Reverb after Haas, or before?

[deeplink]

Something that I've been circling around;

Irrespective of which may sound better, which is technically better in terms of potential phasing issues;

1. Reverb then Haas effect
2. Haas Effect then reverb
3. NO, do not use them together at all
4. No difference

Some background, the reason why I'm asking is basically because in other tracks, the reverb I hear somehow sound wider and almost more natural.

RV7000 and RV7 simply don't sound like it. However I feel like I get closer to it when I use a Haas effect on the reverb or visa versa.

Maybe there's something else I haven't considered?

Is it really all about actually buying Blackhole, Deep-Space or at the very least - a better convulution sample within the RV7000?

If someone has any reverb tips, other than low cutting, please share

[Billy+]

What sample are you using and do you know if it's stereo?

I think there is also a post kicking around about creating a "true" stereo RV7000 setup if that's something you might consider.

As for the actual question I can't honestly answer as it's not something that I actively use (hass)

[Noise]

Have you considered two instances of the RV7000 for L / R with some differences in the settings ?

[Billy+]

Knew it was selig. :- Selig's True Stereo RV700 Combinator

[Jackjackdaw]

I only just discovered, lurking in the factory sounds , a stereo plate verb combi . I put it head to head with the Arturia plate, my benchmark for an awesome sounding verb and it came out pretty good! Could probably get it better with a bit of tweaking. I will definitely check out Selig's patch. I am always entirely underwhelmed by RV7000 on its own, I'm keen to learn how to dial it in.

[deeplink]

So just had a look into those Stereo Plate etc. Combinators.

They actually sound less stereo... Until you click the designated stereo width button - then it sounds great. Though when I look to see what that button is assigned to, it's essentially a pre-delay to one of the L or R reverbs.

So like, basically Haas effect.

[Billy+]

How are you getting your hass effect? Mono device with 10-40ms delay for right channel?

[deeplink]

How are you getting your hass effect? Mono device with 10-40ms delay for right channel?

In my mind the signal doesn't have to be mono. Just a slight delay on the one side? And usually I go between 8 and 16 ms.

Have I been doing it wrong this whole time

[Billy+]

I'm a great believer in if it sounds right it is right.

But then I also say bollox to mono compatibility "buy headphones fu*kers....."

[Billy+]

Producers can take advantage of the Haas Effect by cloning the channel and panning them to the extreme left and extreme right and applying delays on the channels(with the difference within 25-35 ms). The greater the difference in the delay, the more panned towards the channel with the lower delay it sounds. The effect can be enhanced by passing the channel with the greater delay through a low pass filter to remove the higher frequencies or by changing the amplitude of the sounds,

[Jackjackdaw]

I'm a great believer in if it sounds right it is right.

But then I also say bollox to mono compatibility "buy headphones fu*kers....."

Agreed!

[Stevegriggs]

I have used both, my answer is whichever gives the sound you want.

[pepe444]

I think if you use it carefully and listening / watching a phase meter you´ll decide witch routing sounds best for your music.
There is no right or wrong way of doing. In fact, most of the times the "wrong" way is the correct one
But, you´ll need to check the manufacturers manual to see what kind of stereo reverb is the one you´re using. Some are true stereo some are not, that can affect the haas behavior too.

One nice trick you can use is to duck / compress the reverb using the signal that the reverb is applied to.
You can sidechain a vocal track to its own reverb for example. I like to use spectral compressors for this, they tend to work better then a full spectral range compressor in my opinion.

[BRIGGS]

But then I also say bollox to mono compatibility "buy headphones fu*kers....."

IKR....anyone listening to music on a phone speaker is "doing it wrong".

[guitfnky]

But then I also say bollox to mono compatibility "buy headphones fu*kers....."

IKR....anyone listening to music on a phone speaker is "doing it wrong".

or in their car, or a home stereo, or...

[BRIGGS]

or in their car, or a home stereo, or...

nah...car or home system is ok...

tiny phone speakers, are the real issue...

[integerpoet]

But then I also say bollox to mono compatibility "buy headphones fu*kers....."

That attitude certainly simplifies things, but buying more stuffs often isn't the solution because they already did buy headphones and they bought an Amazon Echo Dot for their garage workbench and something that sounds even worse that's built into the door of their refrigerator and the speaker system at the club is set up to favor punching you in the chest over imaging, especially if they have earplugs in because they are over the age of 23. I mean, it's always your call who to support, but if you're a beggar like me then it would seem unwise to also be a chooser.

