin:

mud

totally understand the reverb-overkill problem! what i've learned to do is turn it up til it sounds juicy and 'verb-drenched, then dial it back to the point where you don't really notice the reverb ... at that point it may *seem* like there's none on the track, but when you turn it all the way off, you realize there was plenty there at the dialed-back level — usually just enough.




Yep, if you hear it in a mix for most people that's too much. Solo acoustic intruments, well, it is the mix so it's a bit harder to tell how much you need but if people are commenting, then yeah, probably too much.

what i've learned to do is turn it up til it sounds juicy and 'verb-drenched, then dial it back to the point where you don't really notice the reverb ... at that point it may *seem* like there's none on the track, but when you turn it all the way off, you realize there was plenty there at the dialed-back level — usually just enough.

This is a lot like what I do in photo editing. The sharpening features of Photoshop are addictive too, much like reverb is for music, but sharpening too much can really wreck a photo. I tend to sharpen just to the point where I can obviously see a difference and then back off from that.

Woodman has it sussed.
It is important to not 'hear' the reverb in 99% of cases.

Also investigate the use of pre-delay- it can really help with helping the reverb sit well.

You might find this webpage to be of some use.
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may00/articles/reverb.htm

I don't think Garageband lets you adjust the pre-delay (correct me if I am wrong).

But this article was interesting and useful. It also pretty much says what I had concluded on my own previously - that an important use for reverb can be to compensate a bit for a less than ideal recording environment.

Also, I think I find myself more compelled to use too much reverb if I am listening to my recording using bad quality speakers (e.g. built-in speakers in a computer).


This raises an interesting question for others here who are doing home recording on a limited budget with simple equipment: What do you use to listen to your recordings when you are working with tracks and mixes? I know that the pros probably have great quality speakers or something (expensive stuff), but what does is the average person doing this at home do?

And, really, unless you expect your music to be listened to through great speakers, does it maybe make more sense to use something of more average quality so that your mix sounds good when played back through similar equipment?

Personally, the best thing I have to work with is headphones, which give much better sound than my built-in computer speakers.

it is NOT JUST ABOUT USING SHORTER REVERB TIMES.

A mostly (as in ca. 85%+) dry wet/dry mix is your friend.

People doing a 50%50% or 60%40% dry::wet ratio have no idea how much they are using.

IMO YMMV

-kp

it is NOT JUST ABOUT USING SHORTER REVERB TIMES.

A mostly (as in ca. 85%+) dry wet/dry mix is your friend.

People doing a 50%50% or 60%40% dry::wet ratio have no idea how much they are using.


no question there — unless you're going for the effect of recording inside Pharaoh's tomb! the first time i ever set foot in a "real" recording studio, our band was inexperienced and sloppy, so the tracks sounded pretty crappy. the engineer put a ton of "echo" (actually spring reverb) on it, told us it was great and took our money ... those tracks are embarrassing and unlistenable today — he was using reverb to cover up the slop.

as for reverb speed, i'll usually turn the send up to ridiculous levels (like 80%) to get the speed to mesh with the beat, then dial it down to barely detectable levels. my reverb philosophy in a mix is to simulate a live space, rather than using it as an *effect.*

The first time i ever set foot in a "real" recording studio, our band was inexperienced and sloppy, so the tracks sounded pretty crappy. the engineer put a ton of "echo" (actually spring reverb) on it, told us it was great and took our money ... those tracks are embarrassing and unlistenable today — he was using reverb to cover up the slop.

Yeah, there are a few early Fred McDowell records drenched w/ spring or plate 'verb. Just criminal. Totally destroys what would have been astoundingly great recordings (luckily there are plenty of those, such as the archoolie cds).

That's the thing with reverb. It's worse than sonic mayo. You can put it on, but you cant take it off.

