This gave me something to think about, I know I struggle with a clear mix lacking mud and harshness, it may be reverb and other things clashing in the mix 🤔
Outstanding. Your videos really complement Dan Worrall's, and you're not an alien from the future like he is. I also appreciate that you bring other plugin publishers' work in where it's appropriate.
Alien from the future! Ha ha ha... I agree though. Dan takes me to the outer realms of the audio galaxy, yet I always feel like I'm with a friend when I'm out there who just so happens to be one of the best pilots I know.
Cool video but i don't get the insert/send difference in sound, when you put the reverb at 50% mix on insert shouldn't it be the same as sending the full volume to the reverb aux and pulling down 6db(if the aux is post fader) to compensate the volume increase?
I was wondering the same thing. The only difference I can think of is running multiple signals to the send reverb. I’m still not sure if that would affect how the reverb acts though. At least in the digital domain. A mechanical reverb sharing signals would definitely react differently because the spring or plate would be vibrating. But insert vs send just changes where the mixing of dry and wet signal is happening.
If nothing else, you will get another knob for controlling the volume, which can be pretty neat in the mixing stage. I almost always put it in send, of course depending on the situation.
Personally I find it useful for cohesiveness if I'm aiming to emulate a real space. For example my snare, vocal and guitar don't belong in the same group but I may want a touch of reverb on each with varying amounts. It's easier to send the three signals to the one reverb than create three of the same reverb. On another note, if tracking vocals in a studio setting, I may wish to provide a separate headphone mix to the artist with reverb while I hear the dry vocal in the control room. In this case I would set the output of the reverb send to their headphones, but not my monitors. In short, there is nothing wrong with your approach but when presented with situations like the above I find a send to be the most logical choice!
The only examples that are missing from the part on digital reverb types are those that are used on vocals where, for example, the reverb makes sibilants more hissy.
I'm really digging these song snippets used in many of you guys' videos, is it a demo for just these videos or somethin that has been released and is Spotifiable? :)
"All My Life" by Attack Attack! was used in the spring reverb demo, not sure of the other clips. "Chemicals" by Conquer Divide is also used in some of the other videos
4:30 - I don't get it. What is the use of switching between _insert_ and _send??_ No matter how, you always put the signal through the reverb, and the amount of wet signal needs to be adjusted for how much dry sound you want to retain. I don't see what difference an aux send makes here other than creating obsolete problems. If I want identical FX settings on multiple tracks, I put them in a *group* and put the VST on the mother track. Aux inserts were a workaround for analogue gear where you cannot have 32 identical reverb units due to completely impractical transportation issues and the sheer pricetag involved, so channels have to _share_ effects, but computers these days have plenty of processing power to give each track its own, separate copies of the same effect in order to keep the mix from muddying up.
Personally I find it useful for cohesiveness if I'm aiming to emulate a real space. For example my snare, vocal and guitar don't belong in the same group but I may want a touch of reverb on each with varying amounts. It's easier to send the three signals to the one reverb than create three of the same reverb. On another note, if tracking vocals in a studio setting, I may wish to provide a separate headphone mix to the artist with reverb while I hear the dry vocal in the control room. In this case I would set the output of the reverb send to their headphones, but not my monitors. In short, there is nothing wrong with your approach but when presented with situations like the above I find a send to be the most logical choice!
@@lowkeylu These are situations that I will never need, but now I do see how they can be useful. Thanks for clearing that up. I am still confused as to why it is switched around in this video. Without knowing the exact routing, I have no idea what that changes and why it it seems to be relevant here.
@@Noone-of-your-Business another commenter actually mentioned something I had completely overlooked which is that it allows you to process your reverb on a separate channel. An example of how I might do this is on a lead vocal. I'll put my reverb on another track and send the vocal to this fx track. I'll place a compressor after the reverb but set the input to be the dry signal from the vocal track. Using this side chaining technique I can make my vocal duck my reverb so that it only pops out during the spaces in between! This can be as subtle or dramatic as you wish. I may then put an eq next in the chain for some filtering, perhaps even a chorus effect if I'm feeling it.
novice question, what exactly are the low cut and high cut features on a reverb cutting? So if a low cut is set to 90 Hz, is cutting everything up to 90 Hz in the reverb trail? and vise versa for the high cut if it's set to 5.6 kHz, cutting everything high than that in the reverb trail? Great video.
I'm confused. Why are you implying that the buss inherently keeps the dry and wet signal separate from one another, (to keep the sound more upfront) while the insert doesn't? Is there something in your Daw that prevents you from blending the wet and dry signal when the reverb is an insert while the buss lets you? I mean it's an insert on the Buss too so. Or is it that you're effecting several signals at once so effectively none of them sound "in the background"? Edit: I think I just realized you are doubling up the signal to be routed to two different Aux's. As opposed to just re-routing the signal through the buss alone.
I love your content, it's always so helpful
This gave me something to think about, I know I struggle with a clear mix lacking mud and harshness, it may be reverb and other things clashing in the mix 🤔
Love these videos ...
ALL MY LIFE I WAS BREATHIN'..........SMOOOOKKEEEEEEE
As always great video!
10:12 you serial ambience into a spring? Why was the plate on a separate track?
Outstanding. Your videos really complement Dan Worrall's, and you're not an alien from the future like he is. I also appreciate that you bring other plugin publishers' work in where it's appropriate.
Alien from the future! Ha ha ha... I agree though.
Dan takes me to the outer realms of the audio galaxy, yet I always feel like I'm with a friend when I'm out there who just so happens to be one of the best pilots I know.
so helpful
Well, my personal guilty pleasure is a shimmer reverb. Love this stuff! And pretty sad that you didn't mention it
Hm I feel like it's only a week ago I suggested a reverb video to Miami. Thanks - but surely you didn't respond that fast :). Must be coincidence.
