Reverb Loses my Panning

9 replies [Last post]
sylos
User offline. Last seen 7 weeks 6 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2013-03-31
Posts:

Hello all.

I'm sure I'm being an absolute tool here but I'm frustrated so I'm just gonna come out and ask.

I'm mixing my drums - got them all nicely panned. I want some reverb so I create a mono-bus (my drums are all mono) and then add aux-sends (after the fader) to each drum track. Bring them all up and then mute everything from the main outs. Now, I get my audio in the bus but my panning has gone. Everything is dead centre.

So, what am I doing wrong?

Cheers.

lucianodato
User offline. Last seen 8 hours 54 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2011-01-25
Posts:

You have to create two buses, one stereo for grouping drums and other mono for the reverb, then you create an aux send to that reverb bus for every track you want reverb on. I suggest you to read the manual, specially the grouping section http://manual.ardour.org/working-with-tracks/track-and-bus-groups/ . In this case would be easier create a group for the drums then a subgroup bus for that drum group, and then another mono bus for the reverb. Cheers!

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 day 2 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

...and other mono for the reverb...

I'm probably misunderstanding what you are suggesting, but reverb should be stereo - even if the signal source is mono - it is by definition a simulation of an acoustic 'space', many reverbs (including my own) simulate this space by using the stereo image as a part of the algorithm - if you close the reverberation down to mono (or just add a mono reverb buss to left and right) you will be defeating that sense of space.

seablade
User offline. Last seen 12 hours 17 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-01-22
Posts:

@linuxdsp

True but in some cases a mono reverb is intentionally used (elex for example) as an effect on the original sound more than to define the space it is in.

That being said, I would generally favor stereo over mono for most things though.

linuxdsp
linuxdsp's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 day 2 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2009-02-04
Posts:

@seablade: agreed, some spring-line reverbs are an integral part of a mono guitar sound etc, but in this case I assumed it was just adding some 'room' to the drums.

paul
paul's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 day 4 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2006-03-16
Posts:

gah! terms like mono and stereo MUST die in the DAW world.

1in/2out => stereo or mono?
2in/1out => stereo or mono?
2in/2out => stereo or ??

Lose the soldering iron, Free the mind!

lucianodato
User offline. Last seen 8 hours 54 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2011-01-25
Posts:

@linuxdsp you are right I misunderstood his intentions, mono plate reverbs are cool for snares though

veda_sticks
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 29 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2011-03-11
Posts:

you lost the panning because you are now only hearing your drums from a mono subgroup, if it was stereo the panning would be preserved,. Also you dont have to remove the original tracks from stereo and only have the group. if you set your reverb to complelty wet and keep your drums going to stereo you will still have a dry wet balance, infact i think its better this way. You cave much more control over the mix. Your group now becomes a dediced reverb bus.

Paul, i have problems with some plugins that only have 1 input on stereo buses, ardour complains that the plugin has 1 input but the bus expects 2 or something like that .

Stereo refers to the output, the input shouldnt really matter

1 in 2 out is stereo
2 in 1 out is mono
2 in 2 is stereo. Effects that have 2 inputs usually work in 2 ways. in a reverb unit with only 1 engine, using stereo inputs allows you to use 2 sends for stereo sends, so you can mirror the panning of the tracks you are sending, or set up your own panning by use of the sends. Send 1 for instance would give output on output 1 on the effect, and send 2 would give output on output 2 of the effect.

Hardware units normally go to mono input when only 1 is connected, i doubt plguins do that, so to stop ardour complaining about mismatch of inputs on buses, i think ardour should bridge the 2 inputs into 1 for the plugin.

if you really want to get correct, 1 in and 2 out would be mono in and stereo output. but thats just getting silly, the output is what really matters.

veda_sticks
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 29 min ago. Offline
Joined: 2011-03-11
Posts:

And i agree with paul, id use a stereo bus since the reverb is more than likely going to be stereo, id specifically use a stereo reverb over mono since it gives a much more defined sense of space unless the mono reverb is more what your going for.

sylos
User offline. Last seen 7 weeks 6 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 2013-03-31
Posts:

Aha! So I was being a fool!

I wasnt going for a specific mono effect - I am using a stereo reverb (calf as it happens) as Linuxdsp suspected to add some 'room' to the kit. I had the crazy idea in my mind that if I used a stereo bus it would copy the mono signal to both channels (in my mind it made sense that this would be how you turn mono into a stereo track) so that would screw up the panning.

@Veda_sticks - Im trying out your idea of keeping the Verb bus all wet and keeping the original tracks going. It does seem to be better as I dont have to contend so much with the eq alteration the verb has on the individual tracks (boomy kick etc). Seems like a much better idea.

I did actually read through the manual about sub-groups v aux sends but obviously missed the point when I did so.

Thanks for all the replies and sorry for being a bit slow on the up-take.

Cheers