[integerpoet]

Producers can take advantage of the Haas Effect by cloning the channel and panning them to the extreme left and extreme right and applying delays on the channels(with the difference within 25-35 ms). The greater the difference in the delay, the more panned towards the channel with the lower delay it sounds. The effect can be enhanced by passing the channel with the greater delay through a low pass filter to remove the higher frequencies or by changing the amplitude of the sounds,

I know what you just described could be and probably has been done easily in a Combinator, but from a marketing perspective it seems like this formula could be a viable rack extension.

Oh, duh. Of course there are several. Here are some of the straightforward ones.

• Haas Mixer
  https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/rack ... aas-mixer/
  Has four mono inputs which get super-panned into a single stereo output, which makes it the most straightforwardly relevant here. Without actually having used it before, I already wish it had stereo inputs which it would mix down to mono for me. But that doesn't seem like a deal-breaker by any stretch and it might even be a feature if you use it to super-pan a stereo pair closely but not identically. This can apparently also be used as a widener if you crank the delay up high enough and a flanger if you ignore one of the output channels. I think I'll have to trial this one soon.

• Revolution Virtual Surround
  https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/rack ... -surround/
  This one takes it to the next level; it also does front/back and distance and altitude. I don't know if this involves the Haas effect in the mathematical sense, but it does seem to serve a similar super-panning purpose. I already have this, but it seems to cost sound quality in a way I haven't quite put my finger on, so I haven't used it in a while.

• kHs Haas
  https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/rack ... /khs-haas/
  This seems to be less about super-panning and more about widening, which makes me wonder why they didn't name it Widener. Maybe this does something like what the inbuilt Imager and the (free) Ozone Imager VST does? But there's also an L/R switch on the front panel, which makes me wonder. The video and samples are of no help because they're all about a big bundle of which this is a small part. I suppose that's what a trial is for!

[selig]

Never been a fan of short static delays, would rather use mid/side like with the built in Stereo Imager - which is with after a reverb. Use it after the reverb if the source is shorter and the reverb is longer, use it before if the opposite is true.
Which sounds better - try both and see, in some cases the difference can be more subtle while in others more extreme.
Side Note - one of my most used Combinator routings is an A/B switcher for auditioning things like this. IMO it makes a world of difference to listen and press one button repeatedly rather than listen-change routing-listen-change routing etc. For one thing, you can "remote" the button on the Combinator to hardware, then you don't even have to have your eyes open to compare. One trick here is to click the button several times in a row without looking so you no longer know which is which. Then do you A/B comparison more "blind" *but not totally…

[integerpoet]

Knew it was selig. :- Selig's True Stereo RV700 Combinator

Where's the original post for this which goes into exhaustive detail about what it does and why? Because I know he must have written one!

[integerpoet]

• Haas Mixer
  https://www.reasonstudios.com/shop/rack ... aas-mixer/
  Has four mono inputs which get super-panned into a single stereo output, which makes it the most straightforwardly relevant here. Without actually having used it before, I already wish it had stereo inputs which it would mix down to mono for me. But that doesn't seem like a deal-breaker by any stretch and it might even be a feature if you use it to super-pan a stereo pair closely but not identically. This can apparently also be used as a widener if you crank the delay up high enough and a flanger if you ignore one of the output channels. I think I'll have to trial this one soon.

I had time and inclination today to futz around with this RE a bit before diving deep into my next project.

I hoped/expected that this would provide what I was calling super-panning, but it doesn't — at least according to whatever fuzzy speculative definition I had halfway made up for "super-panning" in my head. It merely adds delay to the left or right channel without without attenuating either. This does give you some sense of the sound having come from a particular direction but does not seem to be anything like full-on HRTF. I was probably foolish to imagine it would.

Anyway, I configured a signal flow which passes L/R channels (which may of course be identical if the source is mono, which it is in my test) into two of the mono inputs of a Haas Mixer with slightly different delays and then through microMix for its pan knob, and it seems along the way I get "NPR voice" conditioning plus some pretty convincing directionality which I think I like better, in an A/B test, than simply turning the pan knob for the same mono source, even after reverb.

And it probably doesn't need saying but taking full advantage of the full stereo arc is not conducive to mono compatibility, but neither is extreme panning. It's just that with this it's more tempting to push your luck.