Cool video but i don't get the insert/send difference in sound, when you put the reverb at 50% mix on insert shouldn't it be the same as sending the full volume to the reverb aux and pulling down 6db(if the aux is post fader) to compensate the volume increase?
in both cases is a parallel processing, just done directly into the plugin when using as a insert
I was wondering the same thing. The only difference I can think of is running multiple signals to the send reverb. I’m still not sure if that would affect how the reverb acts though. At least in the digital domain. A mechanical reverb sharing signals would definitely react differently because the spring or plate would be vibrating. But insert vs send just changes where the mixing of dry and wet signal is happening.
exactly
If nothing else, you will get another knob for controlling the volume, which can be pretty neat in the mixing stage. I almost always put it in send, of course depending on the situation.
Personally I find it useful for cohesiveness if I'm aiming to emulate a real space. For example my snare, vocal and guitar don't belong in the same group but I may want a touch of reverb on each with varying amounts. It's easier to send the three signals to the one reverb than create three of the same reverb. On another note, if tracking vocals in a studio setting, I may wish to provide a separate headphone mix to the artist with reverb while I hear the dry vocal in the control room. In this case I would set the output of the reverb send to their headphones, but not my monitors. In short, there is nothing wrong with your approach but when presented with situations like the above I find a send to be the most logical choice!
How do you edit this masterpiece video? Thanks man
Our very talented video editing team work tirelessly night and day to bring you this content. ❤️
@@joeymusic not al heroes wear capes ❤
Excellent video. Very informative and easily digestible. Thank you!
Good video!
Really want full emulation of Strymon pedals, Chase - Bliss Mood mk2, Habit - Echo Collector and Dark World Reverb 😢
The only examples that are missing from the part on digital reverb types are those that are used on vocals where, for example, the reverb makes sibilants more hissy.
Amazing Info
I'm really digging these song snippets used in many of you guys' videos, is it a demo for just these videos or somethin that has been released and is Spotifiable? :)
"All My Life" by Attack Attack! was used in the spring reverb demo, not sure of the other clips. "Chemicals" by Conquer Divide is also used in some of the other videos
4:30 - I don't get it. What is the use of switching between _insert_ and _send??_ No matter how, you always put the signal through the reverb, and the amount of wet signal needs to be adjusted for how much dry sound you want to retain. I don't see what difference an aux send makes here other than creating obsolete problems. If I want identical FX settings on multiple tracks, I put them in a *group* and put the VST on the mother track. Aux inserts were a workaround for analogue gear where you cannot have 32 identical reverb units due to completely impractical transportation issues and the sheer pricetag involved, so channels have to _share_ effects, but computers these days have plenty of processing power to give each track its own, separate copies of the same effect in order to keep the mix from muddying up.
Would love to get a comment on this.
Personally I find it useful for cohesiveness if I'm aiming to emulate a real space. For example my snare, vocal and guitar don't belong in the same group but I may want a touch of reverb on each with varying amounts. It's easier to send the three signals to the one reverb than create three of the same reverb. On another note, if tracking vocals in a studio setting, I may wish to provide a separate headphone mix to the artist with reverb while I hear the dry vocal in the control room. In this case I would set the output of the reverb send to their headphones, but not my monitors. In short, there is nothing wrong with your approach but when presented with situations like the above I find a send to be the most logical choice!
@@lowkeylu These are situations that I will never need, but now I do see how they can be useful. Thanks for clearing that up.
I am still confused as to why it is switched around in this video. Without knowing the exact routing, I have no idea what that changes and why it it seems to be relevant here.
@@Noone-of-your-Business another commenter actually mentioned something I had completely overlooked which is that it allows you to process your reverb on a separate channel.
An example of how I might do this is on a lead vocal. I'll put my reverb on another track and send the vocal to this fx track. I'll place a compressor after the reverb but set the input to be the dry signal from the vocal track. Using this side chaining technique I can make my vocal duck my reverb so that it only pops out during the spaces in between! This can be as subtle or dramatic as you wish. I may then put an eq next in the chain for some filtering, perhaps even a chorus effect if I'm feeling it.
@@lowkeylu Yep, that makes sense. 🙏 Thx.
EPIC EPIC information. Thank you.
novice question, what exactly are the low cut and high cut features on a reverb cutting? So if a low cut is set to 90 Hz, is cutting everything up to 90 Hz in the reverb trail? and vise versa for the high cut if it's set to 5.6 kHz, cutting everything high than that in the reverb trail?
Great video.
Yes that’s what it’s doing.
Wow increible video, muchas muchas gracias!!!
Great video! Thank you!
This channel is so gold
This is such a well-made video! I learned so much about reverb :)))) subbed
ROOM AND PLATE Reverbs.
Very informative and easy to understand ty!
Dynamite!! Thanks.
Cool video!
Anyone knows the song at 7:05?
All My Life, by Attack Attack
Studio one has a plugin called Open Air that uses convolution reverb. You can load in an IR and tweak how you like after.
I'm confused. Why are you implying that the buss inherently keeps the dry and wet signal separate from one another, (to keep the sound more upfront) while the insert doesn't? Is there something in your Daw that prevents you from blending the wet and dry signal when the reverb is an insert while the buss lets you? I mean it's an insert on the Buss too so. Or is it that you're effecting several signals at once so effectively none of them sound "in the background"?
Edit: I think I just realized you are doubling up the signal to be routed to two different Aux's. As opposed to just re-routing the signal through the buss alone.
Yes doubled the signal
@@joeymusic Thanks man, just confused myself. Great video👍