[Peibyn]

Would be grateful to hear if technology has come up with new ways of adding reverb to vocals while recording.

30 years ago (when I was recording vocals) the microphone fed into an amplifier (the sort that guitarists use), the amplifier added the reverb, and then a line went from the amplifier into the sound recording equipment.

This will still work of course, and today I saw that the local music shop has an impressive array of amplifiers, and some are now quite small and with more effects than just "Reverb", but I thought I ought to check that there isn't some new or easier way.

Thanks.

[Dave Platt[_2_]]

In article ,
Peibyn wrote:

Would be grateful to hear if technology has come up with new ways of
adding reverb to vocals while recording.

30 years ago (when I was recording vocals) the microphone fed into an
amplifier (the sort that guitarists use), the amplifier added the
reverb, and then a line went from the amplifier into the sound recording
equipment.

This will still work of course, and today I saw that the local music
shop has an impressive array of amplifiers, and some are now quite small
and with more effects than just "Reverb", but I thought I ought to check
that there isn't some new or easier way.

These days, I think most people prefer to capture/record the
microphone audio without processing, and store the track digitally.
Reverb and other effects are then added as part of the mixing
process. That gives you a great deal more flexibility in applying and
controlling the amount and character of the reverb you add... you
aren't "committed" to it at the time you record the track. Go for the
cleanest "capture" you can achieve, and then alter the sound later.

There are numerous software "plug-ins" available for popular
digital-recording applications, which can apply various types of
reverb, flanging, phasing, vocoding, and almost any other effect you
can imagine.

Take a look at the (free) Audacity recording/mixing app. It supports
several different plug-in standards (LADSPA, LV2, Nyquist, VST) and
I'm sure there are plugins you'd find both usable and worthwhile.

Amplifiers with effects are probably more for live performance than
for studio recording.

[geoff]

On 25/03/2015 10:24 a.m., Peibyn wrote:

Would be grateful to hear if technology has come up with new ways of
adding reverb to vocals while recording.

Why on earth would anybody want to do that ?

30 years ago (when I was recording vocals) the microphone fed into an
amplifier (the sort that guitarists use), the amplifier added the
reverb, and then a line went from the amplifier into the sound
recording equipment.

Why would anybody stick a mic into a guitar amp ?

This will still work of course, and today I saw that the local music
shop has an impressive array of amplifiers, and some are now quite
small and with more effects than just "Reverb", but I thought I ought
to check that there isn't some new or easier way.

Best way would be to do it properly in the first place, then add the
reverb after recording. Or if you insist, put a reverb unit between a
mic amp ( or mixer) and the recording device, or use a mixer's FX if
available.

geoff

[Randy Yates[_2_]]

geoff writes:
[...]
On 25/03/2015 10:24 a.m., Peibyn wrote:
30 years ago (when I was recording vocals) the microphone fed into an
amplifier (the sort that guitarists use), the amplifier added the
reverb, and then a line went from the amplifier into the sound
recording equipment.

Why would anybody stick a mic into a guitar amp ?

Oh come on now, geoff. Surely you understand that the amplifier is an
integral component of a guitar's sound? Twin/Peavey/Marshall 50/ etc
etc., along with how much overdrive, etc.

I agree regarding the vocals though.
--
Randy Yates
Digital Signal Labs
http://www.digitalsignallabs.com

[geoff]

On 25/03/2015 4:47 p.m., Randy Yates wrote:
geoff writes:
[...]
On 25/03/2015 10:24 a.m., Peibyn wrote:
30 years ago (when I was recording vocals) the microphone fed into an
amplifier (the sort that guitarists use), the amplifier added the
reverb, and then a line went from the amplifier into the sound
recording equipment.

Why would anybody stick a mic into a guitar amp ?

Oh come on now, geoff. Surely you understand that the amplifier is an
integral component of a guitar's sound? Twin/Peavey/Marshall 50/ etc
etc., along with how much overdrive, etc.

I agree regarding the vocals though.

Was meaning to refer only to the vocal aspect !

geoff

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

geoff wrote:

On 25/03/2015 10:24 a.m., Peibyn wrote:

Would be grateful to hear if technology has come up with new ways of
adding reverb to vocals while recording.
[...]

