Anybody have a recommendation for an affordable reverb for that WABC sound that doesn't take up a room by itself?
Thanks.
Thanks.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Reverbbbbbbbb recomendation
- Thread starter GlennSummers
- Start date
K
Koredump
Guest
Fairchild...WLS and WCfl used em for years'
WNTIRadio said:
I loved that effect and you are right it did have a Star Wars quality. On a related note, I worked in Cable TV back in the 80s and 90s and one studio had what was really a mixing board made for live concert audio. It had a built in spring reverb and if a bored audio operator got to drumming his fingers on the board while the reverb was on you got a similar result.
Lexicon was first to realize the importance of the initial energy gap in in the ETC. This is why they they have always sounded very good. It all depends on whether you want a "signature" effect or a simulation of the natural thing heard in spaces of various volume and construction.
rorban said:
A number of years ago, when I was the Manager of Radio Ops for WNYC, New York Public Radio, the midday interview show invited Cousin Brucie to be on as a guest. I think he was promoting a book or something. IIRC, he did not have a regular radio shift at that time.
When I heard that he was coming, my thoughts immediately went to the huge wooden crate sitting in a storage room across the hall from the studio. That 'crate' that was an EMT 140, which had been sitting disused for years. I asked if we might try and fire it up, and, if it still worked, put its effect on a sidechain fader in the control room, just for the Cousin Brucie interview.
I must say our Cousin looked a little shocked, then amused, when the board operator put it on his voice for a few moments.
EMTs were all over the place, if you knew where to look. I would not be surprised if there were 100 or more in use in radio and recording studios in the US alone (EMT, Elektro Messtechnik, was a German manufacturer).
Until digital reverb, there was no other way to electronically emulate the plate sound...spring reverb, no matter how well done, was a very distant choice. Only a real echo chamber (e.g., the two at Abbey Road) might beat it sonically, but even then the EMT could be quickly adjusted to varying effect in ways a real chamber could not.
As another aside, a discussion about the awesomeness of plate reverb between myself and Steve Kingston, Z100's Ops Manager, during my initial job interview probably helped me clinch the gig as CE, LOL!
Kind Regards,
David
N
nleibo
Guest
I think they *key word* here is "Affordable"---the Alessis NanoVerb is "affordable" (between $90-100)--"approximates" WABC's Reverb...while there are units that might come closer to the actual EMT/Plate Reverb, the Alessis will come close & for far less--it's all about "priorities"..http://www.audiolines.com/Studio-Recording/Signal-Processing-Effects-1089/Effect-Processors-1092/Alesis-NanoVerb
Leibo
Leibo
N
nleibo
Guest
>>"--But then I grew up in Chicago."<< Don't know if you listened to WLS--but around 1974, WLS featured the SAME type of REVERB as WABC (WABC MAY have "toned it down" by then--but the Reverb was Very close)--No wonder-- as at that point former WABC PD Rick Sklar was "Programming" the ABC O & O Top 40 stations.
Tom Wells said:
WABC was way over the top!
It's a taste thing, but I never heard the amount of god-awful reverb on WLS as I did on WABC.
When I came to New York in the mid '80s, WABC had left musicradio behind, and by that time WCBS-FM was the NYC reverb king, and had tons more than I like.
Z100 had a VERY low level of reverb the entire time I was there. Our philosophy was that if you could clearly hear it, it was too much. I preferred a hall-like reverb, mostly on the mids, with a fairly long decay, several seconds, as opposed to the fast decay "bathroom" plate sound of WABC.
YMMV, of course.
Kind Regards,
David
After having this on the air for 8 or 9 huors, I am pretty happy with the Plate 2 setting, but "Hall 2" sounds most like old WLS,
so I'm leaving it there for now.
It seems a bit brighter than what I had been using, and I'll need to keep listening, but for the price it's amazing.
Maybe I can just put a cap in parallel with the output and roll the highs off some.
Glad I have an audio side chain to put this into rather than run all the main audio through the reverb's processing.
so I'm leaving it there for now.
It seems a bit brighter than what I had been using, and I'll need to keep listening, but for the price it's amazing.
Maybe I can just put a cap in parallel with the output and roll the highs off some.
Glad I have an audio side chain to put this into rather than run all the main audio through the reverb's processing.
No, Room 3 with the " adjust" dial turned up high is the Fairchild or whatever WLS and WCFL sounded like. ( With appropriate blend)
Not having any issue with the brightness. The devil is the best mix of wet signal. It shouldn't be heard but perceived.
That's about one or two decibels difference in the mix, and requires "leaving room" in which to hear the reverb.
I also wonder if the distance we heard the old stations made any difference in our perception.
I grew up in the primary area of those 2 big stations, did I hear more reverb than a distant listener? I think so.
I note my own reverb may seem too much right here at home, but down the block, or 3 blocks where it's fading out it sounds fantastic.
Less peaky than than the Hammond on its best day. Sounds like a good "space" without strange reasonant peaks,
a really nice hall for music. No notable artifacts, but it is on a side chain.
The distance/perceived reverb ratio remains the same, even with the new nanoverb.
Thumbs up.
Not having any issue with the brightness. The devil is the best mix of wet signal. It shouldn't be heard but perceived.
That's about one or two decibels difference in the mix, and requires "leaving room" in which to hear the reverb.
I also wonder if the distance we heard the old stations made any difference in our perception.
I grew up in the primary area of those 2 big stations, did I hear more reverb than a distant listener? I think so.
I note my own reverb may seem too much right here at home, but down the block, or 3 blocks where it's fading out it sounds fantastic.
Less peaky than than the Hammond on its best day. Sounds like a good "space" without strange reasonant peaks,
a really nice hall for music. No notable artifacts, but it is on a side chain.
The distance/perceived reverb ratio remains the same, even with the new nanoverb.
Thumbs up.
Tom Wells said:
One general rule to keep in mind is that (tasteful) reverb should be well towards the end of the processing chain, which is why the EMT used on AM stations was often placed out at the transmitter site.
By sending the reverb consistently leveled audio, its effect is more predictable, so it does not go crazy should something momentarily loud come along. And of course if it is after the main compression device, the effect can not get drawn up in level by compression.
If you want to have fun, put in a 'goose' switch. ;-)
Kind Regards,
David
I have always preferred effects to be injected in as a side-chain feed of "wet" back into the "dry" mix. Many newer devices do this for you internally. As in Brylcreme...a little dab will do you.
- Status