Many thanks for this great commentary everyone! Very helpful.
I have some good pointers now for what to listen for-- more proof, as if any were needed, of the value of developing critical listening skills.
For the record, I’ve been using the Fusion Field reverb by QuikQuak for quite some time now. It’s integrated into Mixcraft (since v5 or 6, can’t remember which), has a zillion presets, and very intuitive interface for tweaking them. I haven’t felt yet that I couldn’t get what I was looking for verb-wise (hence my question). Thanks again!
Might not have been the high point of recording quality, but the early 70’s were definitely a high point for a lot of great, creative music. Might also mean that the quality and excitement of good music outweighs the differences in recording techniques. You could start an entire forum on great songs from that era that were poorly recorded. Seems like the start of the big technology jump in recording happened shortly thereafter, which allowed all us snobs to start thinking about recording quality being an important factor in how a piece of music was received.
Haha! My bad. It is the Catalinbread Topanga. It’s meant to be a pedal remake of the old Fender standalone reverb heads. However, I roll back the tone on it quite a bit and I get a more lush, less “surfy” sound. The addition of a volume knob (instead of just mix) was super cool too, so you can push the circuit pretty hard if you like. I’ll try it on some other sources too just for fun
[quote=“Chordwainer, post:6, topic:934, full:true”]
I’m going to have to stick my neck out here and say that I cannot really hear a difference between different reverbs when it comes to this plugin vs that plugin. [/quote]
[quote=“bozmillar, post:2, topic:934, full:true”]
Is it bad that I listen to all these examples and all I hear is very dated reverb effects. [/quote] You oughtta be loving that! That’s the sound of your competition falling behind
[quote] Like, if I want to build a house, I’m not going to look at log cabins built 150 years ago. I’m sure they were great for their time, but I need modern wiring and insulation. I get the same feeling when I see these round tables of guys talking about how they mixed songs in the 80s. [/quote] I thought the same thing at first, then when I just read through it, I found some meaningful content toward the bottom. I’ll admit though, when I first read it, it was more because I wanted to see what other guy were doing with the UAD stuff.
I personally think the best recordings are the ones that are on the air now. And I think the movies and video games are better sounding than ever too. Actually…you’d have to not live on planet earth to dispute that video game sound is better now that it as in the 70’s and 80’s lol.
My guess is the free ones you can find online around the place. Whole huge libraries of them, and very good they are too. (http://www.samplicity.com/bricasti-m7-impulse-responses/)
I have to admit that my go to reverb now is Fabfilter Pro R. I hear what folks say … that they can’t tell the difference between reverbs, and nor can I.
But I do LOVE the way this thing sounds, it adds a kind of gloss to the verb, a satiny sheen. Thne taiols are excellent and it is super controllable.
That said, I also discovered how bad reverb can sound yesterday when somehow, I managed to put a long verb on every track of the mix I’m working on. Jeez, what a sound.
If I can play my favourite role of “Dr Thread Derailment”…
I tend to shy away from judging old recordings and mixes against modern ones because it’s just different, you know? Doesn’t seem fair somehow. Everyone at every point in recording history has done their absolute best to deliver the sound in the artist’s head with the tools at their disposal with, and this is the crucial bit, the tastes and attitudes of their time as a reference point.
So we can sit in 2017 and say things are better now but we are steeped in the prevalent attitudes of the day, marinaded in present day ideas about what “better” even means. For all we know someone in the '60s would think the present day sound of deliberately hyped subs and treble, instruments EQ’d into caricatures of their real selves for the purpose of creating a dense wall of noise, total lack of natural dynamics etc had lost more than it had gained by the development (in digital audio) of a totally transparent recording and playback medium.
I agree. I’m not bashing old recordings. I understand that it’s half change in technology and half change in taste. In 20 years we’ll look back at our recordings now and laugh about some of the things we do.
It is a little tiresome though how much attention olds stuff gets. At NAMM, it seemed like every single person over the age of 40 that I talked to felt that it was extremely important to talk about how they learned to record on tape, as if it were some sort of qualifier of something. To me, that’s about as interesting as me telling everybody that I learned to pedal on a Big Bird tricycle.
And the number of times I have to hear about Phil Collins’ talk back mic. Like, yeah, that’s a cool idea and all, but the fact that it’s still a topic of conversation 30 years later boggles my mind.
I’m all for learning cool stuff from past recordings. But the obsession level of it seems strange to me.
Also, I’m clearly in a bitter mood right now, so you are welcome to tell me I’m being dumb, and you are probably right.
Reverb to me is still one of the most bewildering aspects of the steep learning curve of becoming even an entry level amateur recording technician…
For one I tend to think of reverb as a necessity to overcome the more or less deadened sound of my small home studio (I have about 18 bass traps installed and a couple of higher frequency traps). Now that is a challenge in itself. And you can use it to place instruments in a 3D perspective by using more reverb (at lower pitches) for instruments (or vocals) farther back in the sound field. I understand the theory.
Then there’s the need for some high fq dispersed ‘air’ going on for the vocals. Not to mention all the creative stuff (particularly guitars), usually in combination with delay, and the amazing stuff you can do (very '80’s) with gated reverbs etc. And then there’s the glue…
Most effects have a steep learning curve but seem more logical. Once you more or less understand your EQ moves or compressors you just need to train your ears to become better at what you’re doing (I’m still at the bottom of the curve but at least I chose to use an effect for a particular purpose).