;)

What do you use to listen to your recordings when you are working with tracks and mixes? I know that the pros probably have great quality speakers or something (expensive stuff), but what does is the average person doing this at home do?

headphones are deceptive and rarely result in a good mix — one of the best initial investments you can make in your home rig is a pair of decent monitor speakers ... even the little JBL Control One speakers (~$100) are better than mixing through headphones. in fact, a cheap stereo beats headphones, but stereo speakers are usually tuned to enhance certain frequencies and suppress others ... what you want is a "flat" response; that way you've got a fighting chance of obtaining a mix that sounds good over a wide range of systems.

while it'd be great to have a top-shelf pair of $1,000 monitors, it's more important to have something other than phones, and get to know them — after a while, you'll home in on what a good mix sounds like through your rig. it's largely a matter of ear training.

most people test their mixes by playing them over as many systems as possible: home stereo, your car, a boombox, your friends' systems, the dreaded computer speakers. then adjust your mix accordingly. when you have a mix that sounds good on all the above, your monitors, whatever they may be, will tell you what a good mix sounds like on them.

Here's a trick I've used to good results.

Set up two record tracks in GB. Route your main (close) mic to one track and another (about 8 or more feet away and pointed away from the guitar, maybe even down a hall a few feet) to the other track. Get good level going to both and jam away. After recording, mix the distant mic into your sound just enough to add in some space ambiance. This will give your guitar a little "size" without resorting to the verb in the program. Common technique with mic'd amps.

p.s. you'll likely have to fuss with the position of the distant mic a bit for the best result.

As far as monitoring, there are tons of great sounding, low cost monitors out there (Mackie, KRK, M-Audio, Fostex, about 300 a pair, and there are always people upgrading, so less on eBay). Most are computer designed these days, so they're pretty accurate, even at the low price end. For me, the trick is monitoring at low volume level. Put less energy into your room, and room problems will interfere less with the direct sound of the monitors.

Hmm.... more things to suck up my money, after too many other music-related expenses recently (e.g. nice new steel string guitar, as well as the FireBox and microphones).

So, how critical do you think these speakers would be initially at the recording stage? Will they substantially affect the decisions I make with mic placement and such, or will they mostly be critical to have at the mixing stage (if so I could wait 6 months or more before really needing them, and focus mostly on recording tracks now)?

Also, I don't like using headphones. It seems I either have them too soft to really hear what is going on, or I have them loud enough to hear all the nuances and they seem to bother my ears (and I worry about long-term hearing loss).

Here's a trick I've used to good results.

Set up two record tracks in GB. Route your main (close) mic to one track and another (about 8 or more feet away and pointed away from the guitar, maybe even down a hall a few feet) to the other track. Get good level going to both and jam away. After recording, mix the distant mic into your sound just enough to add in some space ambiance. This will give your guitar a little "size" without resorting to the verb in the program. Common technique with mic'd amps.

p.s. you'll likely have to fuss with the position of the distant mic a bit for the best result.

I'm planning to try this sort of thing as soon as my second mic (a Rode M3 - only $1 with an August purchase of a Rode NT1-A !) arrives. The problem is, the easiest place to set up and record (my basement) has some background noise problems. The Rode NT1-A is basically not picking this up at all when I place it really close to my acoustic guitars, and I'm getting good sound quality, but I fear that if it is placed farther back in the room it might get more of the room noise. Not to mention ugly reverberations in the recording space. We'll see. Ultimately, I might try doing some recording in an empty church or music auditorium if the logistics of doing so on a regular basis seem manageable.

......For me, the trick is monitoring at low volume level. Put less energy into your room, and room problems will interfere less with the direct sound of the monitors.

I'm not sure I understand. For acoustic recording, I'm assuming I would need to use headphones to monitor the already-recorded tracks. Right?

Or are you talking about using the monitors during mixing and such? As I think about it, I guess maybe what you are saying is that if you don't have the volume too high while you are working on your mixing, then the acoustics of the mixing space will not affect your mixing decisions so much. Is this what you meant?

if you don't have the volume too high while you are working on your mixing, then the acoustics of the mixing space will not affect your mixing decisions so much.

bingo!

