To reverb or not?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
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.

Sigh :-) If you have never seen the same idea on a commercial
console, then why did you tell Keith this was how it was done?
That does not make any sense:-)

Iain

To reverb or not?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"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.



OK.


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.



Interesting. There's a track on the Hector Zazou Chansons Des Mers Froides
album where the song was supposed to be sung in a church in some remote
place but the weather was so bad they couldn't escape the howling wind
noise, so they decamped to a cellar/storeroom in their hotel which had a
suitable acoustic! There's also a track with wind noise in the background -
I don't know if it's the same one recorded in both locations and stitched or
summat.



[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.


Like Tuvan throat singing? :-)

To reverb or not?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote


[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.


Like Tuvan throat singing? :-)



OK I mentioned it, now go see this most beautiful clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M3YFK3sJ54&NR=1


Isn't that too lovely for words?

To reverb or not?
 

On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:17:38 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"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




I'm going to chuck a cat in amongst the pigeons here. I've just tried
this. I recorded some speech, then applied both delay and reverb in
Adobe Audition. No matter which order I apply them, the result is
identical. In other words, they commute.

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/listen/delayreverb.mp3

Can you hear a difference between the two versions? If so, which do
you reckon got the delay first?

d

To reverb or not?
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
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.

Sigh :-) If you have never seen the same idea on a commercial
console, then why did you tell Keith this was how it was done?
That does not make any sense:-)

He thought your explanation over his head.


--
*I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met *

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

To reverb or not?
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote


[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.


Like Tuvan throat singing? :-)



OK I mentioned it, now go see this most beautiful clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M3YFK3sJ54&NR=1


Isn't that too lovely for words?

Thanks for the link. That's amazing.
Iain

To reverb or not?
 

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 2 Dec 2010 21:17:38 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"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




I'm going to chuck a cat in amongst the pigeons here. I've just tried
this. I recorded some speech, then applied both delay and reverb in
Adobe Audition. No matter which order I apply them, the result is
identical. In other words, they commute.

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/listen/delayreverb.mp3

Can you hear a difference between the two versions? If so, which do
you reckon got the delay first?

But did you do it correctly?
As mentioned above, when you delay the reverb, you do not bring the
delay 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.

This is probably not possible in Audition, and is the reason why
it is best experimented with using standalone hardware units.

Iain



d

To reverb or not?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
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.

Sigh :-) If you have never seen the same idea on a commercial
console, then why did you tell Keith this was how it was done?
That does not make any sense:-)

He thought your explanation over his head.

Then why did you not allow me to explain it,
rather than telling him something that was totally
incorrect?

Iain

To reverb or not?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote

As mentioned above, when you delay the reverb, you do not bring the
delay 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.


What natural accoustic would such an technique simulate?

David.

To reverb or not?
 

On 02/12/2010 15:56, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim 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.


And for good reason I steer clear of the world of stethoscopes and slide
rules.

Different physical things behave the same?! At this rate vinyl and CD
will sound the same :-)

Rob