To reverb or not?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

I set the signal fader to 0dB gain, and the reverb send to unity.
The reverb return fader was at -10dB, which means a sig to
reverb ratio of 3:1.


OK, that's some way over my head but the final effect is very pleasant.

Just a long winded method of describing an echo mixture pot. ;-)

These were common on early BBC desks - they altered the relationship
between direct and reverb without changing the level. Quite useful in a
multi-mic balance - but expensive to implement.

I stated that the reverb was brought back on a fader at -10dB
not an FX mix pot.

Why do you use the term echo when you (probably) mean reverb?
Are they one and the same in your vocabulary?

Iain

To reverb or not?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

At you request, I offer the following, slightly drier:

http://www.mosabackabigband.com/Music/HN.wav

To keep the .wav file small, I took just eight bars, and
sweetened the last four, by setting the reverb time to
1.5s ( to equate to a smallish auditorium, a little smaller,
and maybe a tad less brightly lit than your bright hall:-)

Thanks for that, that is nice. Not too much sign of reverb but the sound
has good body; it flatters Moira's playing also, seeming to cool the tempo
slightly. She has heard it and likes it.´

Many musicians who are used to playing overdubs, tpts, troms,
saxophones, and other woodwinds, often ask for a touch or reverb
on the foldback signal going to their cans. This is not used in the
actual recording but improves their own sound as they hear it in
what might be otherwise a dry studio.

Iain

To reverb or not?
 

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Ahem:-) It's a long cone actually, Jim,

Well, to a physicst, a 'cone' is just a tune whose cross-section
varies along the length. :-)

It seems that, to a musical instrument designer. the difference
between a cone and a tube is of great importance. As the design is
based on physics, one would have thought that the difference would be
important to a physicist too:-)

That may show that you're not a physicist. :-)

Indeed. Something for which I give thanks daily:-))

So, are you saying, Jim, that the bore (conical or tubular) is of no
consequence in this instance of musical instrument design?

Nope. I'm just saying what I actually said. :-) ie. that in terms of the
physics, a cone and tube are just examples of the same general behaviour.
And that in practice people choose the details to suit what they wish to
achieve.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

To reverb or not?
 

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

Also, you can delay the reverb or reverb the delay. Totally
different.

Could you explain that. Not clear to me what you mean. Linear
processes usually commute even if not invertable.


These are the two basic delay/reverb approaches on which are based a
very large number of variants.

In the first you use a delay, which you do not bring back to the return
signal loop, but use to feed the reverb, the output of which is then
brought back to the mix. The result is the original dry sound, followed
by a pause, but no repeat, then the reverb.

In the second, you use a delay which you bring back, as a repeat of the
original signal. You then add reverb to this which you also bring back
to the mix. The result is the original dry sound, followed by a repeat
with reverb on it.

So it isn't simply a matter of commutation (order of application) as your
initial wording seemed to assume. In one case you apply A then B in series.
In the other you apply B *and then combine this with the (later arriving)
input again* before applying A. Or do you mean the delay is also a closed
loopback, so feeding into itself again each time as well?

I can see why the processes are functionally different once you add extra
paths or loops. But your initial description didn't explain that. Hence my
question.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

To reverb or not?
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
These were common on early BBC desks - they altered the relationship
between direct and reverb without changing the level. Quite useful in a
multi-mic balance - but expensive to implement.

I stated that the reverb was brought back on a fader at -10dB
not an FX mix pot.

Why do you use the term echo when you (probably) mean reverb?
Are they one and the same in your vocabulary?

They were labelled 'echo mixture'.

Pros in my world use echo to mean both. Much quicker to say or write on
a scibble strip. So echo room, echo plate, etc. Of course things may
well be different in the 'white glove' atmosphere of classic recording
studios. Thank gawd I didn't have anything to do with all that BS.
--
*Half the people in the world are below average.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

To reverb or not?
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Keith G wrote:

I set the signal fader to 0dB gain, and the reverb send to unity.
The reverb return fader was at -10dB, which means a sig to
reverb ratio of 3:1.


OK, that's some way over my head but the final effect is very pleasant.

Just a long winded method of describing an echo mixture pot. ;-)

These were common on early BBC desks - they altered the relationship
between direct and reverb without changing the level. Quite useful in a
multi-mic balance - but expensive to implement.

I stated that the reverb was brought back on a fader at -10dB
not an FX mix pot.

Sigh. BBC TV Type B sound consols had a switch to select the channel to a
dedicated echo bus with a mixture pot beneath it. The return from the echo
bus was on a dedicated fader. This was a rather more sanitary way of doing
things than is the norm these days. But I've never seen the same idea on a
commercial console. Probably just too expensive.