Hey wcap;
Yea, background noise and crappy acoustics can be a problem, but maybe not a deal buster. I have BG noise issues, but I can control them (i.e. turn off air/furnace), but if it's street noise or something like that, more difficult. The church would probably be amazing.

Crappy acoustics are not so much an issue. You're just looking for a bit of distance, and that track is way down in the mix, so you can usually eq the snot out of it to make it lay in with the main track better. Try dumping everything below about 1000/1500 cycles and just grab the high end stuff for ambience. Let the close mic/mics deliver the mids and lows.
I'm unfamiliar with the EQ options in GB. You might have to EQ at the board before going in to GB.

And yea, low volume monitoring refers just to the mix stage. I'm usually up a bit while tracking because I need some energy bouncing around to get a good performance if it's a mic'd amp or bass. Of course, as you say, it's headphones for tracking acoustic by yourself.

Well, you can make great recordings with next to nothing. I personally don't believe you can make great sounding recordings without the right space and adequate equipment. I don't think any $300 pair of monitors are really, really accurate. They may be accurate enough. That's up to you. The above poster is correct that there are tons of great sounding low cost monitors out there. But are they accurate? Maybe. Probably not.

One thing I do believe in is good mics and good monitors. Any interface you buy now probably has better converters than anyone had in the 80s and mid-90s. Just a guess.

But just as important as good monitors is proper room treatment. Why buy $3000 monitors and try mixing in a silo? Or a warehouse? Or a men's room? If you are going to spend $500 on monitoring I'd rather see you spend $250 on treatments and $250 on monitors. Believe me, $250 will buy a lot of DIY treatments.

If you are stuck using headphones for a while one thing you will need to do is dump a copy and play it in the living room, on a boombox, ipod, in the car, at a friend's house, etc. So maybe the easiest thing to do (and it may cost as much as monitors, I don't know) is to be able to dump to a thumb drive instead of CD after CD. If you are set up to plug USB into your home system and car system it might make life easier and be cheaper in the long run. But, if you have to buy stuff to make that happen just get the monitors and some 703.

This is like anything else. Yeah, you can play golf with one club and you can fly fish without a reel but.....hobbies are supposed to cost money.

Thanks everyone.

So, what sort of room treatments would you recommend?

I have one end of a basement to work with, with LOTS of aquaria and soft bubbling sounds and the constant hum of a very large aquarium air pump at the other end (not loud sounds, but constant background sounds - the pump sound is the biggest issue). This is also living space my family uses, and I can't box it off. This is the most convenient space otherwise though since I can have privacy for a few hours at night and record/monitor/whatever without bothering anyone or being bothered. I'm getting good recordings of acoustic guitar with a Rode NT1-A placed very close near where the neck meets the body, and the mic is so directional that it is not picking up the hum from the pump (I wonder whether a more distant mic would though....I have not tried this yet, though I suppose if the close one is not a more distant one might not either....we'll see).

Alternatively, there is a small bedroom (about 10ft x 11ft) where I could hang things on the walls to alter the acoustics (blankets maybe???), but there are relatively few times during the week when I could work in this space without being disturbed when I would not be disturbing the sleep of others.

Or, there is a small basement bathroom (basically not much bigger than what is needed for a toilet and a small sink) - nice place to play guitar without bothering anyone - even in the middle of the night, but sound really reverberates in this sort of small space. Probably not good for anything other than playing guitar without bothering people.

Thoughts???

if i were you, i'd forget about the bedroom and focus on making the basement space work ... you don't need it to be totally dead. acoustic guitar doesn't create the acoustic problems a cranked electric or bass does. do some trial-and-error placement tests and apply the scientific method! :wink:

i've had good luck recording in bathrooms, too — under the right circumstances, it can sound like an old-time reverb chamber.