|
send channels p.2
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Newty |
I am wondering if i should use the same sends that control my synths to control my drums as well. Im guessing this way my whole track is in the same room, but on the other hand, I feel like most producers use different reverb and delay for everything. Im kind of lost at this point.
I did some research and couldnt find any conclusive answer . I just really want to make my mixes obtain a new level. |
|
|
| TranceElevation |
| Room verb for drums, hall for the rest. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
I like to minimize the number of reverbs for two reasons:
1) keeping most/all/similar instruments in the same space
2) minimizing the CPU hit
But, I usually end up using a few different reverbs on sends, such as one long and one medium or short, maybe one or two for a given special effect or sound design. Also, sometimes I'll use different reverb sends for lead and/or background vox. I usually turn off the reverbs on my synth/sample plugins and use the reverb sends instead, but not always.
I approach delays a little differently and usually use more of them, since they don't have the CPU hit that reverbs do. I'm usually more likely to use the onboard delays for synth sound design. I also usually have a few different ones on sends that are primarily for different vocal effects. I use a stereo slap back delay on individual tracks for widening or thickening, etc. |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Newty
I just really want to make my mixes obtain a new level. |
In terms of the original question, many mix engineers set up two main send reverbs: a small room reverb for many of the drum elements, and a large hall reverb for lead sounds (the large reverb typically has a lot of low end frequencies cut away, otherwise the mix can quickly muddy up). Whether or not you send pad sounds into the main reverb is up to you - sometimes they sound great left completely dry.
But in terms of making your mixes "obtain a new level", reverbs and delays are way, way down the list. They're the icing on the cake when your mix already sounds fantastic.
The number one thing which will improve your mixes is practicing putting sounds together, working out which sounds fit with which other sounds. This will teach you that there are no "perfect" sounds - no "perfect kick", "perfect bass", etc. etc. The "greatest kick in the world" can sound terrible if combined with the wrong sounds, and a very dull sounding kick can sound fantastic if combined with the right sounds.
After that, and a very distant second, is cutting out all the unneeded frequencies from your sounds. This will really help clean up your mix (though your mix should sound really good before you apply EQ/ filtering).
After that is all the icing on the cake - the reverbs, delays, modulation effects and so on. |
|
|
| evo8 |
Typically id have 2 or 3 room reverbs on sends for drums, or maybe one of those might be a chorus instead
Depends on the track - maybe your main hi hat you just want a really short reverb on it so as to keep it upfront, other hats maybe a bigger room to give a bigger sense of space
Id usually have 1 or 2 big Hall reverbs for fx - i mostly use hall reverbs as inserts but each to their own - its all about finding out what works for you
@derail - disagree somewhat about reverbs being "the icing on the cake" - imo theyre essential in creating the illusion of space, my mixes came on a whole lot once i figured out how to use the appropriate reverb, in particular really short reverb modes like the "Ambience" mode in Valhalla Vintage Verb for example - sometimes a chorus will do the trick as well |
|
|
| derail |
Hmm. I guess I was just responding to the concept of "taking a mix to a new level". If that last sentence hadn't been there and it had been a straight up question about send effects, I wouldn't have gone off on a tangent.
I wouldn't print a final version of a song without the reverbs in place, because they do add depth and character to a mix. But I find my songs are very listenable/ sound "complete", before I route my sounds into my send reverbs. Indeed, some mix engineers mix their songs very dry. But yeah, I do like the character/ sense of space that reverbs add.
Going by Newty's recent questions (for example, "what is a send channel?"), I'd assume there are much more fundamental things for them to be concentrating on, if their objective is improving their mixes.
Back to the original question:
Some great mix engineers mix very/ completely dry.
Some great engineers use one or two send effects.
Some great engineers use separate reverbs and delays on every single channel, as insert effects.
There is no conclusive answer we can give you. There is no "best" or "correct" way. The best mix engineers in the world don't all use the same approach. What matters is the end result, and what works best for you in achieving it.
