Reverb Narrowing with SSL Width

[Marketblandings]

I'm probably missing something obvious......
But.....the width knob for a channel strip on the SSL does it's narrowing thing for the instrument only.
If I have sent that instrument through the sends to reverb - and back - can I get the width knob to narrow the reverb, too. Probably not.
Workaround?

Thanks!

[Dante]

Probably not since the width of the reverb would be a function of the return, not the channel itself.

[Pepin]

You can't do this for just one instrument that's sent to the reverb, because the reverb isn't actually receiving individual signals for each instrument. It's receiving a summed input based on the send configuration of the different channels. That's what's coming out of the "fx send" output of the master section.

That said, you can create a mix channel for the send effect by dropping the effect into the insert section of a new mixer channel. You'd then hook the mixer channel ins/outs to the master section fx sends/returns, instead of attaching the effect directly. That would let you apply the width control to the reverb (for all instruments). Be careful not to create a feedback loop.

[huggermugger]

As Pepin said, you can route the Reverb output to a Mix Channel instead of back into the Return. Then you can manipulate the Width (as well as other things like EQ, nice!).

[huggermugger]

Another option is to insert an imaging plugin after the Reverb, and control the width that way. Then you use the Send/Return as usual on the front of the mixer.

[Marketblandings]

Great ideas. Ideally I wanted to control the reverb width with the same channel width knob...... but I will adapt.
Thank You

[Benedict]

You can use a single CV device (like a Knob on Thor) to control several different things at once.

Or it is probably cleaner and faster to simply automate both. You can do the first and Copy & Paste (convert Alien if needed and adjust points).

[Djstarski]

The best thing to do, is to place a reverb on to the channel , Then you can control the width of the reverb as well . As a bonus when you pan that instrument to the left or right the effect will also move to the left or right . I hope this helps .

[Ottostrom]

The best thing to do, is to place a reverb on to the channel , Then you can control the width of the reverb as well . As a bonus when you pan that instrument to the left or right the effect will also move to the left or right . I hope this helps .

But using an Insert effect is not the same as using a Send effect.

[selig]

The best thing to do, is to place a reverb on to the channel , Then you can control the width of the reverb as well . As a bonus when you pan that instrument to the left or right the effect will also move to the left or right . I hope this helps .

Sends already follow the panning of the channel, but not all reverbs are "true stereo" so not all will follow the panning. RV7000 is mono in/stereo out so it's not true stereo (unless you stack two in a Combinator).

It's also important to understand the limitations of using Mix Channels as FX returns. For one, there is a 64 sample delay for the Mix Channels vs the FX returns - this would only affect using EQ or Compression etc, since you'd never notice the delay on a reverb etc. For another, you cannot have the FX follow the channel solo - with FX returns you can solo a channel and hear all the FX returns that are associated with the sends used on that channel. But when you use a Mix Channel as an FX return, you will need to solo in at least TWO places (one additional solo for each associated FX return/Mix Channel) to hear the FX associated with the sends.

[Djstarski]

The best thing to do, is to place a reverb on to the channel , Then you can control the width of the reverb as well . As a bonus when you pan that instrument to the left or right the effect will also move to the left or right . I hope this helps .

Sends already follow the panning of the channel, but not all reverbs are "true stereo" so not all will follow the panning. RV7000 is mono in/stereo out so it's not true stereo (unless you stack two in a Combinator).

It's also important to understand the limitations of using Mix Channels as FX returns. For one, there is a 64 sample delay for the Mix Channels vs the FX returns - this would only affect using EQ or Compression etc, since you'd never notice the delay on a reverb etc. For another, you cannot have the FX follow the channel solo - with FX returns you can solo a channel and hear all the FX returns that are associated with the sends used on that channel. But when you use a Mix Channel as an FX return, you will need to solo in at least TWO places (one additional solo for each associated FX return/Mix Channel) to hear the FX associated with the sends.

Ok , makes sense . That may be the problem . If he is using the RV7000 , he will have a problem making the Reverb narrow with the instrument . He will have to put a true stereo reverb on the send , for him to get the result he wants ?