Best way would be to do it properly in the first place, then add the
reverb after recording. Or if you insist, put a reverb unit between a
mic amp ( or mixer) and the recording device, or use a mixer's FX if
available.

A good singer will perform differently, depending on whether the room is
reverberant or 'dry'. The singer needs to hear the reverb in order to
give a good performance.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[None]

"Adrian Tuddenham" wrote in
message
nvalid.invalid...
A good singer will perform differently, depending on whether the
room is
reverberant or 'dry'. The singer needs to hear the reverb in order
to
give a good performance.

In my experience, it's the poor singers that think they "need" reverb
while recording. The good singers generally don’t want it; they want
to hear their voice while recording, not obscure it with effects.

[Peibyn]

Dave Platt, many thanks! I feel you've understood my situation and as a result of what you've advised, I immediately want to start experimenting!

I have Audacity 2.0.0 loaded on my computer. Once the vocal line is loaded into it could you tell me, please, what I can do to add high-quality (realistic) reverberation?

About ten years ago, when last preparing a recording that has been selling quite well ever since, I went to Audacity's "Effect" tab and tried using what was probably the most obvious Reverb choice that I found there, but the result was horrendous. So there and then I just abandoned the notion of adding Reverb after the event, deciding that recording in a more reverberative environment or using the Reverb function of an amplifier, as I had done years before, was probably the only way of producing a true reverb effect. Now from what you have written I see that there was probably an option that I missed, or a plug-in I could have added, as you've suggested. I don't think I ever experimented with adding plug-ins to Audacity. But now that I'm finishing with the writing and publishing of a book and I feel the need to return to song-writing, I'm feeling much more adventurous!

Again, many thanks!

There are numerous software "plug-ins" available for popular
digital-recording applications, which can apply various types of
reverb, flanging, phasing, vocoding, and almost any other effect you
can imagine.

Take a look at the (free) Audacity recording/mixing app. It supports
several different plug-in standards (LADSPA, LV2, Nyquist, VST) and
I'm sure there are plugins you'd find both usable and worthwhile.

[Peibyn]

A good singer will perform differently, depending on whether the room is
reverberant or 'dry'. The singer needs to hear the reverb in order to
give a good performance.

Adrian, I used to work in record production with a famous British label, and you may be interested to learn that we went to a great deal of trouble back then (and I am certain it still happens) to select the best reverberative chamber for the particular performer or group of performers we were recording. For example, certain London halls or churches were rejected because of the kind of reverberation they provided, while others were ideal. Singers particularly were fussy about the venue and usually wished to rehearse in the space prior to the recording so as to accommodate the reverberation of the space. For example, a soprano might find that she needed only to produce a high note in a particular way in order to produce the most pleasing effect - all because of the acoustics in the space.

Also, the degree of reverberation effects the singer's psychology as he or she sings. For example, a completely "dead" space (in which we would never record) would give nothing back to the singer or musicians, making them feel as if they were performing in a vacuum - a very disheartening effect, likely to produce a recording that indicates what actually happened, a battle against an ungiving space.

On the other hand, I appreciate that a space which is barely reverberative can provide the performer with "honest" feedback. This is useful in rehearsal.

[Adrian Tuddenham[_2_]]

Peibyn wrote:

A good singer will perform differently, depending on whether the room is
reverberant or 'dry'. The singer needs to hear the reverb in order to
give a good performance.

Adrian, I used to work in record production with a famous British label,
and you may be interested to learn that we went to a great deal of trouble
back then (and I am certain it still happens) to select the best
reverberative chamber for the particular performer or group of performers
we were recording. For example, certain London halls or churches were
rejected because of the kind of reverberation they provided, while others
were ideal. Singers particularly were fussy about the venue and usually
wished to rehearse in the space prior to the recording so as to
accommodate the reverberation of the space. For example, a soprano might
find that she needed only to produce a high note in a particular way in
order to produce the most pleasing effect - all because of the acoustics
in the space.

A neighbour of mine recently paid to make a 'vanity' recording in a
studio. His voice was pretty good, but I could tell that he hadn't been
able to hear the reverb, which had been added later. He wasn't aware of
any changes in his style, but I knew that he would have been a good
enough singer to unconsciously adapt to the acoustics and it was
apparent from the recording that he hadn't made that adaptation.