Having said that, it's not typical to treat drums with the same reverb as lead sounds. But if you want to do this, I'd recommend using a short room reverb for both, rather than a large hall. Drum sounds can be quite hard to control in a large hall. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
Good thread. Engineers using individual inserts on each for these effects is actually very rare.
One of the biggest things I learned from working in large studios was the setup is most important thing. The top mix engineers know exactly what reverbs they're going to use before they've even heard anything.
Usually 4 - 1 plate, 1 spring, 1 short and 1 long. They then add if they need to but that's usually the defacto standard at least for score or hybrid (synth and orchestra) mixing.
I've actually found it difficult to find reverbs I really like and the key is to find really beautiful ones, but ones that fit together as an overall mix. I cant say I feel I've got there yet.
Actually another question:
How do you guys manage the returns? The way I was taught, was to have the reverb inserted on the aux send channel, with it at 100% wet, then set the aux fader to unity.
You then just add reverb by changing the send amount on the track you are trying to effect. This lets you adjust the balance of wet dry by adding to suit.
The only problem with this is that you're adding more more volume of that track; essentially by sending another copy eventually to the master.
I've seen some ninja engineers do it differently where they mix/automate the aux fader as if it were a channel but it was all dark magic to me and I couldn't get my head around or make it sounds decent when I've tried it.
Any thoughts? How do you manage the send levels and returns and we/dry? |
|
|
| derail |
Yep, send reverbs are 100% wet. Send reverb output is at unity (usually - there are occasions where one thinks "let's just bring this reverb up or down a touch, I'm happy with the balance of the sounds going into it and don't want to make a bunch of adjustments).
In terms of "adding a copy" of the incoming sounds, you're only adding the reverbed signal, not a copy of the dry signal. Of course, a given sound can become louder overall,in which case that sound's level may need a slight adjustment.
In terms of automation, it's all up for grabs - whether it's each sound's send level, or the send reverb's overall output level, or some sidechain treatment of the send reverb (or a bunch of other things). |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Good thread. Engineers using individual inserts on each for these effects is actually very rare.
One of the biggest things I learned from working in large studios was the setup is most important thing. The top mix engineers know exactly what reverbs they're going to use before they've even heard anything.
Usually 4 - 1 plate, 1 spring, 1 short and 1 long. They then add if they need to but that's usually the defacto standard at least for score or hybrid (synth and orchestra) mixing.
I've actually found it difficult to find reverbs I really like and the key is to find really beautiful ones, but ones that fit together as an overall mix. I cant say I feel I've got there yet.
Actually another question:
How do you guys manage the returns? The way I was taught, was to have the reverb inserted on the aux send channel, with it at 100% wet, then set the aux fader to unity.
You then just add reverb by changing the send amount on the track you are trying to effect. This lets you adjust the balance of wet dry by adding to suit.
The only problem with this is that you're adding more more volume of that track; essentially by sending another copy eventually to the master.
I've seen some ninja engineers do it differently where they mix/automate the aux fader as if it were a channel but it was all dark magic to me and I couldn't get my head around or make it sounds decent when I've tried it.
Any thoughts? How do you manage the send levels and returns and we/dry? |
compressor or automation on reverb buss. The louder things are, the less reverb you need/want. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
That's what I was asking. I know guys who automate the reverb aux fader and my spock-like mind says that s your relationship between wet and dry given that you're basing the amount to send in direct relation to the given gain of the aux fader.
There's one Japenese engineer I've assisted (working with him was one of the most brilliant and confusing things I've ever witnessed) who would "chase" the movement of the tracks faders with the reverb aux return fader - he'd just do it by hand so he would naturally lag about 1/2 a second behind their movement- on long and short strings it sounded incredible.
Have to be really careful though otherwise the tails get to extended (no such thing for the German lol) by the reverb "chasing" it. |
|
|
| evo8 |
| Read some stuff in the past about people wanting to compensate for added volume on the return tracks - personally ive never had any issues with this, ill usually reduce the main track volume of that particular track if i notice that using the send has changed the overall mix too much |
|
|
|
|
