Reverb settings
in [Live Sound]
|
Prev: Powered Monitors
Next: Books
From: Peter Duemmler on 6 Jan 2006 21:21 What?s the problem with actually hearing the reverb? Peter --- http://www.merlinsound.de Joe Kesselman wrote: > Andy 'B' wrote: >> reverb settings for lead vocals > > Depends on the room. My reverb had named settings; I chose "small > hall" since that sounded right for that space. Whatever you do, > reverb should be MINIMAL -- ie, if you can actually recognize it as > reverb, you're using too much! -- unless the performer explicitly > wants it as a special effect.
From: Joe Kesselman on 6 Jan 2006 21:30 Peter Duemmler wrote: > What?s the problem with actually hearing the reverb? If the audience conciously notices the reverb, it is no longer effective as a Electronic Talent Enhancer. You've crossed the line from simply correcting the flaws of the performance space to deliberately altering the sound. Unless you *intend* to distract the audience, that's more annoying than useful.
From: Peter Duemmler on 7 Jan 2006 08:23 Did I miss a smiley? Peter --- http://www.merlinsound.de Joe Kesselman wrote: > Peter Duemmler wrote: >> What?s the problem with actually hearing the reverb? > > If the audience conciously notices the reverb, it is no longer > effective as a Electronic Talent Enhancer. You've crossed the line > from simply correcting the flaws of the performance space to > deliberately altering the sound. Unless you *intend* to distract the > audience, that's more annoying than useful.
From: Joe Kesselman on 7 Jan 2006 11:52 Peter Duemmler wrote: > Did I miss a smiley? If you mean "did Peter forget to attach one", the answer is probably yes. If you mean "did Joe forget to attach one", the answer is no. My experience, admittedly, is primarily folk performers... but in that mode, live sound reinforcement is all about making up for the fact that not everyone in the audience can sit in the front row. Anything beyond that simple balancing of sound levels needs to be very subtle or it destroys that illusion. A bit of equalization, or a *tiny* bit of reverb to "warm" voices (and mask some vocal flaws), is fine. Anything more is emphatically The Wrong Answer unless the performer has explicitly requested that you do something unusual to their sound as a special effect -- and often they're dealing with that themselves using on-stage electronics so your job is still just to take their sound and carry it out to the audience. Admittedly, live sound for rock may be a different animal. In that setting the sound equipment is sometimes considered an extension of the instruments rather than a part of the perfomance space. But if you're working in that mode, you should be working closely with the performers -- so that still comes back to "either it's a deliberate effect or it should be subtle enough that it isn't conciously noticed except as they-sound-good-tonight". The job of the sound tech is to get out of the way of the music.
From: Zigakly on 8 Jan 2006 05:02
> Peter Duemmler wrote: >> What?s the problem with actually hearing the reverb? > > If the audience conciously notices the reverb, it is no longer effective > as a Electronic Talent Enhancer. You've crossed the line from simply > correcting the flaws of the performance space to deliberately altering the > sound. Unless you *intend* to distract the audience, that's more annoying > than useful. LMAO Electronic Talent Enhancer, very cute. Might wanna go over every knob on the console and consider its ETE factor... myself I couldn't care less. However, I would rather add reverb to a room than the room present too much. |