Reverb On Multiple Instruments

[mrgroovy]

I am sure this is laughable but this issue has been on my mind. I will soon begin mixing a few projects at home and a dilemma about reverb has been haunting me. If I inject some reverb on my snare that is timed to last at least from snare hit to snare hit, technically the reverb will be heard ALL the time. Which led me to think about adding some reverb to the guitars. If the reverb from the snare is present throughout all of the song, why would I need it on the guitars since technically it is present there already from the snare? I suppose I can certainly use a different type, amount, length etc of reverb on the guitars than I did on the snare, but I am thinking that the verb from the snare could theoretically be sufficient as a color that effects the track enough which would allow me to leave the guitars and for that matter, most if not all other instrument tracks - dry.

[justus1900]

Mixing is an Art. Yes there are Professional and Non Professional things can do or not do, but when it comes down to it, its your Mix you can do whatever you want. Nothing is right or wrong as they say "It is what it is"

[albee1952]

Originally Posted by justus1900

Mixing is an Art. Yes there are Professional and Non Professional things can do or not do, but when it comes down to it, its your Mix you can do whatever you want. Nothing is right or wrong as they say "It is what it is"

Hard to argue with that^^ Here's my 2 cents as an audio type for 30+ years. Use the amount of reverb that you feel enhances each/every/none of your tracks. Here's some general info(temper it with what you hear in recordings that you like). More reverb can push a sound further back in the mix(maybe you want a dryer vocal to sit "up front" and "in your face", with guitars and drums(with more reverb) sitting further back in the mix). General rules(and these are made to be broken); bass and bass drum might be bone dry, or maybe get a small room ambience. Guitars, might be panned hard to one side, with some mono reverb panned the other way. Vocals, might be bone dry, might be swimming, might have no reverb, but a slight echo, might...(insert imagined effect here)

Some like to feed all the instruments to the same reverb, to create the "glue" of a common space. And my last "general' tip, the faster the song, the shorter the reverb time(so the idea of having a reverb tail last from a snare hit, all the way to the next snare hit......not a good idea, but might be a cool special effect to use once or twice). Anything overdone, will take away from the song, whether its too much reverb, too many guitars, too much bass........your favorite commercial songs are a good place to start

[mrgroovy]

Thanks for the replies but I think still not hitting on my dilemma. For example, if I have just two channels, one recording a single snare hit, the other recording a single guitar note, if they were both panned up the middle and both receiving the same reverb and amount of signal of reverb from an aux reverb send, would it sound the same if I muted the reverb on the guitar and left it on the snare track. Meaning the reverb reacting from the snare hit would give the illusion of acting as reverb for the guitar. Late hear so I will try it tomorrow. I was just wondering theoretically.

[JFreak]

Theoretically speaking, you're using reverbs to "put things back" in your soundstage. If you push everything back it's just as flat, isn't it? Just sounds washy.

[scrnplyr]

I think the OP's premise is a little shaky. If I understand it correctly he's saying that the reverb he puts on the snare will create an overall reverb wash for the entire mix thereby negating the need for additional reverb on say a vocal or guitar track.
Reverb acts and sounds differently depending on several variables. A snare's percussive attack will highlight that reverb and push it up front in the mix but it also tends to follow the snare. The reverb present in between snare hits will not be highlighted - assuming there is a musical wash as part if the mix. Most vocals I record have reverb but u wouldn't really hear it unless u listened w headphones. The guitar would also have reverb but sparingly and not to the point of standing out in the mix.
So my two cents: reverb can b applied to multiple instruments w/out washing out a mix if u apply it in the right increments. Applying reverb to a snare by itself would not, in my opinion be adequate reverb processing for the entire mix.

[tj_davies]

Originally Posted by mrgroovy

I am sure this is laughable but this issue has been on my mind. I will soon begin mixing a few projects at home and a dilemma about reverb has been haunting me. If I inject some reverb on my snare that is timed to last at least from snare hit to snare hit, technically the reverb will be heard ALL the time. Which led me to think about adding some reverb to the guitars. If the reverb from the snare is present throughout all of the song, why would I need it on the guitars since technically it is present there already from the snare? I suppose I can certainly use a different type, amount, length etc of reverb on the guitars than I did on the snare, but I am thinking that the verb from the snare could theoretically be sufficient as a color that effects the track enough which would allow me to leave the guitars and for that matter, most if not all other instrument tracks - dry.

Please tell, me that you can hear the difference between the reverb tail coming from a snare and the reverb tail coming from a guitar.

If you can, then you should be able to judge, whether the mix could do with a bit of reverb here or there, if not, then listen to the different tails and try again.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by mrgroovy

Thanks for the replies but I think still not hitting on my dilemma. For example, if I have just two channels, one recording a single snare hit, the other recording a single guitar note, if they were both panned up the middle and both receiving the same reverb and amount of signal of reverb from an aux reverb send, would it sound the same if I muted the reverb on the guitar and left it on the snare track. Meaning the reverb reacting from the snare hit would give the illusion of acting as reverb for the guitar. Late hear so I will try it tomorrow. I was just wondering theoretically.

The reverb on the snare has nothing to do with effecting the guitar. It would NOT sound the same if you muted the reverb on the guitar or snare and left the reverb active on the other. One would be pushed further back in the soundfield and the other would be more forward. But this has already been mentioned here by others.

[mrgroovy]

Again - I know this was an elementary post but I had never taken the time to do this before. I took a snare track after end of song and recorded one hit with no room mics in the picture - bone dry panned hard right. Did the same with a Stratocaster on another track by hitting one not and muting it immediately after the pick hit the string panned hard left. Inserted same reverb on both tracks and panned the effect on each to the opposite side of the respective instruments. Soloed out the snare reverb alone and voila - it was in fact as everyone said, obviously a snare drum that created the effect that was coming through the speakers. Same with the Strat. Obviously I think to much but my little experiment has in fact made me think more critically about how I will approach the use of reverb when I start to mix. Thx for the replies.

[bashville]

Originally Posted by mrgroovy

I am sure this is laughable but this issue has been on my mind. I will soon begin mixing a few projects at home and a dilemma about reverb has been haunting me. If I inject some reverb on my snare that is timed to last at least from snare hit to snare hit, technically the reverb will be heard ALL the time. Which led me to think about adding some reverb to the guitars. If the reverb from the snare is present throughout all of the song, why would I need it on the guitars since technically it is present there already from the snare? I suppose I can certainly use a different type, amount, length etc of reverb on the guitars than I did on the snare, but I am thinking that the verb from the snare could theoretically be sufficient as a color that effects the track enough which would allow me to leave the guitars and for that matter, most if not all other instrument tracks - dry.

The snare verb still has a dynamic breath to it (is softer at the end of the tail than at the attack), so you're not taking into account the myriad ways that the rhythms from the guitar and snare can cross. Your ear is going to "get" that that reverb is only coming from the snare, and not the guitar. One of the reasons people use reverb is to foster the illusion that the different instruments are playing together at the same time. So it helps to have some of it on everything (I'm totally over-generalizing).

But then you get into tricks people use to try to leave room for the various instruments to be heard, one of which is to time the snare verb so it's out in time for the next hit. This of course is totally unrealistic, since who says the concert hall changes size for every song according to tempo? Then there's putting some slap on the guitar, but no reverb, which can be enough for some people to feel like there's a room on it. Why does the ear accept a cavern on the snare, and a tight slap from the guitar like there's a brick wall perpendicular to the amplifier 15 feet away?

This is where the art comes in, and good luck. Listen to every record ever made, emulate your favorites when you can. Take a break every once in a while.