Is the EnVerb still useful for anyone?

I find the quality of the EnVerb very bad, metallic...

Does anyone find it useful and if so, any examples?

With all the Impulse Responses already included, then with the Chromaverb and the Silververb... I wonder if that's something some of you use and where?

No, but there's loads of plugins from the Logic 4.x days that aren't very good or that usable these days, but are still there for old project compatibility reasons. There's no reason you can't abuse some of these tools for interesting sounds though, if you think beyond the obvious uses.

No, but there's loads of plugins from the Logic 4.x days that aren't very good or that usable these days, but are still there for old project compatibility reasons. There's no reason you can't abuse some of these tools for interesting sounds though, if you think beyond the obvious uses.

 

Yes I understand that they have to be there for compatibility, but for example the Platinum Reverb is now under the Legacy folder. I would assume that the EnVerb would have the same fate. I don’t even know why they revamped the GUI, but not for example for Delay Designer or the MultiPressor etc

I use it, often for reverse effects that can be played very easily with the Enverb. One of the reasons I use it over the others is that there is a "Dry Signal Delay" parameter which allows you to have the reverb effect that occurs in this case before the dry signal itself without delaying it in time. This allows you to play the reverb before the original signal very easily.

 

It is only a matter of time before the interface of the "multipressor" or the "delay designer" is updated.

You wouldn't use it a lot these days, but even its's "metallic" quality is an aesthetic that might cone in handy from time to time. Especially as some kind of sound design element.

 

Even a "bad effect" is still a good effect when used in the right context.

Even a "bad effect" is still a good effect when used in the right context.

Completely agreed. Sometimes, that low-res low-fi metallic reverb sound might be just what's needed for specific sound in your mix. I worked with a producer who routinely had 150+ tracks in a mix, and his mixes sound awesome, very layered. I always wondered how he managed to stuff all those instrument sounds in one mix and not make it sound muddy. Then I sat in front of a session and started soloing each track, and I realized that many of the tracks were used for only a very specific sound. For example a strumming acoustic guitar that has only medium-high frequencies, no lows, no mids, you can barely hear any of the chordal harmonic content, so in the final mix its role is no longer to be a guitar, but more like a tambourine really, albeit with its own kind of identity. Same with some backup vocals that are either completely muffled (no high frequencies) or completely bodyless (focused on the high frequencies), that when soloed would sound tiny or dull, but when mixed in with the main vocals, add a layer of frequencies, almost like an effect in themselves.

 

I also had a lightbulb moment a few years ago when I watched a producer talk about mixing and explain that mixing a song wasn't about making the song sound "good" or making the instruments sound "good". You can't have everyone sound good, full, realistic when soled in a mix anyway. The goal is to communicate something, create an emotion. And sometimes, to create emotions, you can use elements (sounds, groups of tracks, song sections etc...) that are unbalanced, tiny, restrained, narrow, unnatural, burried, muddled, unfocused, sharp, aggressive, shocking, surprising, etc.

 

So yes, I agree that even bad sounding effect processors can find a place in the process or creating a piece of music.

Even a "bad effect" is still a good effect when used in the right context.

Completely agreed. Sometimes, that low-res low-fi metallic reverb sound might be just what's needed for specific sound in your mix. I worked with a producer who routinely had 150+ tracks in a mix, and his mixes sound awesome, very layered. I always wondered how he managed to stuff all those instrument sounds in one mix and not make it sound muddy. Then I sat in front of a session and started soloing each track, and I realized that many of the tracks were used for only a very specific sound. For example a strumming acoustic guitar that has only medium-high frequencies, no lows, no mids, you can barely hear any of the chordal harmonic content, so in the final mix its role is no longer to be a guitar, but more like a tambourine really, albeit with its own kind of identity. Same with some backup vocals that are either completely muffled (no high frequencies) or completely bodyless (focused on the high frequencies), that when soloed would sound tiny or dull, but when mixed in with the main vocals, add a layer of frequencies, almost like an effect in themselves.