[chaosroyale]

Unpopular opinion warning; Haas effects suck donkey balls and should be avoided.

In purely technical terms regarding phasing; this depends entirely upon the program content and settings, so you will not get a good answer by generalizing. Big wide reverbs are already very uncorrelated, and haas will depend on the relationship between the particular frequency content of each sound, and the exact amount of delay.

OP, Do you just want a really big and wide reverb? That's easy without needing to use Haas effects.

1: for anyone who really wants an effect for "more width" I would strongly recommend getting Ozone Stereo Imager. It is available as part of "elements" so its super cheap, and it is by far the best stereo widener I have ever heard, with almost no phase artifacts. Thing is magic.

2a; "git gud" at mixing. You would not believe how many times I have been given a mix which is full of "wide" stereo sounds that somehow sounds flat, and asked to "make it wider". Listen to some really old records and pay attention to how they create a huge wide stage using a combination of different stereo spreads, effects and panning. AKA "if everything is wide stereo, nothing is wide stereo"

2b: localize some of the sounds to more precise points, then pan them going into stereo reverbs and delays, and let the reverb and delay bounce that sound around to the opposite speaker, for more of a "instrument in a big room" sound. You can use this free panning combinator I made: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7523077

2c: for more reverb clarity, you can do lo-cut AND hi-cut EQs BEFORE reverb** (insert an EQ on the send, for example), using different settings on different instruments, the reverb will have a more transparent quality and mush together less. my reverb combinators include simple controls for this. (**see Selig's comment below: for linear effects the order is not important, it only makes a difference for non-linear effects, and I should have said I'm talking about reverbs + delays really. however, hi-cut on reverb is something a lot of people forget, because they think everything has to be as bright as possible)

3; did I mention I made combinator packs with really huge and amazing boutique-style reverbs and delays? You can get that black hole freezeverb type effect and more, for just 15 bucks a pack. https://chaosmusick.com/chaosfx/

Irrespective of which may sound better, which is technically better in terms of potential phasing issues;

1. Reverb then Haas effect
2. Haas Effect then reverb
3. NO, do not use them together at all
4. No difference

[selig]

Unpopular opinion warning; Haas effects suck donkey balls and should be avoided.

In purely technical terms regarding phasing; this depends entirely upon the program content and settings, so you will not get a good answer by generalizing. Big wide reverbs are already very uncorrelated, and haas will depend on the relationship between the particular frequency content of each sound, and the exact amount of delay.

OP, Do you just want a really big and wide reverb? That's easy without needing to use Haas effects.

1: for anyone who really wants an effect for "more width" I would strongly recommend getting Ozone Stereo Imager. It is available as part of "elements" so its super cheap, and it is by far the best stereo widener I have ever heard, with almost no phase artifacts. Thing is magic.

2a; "git gud" at mixing. You would not believe how many times I have been given a mix which is full of "wide" stereo sounds that somehow sounds flat, and asked to "make it wider". Listen to some really old records and pay attention to how they create a huge wide stage using a combination of different stereo spreads, effects and panning. AKA "if everything is wide stereo, nothing is wide stereo"

2b: localize some of the sounds to more precise points, then pan them going into stereo reverbs and delays, and let the reverb and delay bounce that sound around to the opposite speaker, for more of a "instrument in a big room" sound. You can use this free panning combinator I made: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=7523077

2c: for more reverb clarity, you can do lo-cut AND hi-cut EQs BEFORE reverb (insert an EQ on the send, for example), using different settings on different instruments, the reverb will have a more transparent quality and mush together less. my reverb combinators include simple controls for this.

3; did I mention I made combinator packs with really huge and amazing boutique-style reverbs and delays? You can get that black hole freezeverb type effect and more, for just 15 bucks a pack. https://chaosmusick.com/chaosfx/

I TOTALLY share this unpopular opinion, never use HAAS delays, and second the suggestion for Ozone for width (stereo imager also works great for reverbs, see my previous post on the subject).

My "version" of the stereo statement was "if everything is stereo, nothing is stereo (from back in the 80s when reverb/FX were all the rage). That's when I first used mono reverb to keep the snare from just being a noise burst filling the sound stage from left to right. I also like to say, sometimes you want to be able to "point at" a sound, like a snare, kick, or vocal. In those cases, be careful with stereo reverbs.