--
*Succeed, in spite of management *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

To reverb or not?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

At you request, I offer the following, slightly drier:

http://www.mosabackabigband.com/Music/HN.wav

To keep the .wav file small, I took just eight bars, and
sweetened the last four, by setting the reverb time to
1.5s ( to equate to a smallish auditorium, a little smaller,
and maybe a tad less brightly lit than your bright hall:-)

Thanks for that, that is nice. Not too much sign of reverb but the sound
has good body; it flatters Moira's playing also, seeming to cool the
tempo slightly. She has heard it and likes it.´

Many musicians who are used to playing overdubs, tpts, troms,
saxophones, and other woodwinds, often ask for a touch or reverb
on the foldback signal going to their cans. This is not used in the
actual recording but improves their own sound as they hear it in
what might be otherwise a dry studio.


OK, interesting that M is not alone here then.

To reverb or not?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Ahem:-) It's a long cone actually, Jim,

Well, to a physicst, a 'cone' is just a tune whose cross-section
varies along the length. :-)

It seems that, to a musical instrument designer. the difference
between a cone and a tube is of great importance. As the design is
based on physics, one would have thought that the difference would be
important to a physicist too:-)

That may show that you're not a physicist. :-)

Indeed. Something for which I give thanks daily:-))

So, are you saying, Jim, that the bore (conical or tubular) is of no
consequence in this instance of musical instrument design?

Nope. I'm just saying what I actually said. :-) ie. that in terms of the
physics, a cone and tube are just examples of the same general behaviour.
And that in practice people choose the details to suit what they wish to
achieve.

I am unclear what you mean by "details"
If they have the same "general behaviour" how do you
explain the difference in harmonic structure of the sound
produced by tubular and conical bore instruments?

Iain

To reverb or not?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

Also, you can delay the reverb or reverb the delay. Totally
different.

Could you explain that. Not clear to me what you mean. Linear
processes usually commute even if not invertable.


These are the two basic delay/reverb approaches on which are based a
very large number of variants.

In the first you use a delay, which you do not bring back to the return
signal loop, but use to feed the reverb, the output of which is then
brought back to the mix. The result is the original dry sound, followed
by a pause, but no repeat, then the reverb.

In the second, you use a delay which you bring back, as a repeat of the
original signal. You then add reverb to this which you also bring back
to the mix. The result is the original dry sound, followed by a repeat
with reverb on it.

So it isn't simply a matter of commutation (order of application) as your
initial wording seemed to assume.

Can you think of more explicit terms for "delay the reverb" and "reverb the
delay" (without filling an A4) I have yet to meet anyone who cannot
differentiate clearly between them once the object of the excercise is
made clear.


In one case you apply A then B in series.
In the other you apply B *and then combine this with the (later arriving)
input again* before applying A.


Or do you mean the delay is also a closed
loopback, so feeding into itself again each time as well?

No, but that is another of dozens of variants.

I can see why the processes are functionally different once you add extra
paths or loops. But your initial description didn't explain that. Hence my
question.

Fair enough.

Iain

To reverb or not?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

At you request, I offer the following, slightly drier:

http://www.mosabackabigband.com/Music/HN.wav

To keep the .wav file small, I took just eight bars, and
sweetened the last four, by setting the reverb time to
1.5s ( to equate to a smallish auditorium, a little smaller,
and maybe a tad less brightly lit than your bright hall:-)

Thanks for that, that is nice. Not too much sign of reverb but the sound
has good body; it flatters Moira's playing also, seeming to cool the
tempo slightly. She has heard it and likes it.´

Many musicians who are used to playing overdubs, tpts, troms,
saxophones, and other woodwinds, often ask for a touch or reverb
on the foldback signal going to their cans. This is not used in the
actual recording but improves their own sound as they hear it in
what might be otherwise a dry studio.


OK, interesting that M is not alone here then.

No, it's a very usual request, and most important to give the
players just what they require in the foldback to get the best
performance from them. On large sessions one sometimes
uses a second engineer just to look after that end of things.
He/she will send different mixes with different reverbs to
each section/player, according to their wishes/needs.

On a recording of Piae Cantones [1], the ensemble
complained that they were unable to perform their best
because of insufficient (natural) reverberation in the
location that had been chosen. Recording continued
the following day in a different location with a more
ideal acoustic.

[1] A collection of late medieval songs in Latin
compiled by a Finnish cleric and first published in
1582. The music is interesting in that some of it
has no time signature, and in some parts no bar
lines or key signatures either.


Iain