 

I also had a lightbulb moment a few years ago when I watched a producer talk about mixing and explain that mixing a song wasn't about making the song sound "good" or making the instruments sound "good". You can't have everyone sound good, full, realistic when soled in a mix anyway. The goal is to communicate something, create an emotion. And sometimes, to create emotions, you can use elements (sounds, groups of tracks, song sections etc...) that are unbalanced, tiny, restrained, narrow, unnatural, burried, muddled, unfocused, sharp, aggressive, shocking, surprising, etc.

 

So yes, I agree that even bad sounding effect processors can find a place in the process or creating a piece of music.

 

sure, I get that as well. Not everything needs to be "clean"and polished.

I do that thing myself where I have a vocal track and I remove everything up to maybe 10k or higher and that track only serves as "breathiness" in the vocal track instead of using an extra EQ on the main track.

 

And I agree that music is about emotions and it's the contrast between things that creates the real dynamics in songs, especially when you suddenly introduce a very weird sound in the section, completely off.

 

In this case with the EnVerb, it almost feels as if it stays in that middle ground, where it doesn't sound too bad to be a good "bad" effect and also doesn't sound good as a "good" reverb. If that makes sense. And also when we have the Space Designer where we can import weird impulses, I would assume that the EnVerb could be a legacy plugin, since I don't see how people would use it frequently...

 

Anyway, I just removed it from my Reverb folder, so I don't see it anymore

For me personally, that kind of effect (EnVerb) is useful on certain synthesizer sounds that don't have any anchor in reality, as part of the sound design — so not necessarily sounding like a reverb per se, but as an envelope shaper that brings its own color.

 

I suppose we all have tools that we love and some that we hate. That's part of what makes each one of us unique. I remember a producer who was making bossa nova kind of stuff, and his mixes sounded very, very warm. I noticed he used a Guitar Amp Pro (the old amp emulator plug-in) on just about every single track of his mix: vocals, percussions, drums, nylon guitars, keys... everything. They were dialed in to be barely noticeable but once all the tracks were summed together it really gave the mix its own identity and kind of human warmth, for lack of a better description.

 

I find the quality of the EnVerb very bad, metallic...

Does anyone find it useful and if so, any examples?

With all the Impulse Responses already included, then with the Chromaverb and the Silververb... I wonder if that's something some of you use and where?

Space Designner and such are into providing spaces, halls, rooms, etc...

EnVerb isn't, never said it was.

 

https://support.apple.com/guide/logicpro/enverb-controls-lgcef29696a2/mac

Logic Pro EnVerb

EnVerb is a versatile reverb effect with a unique feature: it allows you to adjust the envelope—the shape—of the diffuse reverb tail.

 

Try feeding it into an effect that likes to work with long sounds, like the StepFX, to name one effect.

Try feeding it into an effect that likes to work with long sounds, like the StepFX, to name one effect.

That was a cool example of an application for EnVerb!

I find the quality of the EnVerb very bad, metallic...

Does anyone find it useful and if so, any examples?

With all the Impulse Responses already included, then with the Chromaverb and the Silververb... I wonder if that's something some of you use and where?

Space Designner and such are into providing spaces, halls, rooms, etc...

EnVerb isn't, never said it was.

 

https://support.apple.com/guide/logicpro/enverb-controls-lgcef29696a2/mac

Logic Pro EnVerb

EnVerb is a versatile reverb effect with a unique feature: it allows you to adjust the envelope—the shape—of the diffuse reverb tail.

 

Try feeding it into an effect that likes to work with long sounds, like the StepFX, to name one effect.

 

How is that envelope any different than Space Designer’s envelope using the handles? I shape the tail of the reverb a lot using those...

 

And how is that example you showed different from using a “normal” reverb and the stepfx?

 

Apart from the “metallic” sound (which I believe can be achieve with Space Designer loading some kind of Impulse to degrade the sound or even adding a bitcrusher or something), I can’t find any particular feature that makes it stand out...

 

Maybe I’m not seeing stuff you guys are seeing haha

Maybe I’m not seeing stuff you guys are seeing haha

Keep in mind, just because you can do the same with another tool doesn't mean you should be using that other tool. Sometimes a tool's specific workflow can help your creativity.

 

But in any case EnVerb really has a sound of its own in my opinion.