And finally, EQ/filtering and Reverb processing order - does. not. matter*.
Reverb and EQ are both linear with regards to level, unless you're talking about a dynamic reverb which is less commonly used. EQ is just gain at specific frequencie(s), reverb is just delay(s) and modulation. Just as it doesn't matter whether you EQ before or after a delay, the same applies to reverb.

*You can easily reproduce null tests showing this if you eliminate modulation on reverbs/delays, which would cause the null to fail due to random variations.
For reverb null tests, use a convolution reverb for consistency (RV7000 works great for this, using the Convolution algorithm), for delays make sure no wobbly/modulation or saturation/limiting is applied (DDL-1 is excellent for this test).

[chaosroyale]

First up, I'm relieved you agree with my main points, I'm always a fan of your clear explanations on this board.

But - for once, I actually get to (slightly) disagree with you about something technical!! *you already anticipated it at the end of your answer.

For purely linear delays you are right, and I generalized too much.

However, saturation is quite common on tape-style delays (not really reverbs), so you can get a less gloopy/fuzzy result by doing your EQ first (if that's what you want, it might not be).

The "boutique" style effects I like sometimes get some of their mojo this way, such as by combining tape-style delay with the reverb.

On the same subject; what is your opinion on the "Abbey Road Reverb" trick? (basically the same thing; cut hi and lo before reverb). I assume they were going into a plate or some other analog thing.. so by EQing first perhaps it made a difference that a modern VST would not replicate? Or was the technique snake oil right from the start?

And finally, EQ/filtering and Reverb processing order - does. not. matter*.
Reverb and EQ are both linear with regards to level, unless you're talking about a dynamic reverb which is less commonly used. EQ is just gain at specific frequencie(s), reverb is just delay(s) and modulation. Just as it doesn't matter whether you EQ before or after a delay, the same applies to reverb.

*You can easily reproduce null tests showing this if you eliminate modulation on reverbs/delays, which would cause the null to fail due to random variations.
For reverb null tests, use a convolution reverb for consistency (RV7000 works great for this, using the Convolution algorithm), for delays make sure no wobbly/modulation or saturation/limiting is applied (DDL-1 is excellent for this test).

[integerpoet]

Unpopular opinion warning; Haas effects suck donkey balls and should be avoided.

I don't know that is an unpopular opinion so much as that the discussion around the Haas effect seems to be more about what it is (easy but also makes you look smart) and less about what it's good for (difficult and involves judgments calls). In other words, I don't think anybody half-way-well-informed would disagree that the common discourse does suck donkey balls. The effect may well be misused by most people, but everything is misused by most people. I'm a firm believer in knowing the merits and demerits of a tool and using it carefully and in moderation in appropriate situations. The clueless literally cannot do this with any tool and we shouldn't blame any particular tool for it.

Right now, I'm mixing a couple of dozen recordings which non-technical choristers made of themselves using laptops and phones. And if you are willing to sacrifice mono compatibility — which I think I am in this case — surgical use of the Haas effect works wonders. In a way that plain old panning can't, it defines and places each voice in space as if the singers were on a stage together, as they so badly want and can't have during the pandemic. It's quasi-binaural (I'm not willing to give up compatibility with stereo speakers) and I can tell it will make them as happy as they can be under the circumstances. In other words, I'm not making a record so much as a "concert". Maybe I could achieve comparable clarity with EQ and conventional panning if I had a lot more time for this project than I actually do. But I bet not.

Would I do this for a less "live" project in which the "studio" is one of the instruments? No way. A few thousand of my millions-strong fan-base will listen on Amazon Echo Dot, after all, not to mention my massive club presence which I assume will be restored once the pandemic is well and truly over.

1: for anyone who really wants an effect for "more width" I would strongly recommend getting Ozone Stereo Imager. It is available as part of "elements" so its super cheap, and it is by far the best stereo widener I have ever heard, with almost no phase artifacts. Thing is magic.

It's better than that now; it's free — or anyway for the price of your email address and dealing with Izotope Product Portal. I have to agree that it seems like magic. It's one of the few VSTs I am tempted to use in real projects. If you love this VST, I wonder what you think of ReStereo, which I have considered on and off for years and should probably trial because I do prefer pure RE projects. When I first saw (heard) the demo video, I thought of it similar magical things but had no need of it at the time.