[selig]

Sends already follow the panning of the channel, but not all reverbs are "true stereo" so not all will follow the panning. RV7000 is mono in/stereo out so it's not true stereo (unless you stack two in a Combinator).

It's also important to understand the limitations of using Mix Channels as FX returns. For one, there is a 64 sample delay for the Mix Channels vs the FX returns - this would only affect using EQ or Compression etc, since you'd never notice the delay on a reverb etc. For another, you cannot have the FX follow the channel solo - with FX returns you can solo a channel and hear all the FX returns that are associated with the sends used on that channel. But when you use a Mix Channel as an FX return, you will need to solo in at least TWO places (one additional solo for each associated FX return/Mix Channel) to hear the FX associated with the sends.

Ok , makes sense . That may be the problem . If he is using the RV7000 , he will have a problem making the Reverb narrow with the instrument . He will have to put a true stereo reverb on the send , for him to get the result he wants ?

I'm not sure I'm understanding the question correctly, so take all this with a grain of salt.
I can say this as a general concept: if you insert the reverb in the main signal path, then unless the reverb itself can be narrowed then any device you insert "post reverb" that narrows the stereo field will narrow both the reverb AND the original (dry) signal (not a problem if the original is mono!).
But if you use a send, the reverb is on a parallel path and thus you can narrow it with any device that allows it and not affect the original.

[AnotherMathias]

Nobody has mentioned the easiest way to reduce the width on a reverb, at least as long as you use RV7000 in convolution mode: Just adjust the "Stereo Mode" knob. You have the options of Stereo, 75%, 50%, 25%, and mono, as well as some pretty cool Stereo-to-Mono and Mono-to-Stereo sweeps at two speeds modes.

This works fine both in a send-return configuration and an in-line one, and is affected separately from the width of the dry source.

[Marketblandings]

Hi All,
Had a housing emergency (flood) that has kept me away.
Things soon repaired.
I am back to say thank you for all the great ideas and I will try them all.

[plaamook]

As we’re all here again does anyone know of any vst that splits better than the reason stereo imager?
I think that things the fucking bomb. It’s prob the most used stock device in my wrack.
There are imagers but nothing that’s so fast at widening and splitting as the m class imager.

Discuss...

[crimsonwarlock]

As we’re all here again does anyone know of any vst that splits better than the reason stereo imager?
I think that things the fucking bomb. It’s prob the most used stock device in my wrack.
There are imagers but nothing that’s so fast at widening and splitting as the m class imager.

Discuss...

This one comes pretty close (and it's free): https://plugins4free.com/plugin/2149/

[plaamook]

This one comes pretty close (and it's free): https://plugins4free.com/plugin/2149/

Cheers.
Doesn't have the cross over feq knob though, which is what makes the M-Class what it is.
I like the safe bass button though.

[selig]

As we’re all here again does anyone know of any vst that splits better than the reason stereo imager?
I think that things the fucking bomb. It’s prob the most used stock device in my wrack.
There are imagers but nothing that’s so fast at widening and splitting as the m class imager.

Discuss...

The biggest feature IMO of the Stereo Imager is that its crossover filters are 100% neutral/compatible. Meaning, even when running through sophisticated testing gear such as FuzzMeasure, the output of the combined crossover network measures totally flat and nulls against the original.

This for me is the #1 requirement of a crossover, especially when used as a splitter, as I don't want any unintended alteration of the signal when constructing effects like this.

So while there can be other splitters that sound as good as Stereo Imager, they can't technically sound 'better'. What I'd look for in a step up from Stereo Imager is the same quality but more features such as more bands, guard bands so crossovers cannot get too close to each other, alternative slopes, spectral displays, etc.

[plaamook]

So while there can be other splitters that sound as good as Stereo Imager, they can't technically sound 'better'. What I'd look for in a step up from Stereo Imager is the same quality but more features such as more bands, guard bands so crossovers cannot get too close to each other, alternative slopes, spectral displays, etc.

Yeah. More bands.
Selig, you’re just the chap to got make it a Re. Get on it!
If I’m not broke when you release it I won’t even demo before I buy it.