Ok you challenged me Danny. Here's an example of a whacky sound that was fun to dial in using enVerb:

 

EnVerb Example.zip

Ok you challenged me Danny. Here's an example of a whacky sound that was fun to dial in using enVerb:

 

EnVerb Example.zip

 

 

Ok so listen to my version using the Space Designer (your track is the one on top, mine is the bottom). It's pretty much the same thing. All you used was the envelope to make it sound like a reverse sound.

And with space designer you can have unlimited options when it comes to the texture of the reverb itself.

 

EnVerb Example - danny.zip

Wow, hey! That's pretty darn close indeed, great job!

 

But... after closer inspection, while the difference may be subtle, they don't quite sound the same. Listen carefully to my simplified comparison below. The EnVerb sounds grittier, almost like there's a spring reverb especially on the pitch ramping up and the sustain tail. Space Designer sounds cleaner, more even, smoother. Sometimes you may want one, other times the other. I'm all for having different colors on my palette, and the two plug-ins have two different colors.

 

EnVerb vs Space Des.zip

Wow, hey! That's pretty darn close indeed, great job!

 

But... after closer inspection, while the difference may be subtle, they don't quite sound the same. Listen carefully to my simplified comparison below. The EnVerb sounds grittier, almost like there's a spring reverb especially on the pitch ramping up and the sustain tail. Space Designer sounds cleaner, more even, smoother. Sometimes you may want one, other times the other. I'm all for having different colors on my palette, and the two plug-ins have two different colors.

 

EnVerb vs Space Des.zip

 

But that's what I said: with Space Designer you can import different wav files as an Impulse so you end up having more options that just the EnVerb

I haven't tried it, but imagine importing someone hitting a metal plate with a hammer, as an Impulse Response...

Sure... now why would I go through all that trouble when I can just open EnVerb and quickly dial in what I'm looking for?

Sure... now why would I go through all that trouble when I can just open EnVerb and quickly dial in what I'm looking for?

 

well, that is if you wanted to have that exact sound, but since you said that a plugin sometimes sparks creativity, I think Space Designer ends up being more creative because of that

and of course, you absolutely like that metalic sound, you can always find an impulse response that sounds like that and save it as a preset so you don't have to go through all that

 

here's a pretty close example. It's not going to be exactly the same, but in the context of a mix or a blind test, it's not something that you go like "oh man, the Enverb sounds SO MUCH "better" hahaha

 

space designer metal audio.zip

I don't approach things as one tool being more creative than another. I approach it like each one inspires me something different, and sometimes I may prefer to work with Space Designer and have more options and more flexibility and spend more time tweaking to nail something very precise I may have in my head, or experiment with many different things, while other times I just want to quickly dial in something without thinking too much or having too many options, and I know that EnVerb will give me exactly that whacky gritty springy sound I'm going for.

 

Oh and BTW I am certainly not trying to convince you that you should be using EnVerb, I am only answering your original question as to why I find that it's still useful to me.

Consider also that not all elements need to be thick, present, loud and upfront in a mix. Do that, and you'll have problems. It will generally lead to a bad sounding mix.

 

In reality you only want a small handful of core or primary sounds to be the most present in the mix, while the others get pushed back and sometimes off to the sides. This doesn't necessarily equate to use of reverb and/or delay. It can, but all your processors comes into play here, as well as your level and pan settings.

 

For example, reducing high frequency content will help push a sound back win a mix, as will more a more heavy handed approach to compression, especially with faster attack and longer release times. Parallel processing can help bolster a sound and make it more present. Therefore the lack of it, or only a small amount on your secondary tracks will help the out front sounds stay upfront.

 

What you use, how use use it and what you use it on can be very dependant from genre to genre too. Making the drums punchy and upfront works great for most modern genres, but not necessarily what you want for jazz. Meanwhile some other genres tend to like their drums sounding forward, but not too forward so you need to be bit carful not to make them stand out too much. So its very dependant and a good mixer learns to spot and adapt to these differences, project depending. It's also another case where having good references can offer a good guide.

 

Making this whole point relevant...

 

You don't necessary need your most luscious sounding reverb on every track as it won't help your upfront elements stand out. Using a reverb that is less "lush" will help to push those secondary elements back in the mix to a degree that you might not notice that is as metallic and grainy as sounding Silververb, The same thing goes for your other processors too. If you used harmonically rich and present eqs and compressors all over the mix, then how does any track stand out when they are all standing out as a result. Instead, consider saving your best processors for the main elements of the mic and use other alternatives for the remaining elements. This will also help create depth and separation.

