Sound f/x Trick Question or it?
- Thread starterCardona
- Start date
GreyWyvern
Well-Known Member
That's not really enough information. It depends on the setup and just what the end result needs to be.
If you want to use the same reverb algorithm on all 3 vocals, but just desire a different LEVEL of reverb for each, you would patch your reverb unit into a single aux channel, and on each vocal channel, use the aux send level of that channel to determine how much of each channel you want sent to the reverb.
However, if you desire a separate reverb type for each of the 3 vocalists (to be used simultaneously), then you will need 3 separate aux sends and dsps for each (or enough multi-engine units to provide three separate verb engines). While three separate reverb types on one mix is not unheard of, it's typically one verb for lead vox, another for backing vox and instruments, and perhaps a 3rd for snare verb.
In each of these cases, by routing the effects return to a channel, I can then send the verb output to any number of places including various aux sends being used as descrete monitor mixes and apply as necessary to make the artist happy. That means that with one effect unit I can do the following:
1. Apply as little or as much verb from each singer to the reverb unit as desired
2. Apply that verb mix to as many monitor mixes as are available on the console with each monitor mix getting it's own level of the mixed reverb.
3. Apply that reverb mix to the FOH at whatever level I choose.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "each vocalist requires a different amount of reverb in "their" mix." If by "their" mix you're referring to their monitors, then the above statement is still true, but if your vocalists are trying to determine how much verb is applied to each of their voices for FOH, then they simply are not in a position to be able to determine that. Unless their in-ears are being given a feed direct from two mics placed in the house, during a performance with the room responding to the mid-high absorbent nature of an audience, they cannot hear what is an appropriate verb level for a given situation.
The scene changes again if using a separate monitor mixer.
There's a funny story somewhere that a famous latin singer loved to have his voice saturated in verb and was constantly asking for more. This was before in-ears had become popular and the monitor guy would have his monitor mixes absolutely drenched in verb, sending both to his wedges and sidefills, while the FOH guy was able to send a far more appropriate level to the house.
If someone asked me this question my first response would be "why to have the vox routed to 3 different aux?"
However, if you desire a separate reverb type for each of the 3 vocalists (to be used simultaneously), then you will need 3 separate aux sends and dsps for each (or enough multi-engine units to provide three separate verb engines). While three separate reverb types on one mix is not unheard of, it's typically one verb for lead vox, another for backing vox and instruments, and perhaps a 3rd for snare verb.
In each of these cases, by routing the effects return to a channel, I can then send the verb output to any number of places including various aux sends being used as descrete monitor mixes and apply as necessary to make the artist happy. That means that with one effect unit I can do the following:
1. Apply as little or as much verb from each singer to the reverb unit as desired
2. Apply that verb mix to as many monitor mixes as are available on the console with each monitor mix getting it's own level of the mixed reverb.
3. Apply that reverb mix to the FOH at whatever level I choose.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "each vocalist requires a different amount of reverb in "their" mix." If by "their" mix you're referring to their monitors, then the above statement is still true, but if your vocalists are trying to determine how much verb is applied to each of their voices for FOH, then they simply are not in a position to be able to determine that. Unless their in-ears are being given a feed direct from two mics placed in the house, during a performance with the room responding to the mid-high absorbent nature of an audience, they cannot hear what is an appropriate verb level for a given situation.
The scene changes again if using a separate monitor mixer.
There's a funny story somewhere that a famous latin singer loved to have his voice saturated in verb and was constantly asking for more. This was before in-ears had become popular and the monitor guy would have his monitor mixes absolutely drenched in verb, sending both to his wedges and sidefills, while the FOH guy was able to send a far more appropriate level to the house.
If someone asked me this question my first response would be "why to have the vox routed to 3 different aux?"
Last edited:
It all depends on the preferences as to what is reverbed...
As I interpret the situation, this is probably monitors. Thus a need to send 3 vocals in varying amounts to different sends is rather normal. Probably the three singers wedges or ears...
This is Clair, we're probably not talking about a pub gig where everyone gets the same vocal foldback...
Oh and the real answer... Whatever the rider has speced
As I interpret the situation, this is probably monitors. Thus a need to send 3 vocals in varying amounts to different sends is rather normal. Probably the three singers wedges or ears...
This is Clair, we're probably not talking about a pub gig where everyone gets the same vocal foldback...
Oh and the real answer... Whatever the rider has speced
I'm not so sure this is a question coming from Clair. As most have pointed out, more info is needed to properly address the question.
In-ears have presented a whole new set of options, and creates a configuration more complex than FOH. I've seen some pretty complex setups, which include descrete reverb engines for each performer. And if the promoter can afford it, go for it. Makes one wonder how performers ever managed before the advent of in-ears.
Not that I'm knocking in-ears. In fact, my M-Audio IE-30s have become my go-to monitors for both theatrical mixing and larger venue musical performance mixing. With the high isolation and darn good accuracy (no exagerated bass, but it's there, clear and accurate) I am finding I spend more and more time wanting to listen to sources thru these than my Event TR-6s in my studio.
In-ears have presented a whole new set of options, and creates a configuration more complex than FOH. I've seen some pretty complex setups, which include descrete reverb engines for each performer. And if the promoter can afford it, go for it. Makes one wonder how performers ever managed before the advent of in-ears.
Not that I'm knocking in-ears. In fact, my M-Audio IE-30s have become my go-to monitors for both theatrical mixing and larger venue musical performance mixing. With the high isolation and darn good accuracy (no exagerated bass, but it's there, clear and accurate) I am finding I spend more and more time wanting to listen to sources thru these than my Event TR-6s in my studio.
It all depends on the preferences as to what is reverbed...
As I interpret the situation, this is probably monitors. Thus a need to send 3 vocals in varying amounts to different sends is rather normal. Probably the three singers wedges or ears...
This is Clair, we're probably not talking about a pub gig where everyone gets the same vocal foldback...
Oh and the real answer... Whatever the rider has speced
Oh and the real answer... Whatever the rider has speced
Humph. The rider probably spec'ed 1 reverb for 1 singer. Then the band showed up and has three singers. After the band's current production manager explains I got last years rider, written by the last tour's tech, he tells me tells me the band actually needs 1 verb for each 3 vocalists. So I patch auxes 1, 2, 3 to three verb units, bring them back to channels. Of course, come sound check the bands FOH guy is going to look at me like I'm crazy and ask "what's all this stuff, I just need little verb."
Matt
