I’ve always been in the "nay" camp as I believe there is enough natural room sound in the venue already. But I am curious to hear other people’s views, and I could be swayed to try something different.
Reverb yay or nay on live rock tones
- dave5150
- Thread is marked as Resolved.
-
i tend to avoid reverb live for almost everything unless its a specific special effect.
-
He’s sadly no longer with us.
But I knew a recording engineer who when he was about to mix a recording, would set up eight separate channels of reverb from the chamber.
Each channel would have double the amount of reverb than the one before it, and they would range from an absolutely minimal amount detectable to the maximum that might be required.
Every voice or instrument in the mix would have the relevant amount of reverb to induce a natural acoustic sound suited to it, and with eight different levels already pre-set he could quickly build a live sounding mix that was very well balanced.
With every element featuring some degree of the same natural effect, (Reverb is by tradition the most commonly used effect in recording studios), it would create a homogenous sense of all the voices and players being simultaneously present in the same room.
Though, to be honest, some parts were recorded in one continent and other sections in another continent in studios thousands of miles apart. The point is, this method created a kind of natural sounding “sonic glue” that enabled all the disparate elements of the mix, to combine in a way that recreated the sense of a live session.
For sure there are different approaches to production and I have lived through periods of differing fashions in sound production.
When recordings were flooded with reverb, to dead sounding, totally isolated sounds were there was no mic bleed, reverb or sense of the room at all, and back to reverb again, like a revolving circle.
Whilst most engineers today would desperately try to eliminate all mic bleed from their recordings, my friend would actively use mic bleed in a positive manner, especially in situations when it might be hard to completely eliminate it. Again, using a little of it, like the reverb to create a type of “glue” that helped the various parts involved, stick together sonically.
His recordings were the most natural sounding, I personally have ever heard and very experienced artists that worked with him, would be amazed entering the control room, after the first take.
“It sounds like a finished recording already” would be a typical comment!
Whilst many engineers are doing all they can to eliminate the room sound, deaden the sound and totally prevent any mic bleed whatever.
And to be honest there were specific elements he would definitely do all he could to prevent spill into the mic from other sources (lead vocal for instance), but he would largely do the opposite, and with the reverbs already set up before a session started, could work very quickly and create a very naturally sounding acoustic setting.
A large diamond wouldn’t look half as good as it does if it wasn’t for the setting in which it was framed.
He created a setting, in which musical jewels, could dazzle at their scintillating brightest.
-
Im 65 & Love Reverb! Oh, yea. But that's not always on the menu anymore like it was. And it depends on the room/setting too. I'll always sprinkle a little on my tunes if recording, however. To each their own and YMMV.
-
i tend to avoid reverb live for almost everything unless its a specific special effect.
That is my approach, too. I tend to use a low mix delay with a few repeats on most sounds in case of a dry on stage sound, and reserve big, loud delays and reverbs for special effects.
-
It depends on what you play. Some got verb some don't. Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don't.
BTW... "rock" covers way more landscape today than what it meant in the past.
-
I almost always use at least a tiny bit of reverb for rock rhythm, unless I'm going for that dry ACDC crunch. I also keep my reggae and soca rhythm parts dry.
I always have at least some reverb on my lead tone, whatever genre.
-
Crispy Panther - the OP is talking live tone and whether the natural venue reverb is generally enough or whether he should usually add reverb. 🙂
-
No reverb for me live...I prefer a little delay.
-
I switch Reverb off playing live and leave it to the sound guy to add from the desk, in order to have a more coherent sound with the rest of the band
-
Im a "no reverb" guy as well....BUT, its tempting to use it as it helps blend the guitar more, which helps cover mistakes a bit better. Dry is very unforgiving because it helps cut the mix.