Also, the degree of reverberation effects the singer's psychology as he or
she sings. For example, a completely "dead" space (in which we would
never record) would give nothing back to the singer or musicians, making
them feel as if they were performing in a vacuum - a very disheartening
effect, likely to produce a recording that indicates what actually
happened, a battle against an ungiving space.

I prefer to ask the performer or composer what sort of venue they would
like to hear their music performed in, then we search around and see if
we can find something we can hire that meets their expectations. It may
require a bit of acoustic treatment before it is suitable for recording,
but it ensures that the performer feels comfortable and 'at home' in
their surroundings.


On the other hand, I appreciate that a space which is barely reverberative
can provide the performer with "honest" feedback. This is useful in
rehearsal.

A music venue in Bristol has a slightly concave back wall to the
auditorium, which focusses the sound back onto the performers. They
love it because of the 'feedback' it gives them, but it caused me no end
of problems when I first tried recording there. I eventually used a
steerable mic pair connected to an X-Y scope, which showed me that the
strongest signal was coming into the back of the mic - then the penny
dropped.

In that venue, I now record a solo instrument with the mic facing across
the stage from one side or hang blankets across the back wall before
recording an ensemble from the centre.


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Dave Platt[_2_]]

In article ,
Peibyn wrote:

Dave Platt, many thanks! I feel you've understood my situation and as a
result of what you've advised, I immediately want to start
experimenting!

I have Audacity 2.0.0 loaded on my computer. Once the vocal line is
loaded into it could you tell me, please, what I can do to add
high-quality (realistic) reverberation?

Go to

http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/plugins

for a list of currently-available plugins.

http://lv2plug.in/ has a bunch, based on the relatively new LV2
interface standard. Look under "Projects". Calf, and Invada studio
both include a reverb module.

http://www.ladspa.org/cmt/ has one revert module.

http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/GVerb talks about Freeverb (in the
CMT), and GVerb and Anwida.

I haven't personally experimented with any of these.

In addition, because Audacity supports open standards for plugin
interfaces, there may very well be commercial reverb plugins which
would work with Audacity.

About ten years ago, when last preparing a recording that has been
selling quite well ever since, I went to Audacity's "Effect" tab and
tried using what was probably the most obvious Reverb choice that I
found there, but the result was horrendous.

With any reverb plugin/module/effect, you can expect that a bunch of
experimentation is going to be required to figure out what settings
are appropriate for your particular source material, needs, and
personal taste. The GVerb page mentioned above has a bunch of
suggested settings for different needs, which "sound a lot better than
the GVerb defaults" (which may have been what you encountered).

[geoff]

On 27/03/2015 1:18 a.m., Peibyn wrote:
Dave Platt, many thanks! I feel you've understood my situation and as
a result of what you've advised, I immediately want to start
experimenting!

I have Audacity 2.0.0 loaded on my computer. Once the vocal line is
loaded into it could you tell me, please, what I can do to add
high-quality (realistic) reverberation?

This is the most basic of functions . A good start would be to read the
manual and check out tutorials on Youtube. Pretty much all DAWs work
similarly.


About ten years ago, when last preparing a recording that has been
selling quite well ever since, I went to Audacity's "Effect" tab and
tried using what was probably the most obvious Reverb choice that I
found there, but the result was horrendous.

Once the effect is placed you have to adjust it to taste. Both the
nature of the reverb (start with a preset) and the amount of reverb
verus 'dry'.

geoff

[Peibyn]

Adrian, that's all most interesting.

I'm retired now and will be composing and recording at home. We've just moved into a terraced house in a new development where the regulations forbid causing disturbance to others by singing or playing musical instruments, so I'm going to have to be careful. There's only one room in which I could sing loudly and not disturb any neighbour and it's a large loo, with a high ceiling and a good level of reverberation, but, of course, anything recorded in it would sound as recorded, as if recorded in a loo! And there's no way I could install a keyboard and recording equipment in there. So it's going to be tricky using some other room, with a reasonable acoustic but without disturbing neighbours! But maybe I can create some kind of compromise whereby I record in a fairly good space and then add a smidgeon of reverberation later on at my desk!

Thanks for your reflections!

[Peibyn]

Dave, many thanks indeed for all of those links. All saved.

There's clearly a variety of options available! I look forward to the experimenting!

Thank you.