But reverb… There are so many conflicting uses, there’s no tried and trusted workflow, I just piss around and try stuff, not really knowing what the hell I’m doing. Am I the only one out there? Are there sources which can help you to create some sort of workflow?
When I did my degree a large element of the course was researching how stuff was done in the good old days. This was difiicult for me, forstly because I was old enough to actually know how things were done in the good old days, and secondly because I didn’t care how hey did it in the good old days. I mentioned in another thread that I had to recreate Every Breath You Take form the ground upwards. The idea was to reserach interviews from the producers to learn exactly how stuff was mic’d up etc. and try to copy what they had done. I found it all boring. Who gives a crap how they used to do it? One of my fellow students went as far as using a 24-track machine. I just couldn’t wrap my head around that.
EBYT has a single snare shot at the front of the track. I sampled it and used it for my creation. I think that sums everything up for me. No rules - just get the final recording sounding as good as you can.
So no, you’re not dumb. Not unless I am too. And I’m not.
Let me guess - the white house administration are using your “The Wall” plugin, but they’ve told you to ask Mexico for the money for it?
I think there’s a sense of romance about the old ways, in any human endeavour. After all, by definition the stuff we remember decades after the fact must be good at least in the sense of having staying power, so it’s natural to slightly fawn over the story of how it was made - especially if that story involves lots of fancy gear that can be fetishised. Even more so if some awesome way of pushing the capabilities of that gear was discovered - afforementioned talkback mic, the various innovations the Beatles were part of, editing 24 track tape, pushing gear too hard for artistic reasons etc… it becomes a story of innovation with limited tools, and we like that stuff.
By contrast today in the world of DAW there aren’t many actual limits beyond ever increasing CPU power. Want 500 tracks? No problem. Want to use your (truly excellent!) +10dB compex on every one of those channels? No problem. Want to record a song that starts at -60dB and ends at maximum volume, no problem. Deep, deep hard panned bass that would have destroyed your vinyl player? go for it. Don’t have a guitar amp that works for this song? Go online, get an impulse response or pay $2;49 for a great sim. Can’t sing or play? No worries, we can pitch correct it, time align it, adjust the formants, construct a drum part that only the Godess Kali would have enough limbs to play.
I’m sure we’ve all came across the idea that too many options can be paralysing and doesn’t help with focus. And, I think psychologically having so many options available for relative peanuts (or free) devalues the worth of these tools. Or, to put it another way, when you have one LA2A compressor you have to be decisive in what you use it on and how you set it. When you have 20 different compressor plugins you can become mired in choice. So I can see the appeal in looking to the past for clues as to how the equipment, the processes and the techniques available actually intersected with the creation of art that we love. How did the mindset of overcoming limitations focus the process? Does that idea make sense? Hopefully those words kinda convey the idea I’m trying to put across.
I think that is the utility in knowing about the old ways. Then it becomes a process of identifying where something is still a valid mindset, and where tastes have changed enough that there are no longer lessons to be learned.
And just to bring it back round to the actual topic at hand (sorry! ), you can see that here with reverb. If you were starting out in 1960 you would have had many more constraints. Either record your ensemble in a space you like the sound of and try to capture that, or add a chamber later. The chamber is under the studio and has limited parameters - volume and EQ. You make it work, or don’t. Then you get a plate reverb. You can choose how long the decay is too , with a big crank handle! Whoa! You incorporate it into your workflow.
Starting out in 2017, no wonder we’re looking for articles explaining how they did it in the old days. We’re literally DROWNING in reverb choices. I’ve not even tried very hard to cultivate a reverb collection but when I’m mixing I have ~30-odd impulses for convolution reverb, Valhalla Room with approx. 20 different controls giving millions of permutations, Valhalla Plate which is simpler but still gives me the option of choosing the type of metal the imaginary plate is made of, then about half a dozen other plugs that either give me specific reverbs or can be set up to give me reverb-like sounds. In that context it’s no wonder someone might say “wait, just tell me how you made that incredibly successful album when you only had two reverb units and limited routing options”.
One value I can see in having an understanding of past practices is why it is that today’s plugins & VSTs were made to sound the way they do. For example, when I first got started I had no idea what “plate reverb” meant, it was just a different kind of sound than other ones, so that was educational for me to gain that understanding later on. Plus I’m a history nerd in general, so how things were done in the past is of inherent interest to me, up to a point.
Interesting (to some) to know how it was done before? Sure. Necessary? Nope!
no i am in total agreement
"learn from the past, be driven by the possibilities of the future, but live in the present"
I think that we need that balance where the past and the future make up no more than 50% of our decision making. Do something cool with what you have now and maybe people will be using you as an example in the future.
Oh i have to add i am always slightly pissed off with everything so …
Very helpful.
You know my space constraints… ITB all the way for me!
), you can see that here with reverb. If you were starting out in 1960 you would have had many more constraints. Either record your ensemble in a space you like the sound of and try to capture that, or add a chamber later. The chamber is under the studio and has limited parameters - volume and EQ. You make it work, or don’t. Then you get a plate reverb. You can choose how long the decay is too , with a big crank handle! Whoa! You incorporate it into your workflow.