So I love and hate no reverb
-
I switch Reverb off playing live and leave it to the sound guy to add from the desk, in order to have a more coherent sound with the rest of the band
for me this is the key point!
unless the reverb is a “special effect” it is there to help glue the overall band mix together and give it a coherent sound. The only person in a position to do that is the FOH mix engineer. My experience is that engineers generally hate guitarists who use anything more than a token amount of reverb as it makes their job more difficult and can lead to a mushy FOH mix. -
Quote: “the OP is talking live tone and whether the natural venue reverb is generally enough or whether he should usually add reverb. 🙂”
Thank you for helpfully point this out.
Broadly, I believe the genre of music along with the size and type of venue to be determinative factors. So, it depends.
And whether the illusion of naturally occurring acoustic is sought, or that of a dramatic, attention drawing effect, say for a sensational solo.
Some genres (like rockabilly, rock and roll, country etc. et al) simply wouldn’t sound right without reverb effects added. Some types of rock guitar also.
With all due respect, there is something of a fundamental flaw in the thread title, as “rock tones” really encompasses too wide a field altogether. Specifics matter, in sound.
Then, there is the added complication I alluded to, that over several decades now, what were once clearly distinct musical genres, have absorbed crossover elements from other genres, widening the potential audience.
The bottom line here is that any established group is usually attempting via their stage performance, to replicate as closely as possible the creative recording along with all its effects which brought their following audience to the show in the first place.
Therefore, though it might not at first seem relevant. The use of reverb and delay and the most successful recording techniques in the studio are directly and germanely pertinent to their use during live performances in concert halls, auditoriums and stadiums.
The thing no group wants their audience to say after a live concert is: “They played ok, but they didn’t sound anywhere near as good as they do on their records.” The truth that no one who comes to your concerts really wants to hear any songs from your latest album is bad enough! They just want to hear the old hits. But not sounding as good as you do on record, just won’t cut it anymore, these days.
Forgive me for pointing this out, but I think it’s worth realising the methodology and techniques I attempted to explain in my earlier post, were developed by a sought-after engineer who recorded and produced many top, best-selling rock artists and groups. Acts whose names you would recognise, whom I have no need to enlarge upon. There’s plenty more I could say about delays and reverbs both in regard to recording and live performance, but am sorry if I have taken the thread in a direction that you have no interest in. Thanks for helping me out. 😊
-
for me this is the key point!
unless the reverb is a “special effect” it is there to help glue the overall band mix together and give it a coherent sound. The only person in a position to do that is the FOH mix engineer. My experience is that engineers generally hate guitarists who use anything more than a token amount of reverb as it makes their job more difficult and can lead to a mushy FOH mix.Obviously if you have to play Comfortably Numb or Misirlou there is no way out of Reverbs
-
Being as you are already in a live room, I wouldn't use reverb as a matter of course. However, if it is a specific effect with something like a Big Sky. why not.
Having said that, didn't David Gilmour use reverb on his live sound and it didn't stop him getting a great tone.
-
Being as you are already in a live room, I wouldn't use reverb as a matter of course. However, if it is a specific effect with something like a Big Sky. why not.
Having said that, didn't David Gilmour use reverb on his live sound and it didn't stop him getting a great tone.
I think Gilmour was actually quite anti reverb. Most of his ambience was done with delays.
-
Having said that, didn't David Gilmour use reverb on his live sound and it didn't stop him getting a great tone.
But that is a very specific type of music. This is a similar question around stereo etc...
Where you have 1 guitarist, slow more ethereal music, a wider sound is needed. When its 2 guitars ( or 3 if you count Iron Maiden ), then I think a tighter sound is needed to avoid clashes...
-
From a guitar player who also does a lot of live mixing, don't use reverb on your sound. Reverb tends to multiply when going through the system and is something that gets out of control very fast. The better way to get some space in your sound is to use delay. That is much more controllable and doesn't get out of control and trash your sound.
-
There is no single answer to the original question. BTW, the question is unreasonable IMO.
-
I’ve always been in the "nay" camp as I believe there is enough natural room sound in the venue already. But I am curious to hear other people’s views, and I could be swayed to try something different.
"the venue"... What is that? I have played many places and none are the same. Playing an outdoor gig is completely different than a small bar . Use your ears and adjust accordingly.