 

Though, sometimes things can be too seperate and using the same processor across all your tracks can be of benefit. This is where you need to start using your own judgement. Putting everything through a submix buss, not just the drums can also help here.

Consider also that not all elements need to be thick, present, loud and upfront in a mix. Do that, and you'll have problems. It will generally lead to a bad sounding mix.

 

In reality you only want a small handful of core or primary sounds to be the most present in the mix, while the others get pushed back and sometimes off to the sides. This doesn't necessarily equate to use of reverb and/or delay. It can, but all your processors comes into play here, as well as your level and pan settings.

 

For example, reducing high frequency content will help push a sound back win a mix, as will more a more heavy handed approach to compression, especially with faster attack and longer release times. Parallel processing can help bolster a sound and make it more present. Therefore the lack of it, or only a small amount on your secondary tracks will help the out front sounds stay upfront.

 

What you use, how use use it and what you use it on can be very dependant from genre to genre too. Making the drums punchy and upfront works great for most modern genres, but not necessarily what you want for jazz. Meanwhile some other genres tend to like their drums sounding forward, but not too forward so you need to be bit carful not to make them stand out too much. So its very dependant and a good mixer learns to spot and adapt to these differences, project depending. It's also another case where having good references can offer a good guide.

 

Making this whole point relevant...

 

You don't necessary need your most luscious sounding reverb on every track as it won't help your upfront elements stand out. Using a reverb that is less "lush" will help to push those secondary elements back in the mix to a degree that you might not notice that is as metallic and grainy as sounding Silververb, The same thing goes for your other processors too. If you used harmonically rich and present eqs and compressors all over the mix, then how does any track stand out when they are all standing out as a result. Instead, consider saving your best processors for the main elements of the mic and use other alternatives for the remaining elements. This will also help create depth and separation.

 

Though, sometimes things can be too seperate and using the same processor across all your tracks can be of benefit. This is where you need to start using your own judgement. Putting everything through a submix buss, not just the drums can also help here.

 

My point was not so much about having different textures, but more about having a plugin that can easily be replaced by, for example, Space Designer, by loading a specific Impulse Response or even lowering the quality inside Space Designer. For example if Apple decided to put the old Guitar Amp (or whatever that was called) into the legacy folder, it means it can be somehow replaced by the new Amp Designer, even though if we go more in depth, there are features inside the Guitar Amp that are not present in Amp Designer.

 

But yeah, it's just a personal workflow. I don't see myself using the EnVerb at all. I rather stick to Space Designer and import metallic, grainy impulse responses. Just my workflow

 

Thanks for the extra info!

As I indicated in a previous post, the EnVerb allows you to have the reverb that occurs before the dry sound. No other reverb can do this. The "Dry Signal Delay" parameter is used to generate the reverberation before the dry signal without the dry signal being shifted in time (the reverb adds the latency necessary for the calculation before the dry signal). The only way to do this with another reverb is to bounce the inverted audio track in place, add the reverb to 100 wet, bounce again in place, reverse the result again, and finally shift the trac before the dry signal which will be placed on another track. It still goes much faster and fun with the EnVerb.

As I indicated in a previous post, the EnVerb allows you to have the reverb that occurs before the dry sound. No other reverb can do this. The "Dry Signal Delay" parameter is used to generate the reverberation before the dry signal without the dry signal being shifted in time (the reverb adds the latency necessary for the calculation before the dry signal). The only way to do this with another reverb is to bounce the inverted audio track in place, add the reverb to 100 wet, bounce again in place, reverse the result again, and finally shift the trac before the dry signal which will be placed on another track. It still goes much faster and fun with the EnVerb.

 

To create that kind of effect I rather have a better quality reverb, to be honest.

The reverse feature doesn’t seem to be something that would make me use it. Especially when I rarely add that effect. And when I do I have a Space Designer preset that I created that allows me to do it without bouncing and all that, so it’s also faster for me

 

As they say, to each his own. I was really just wondering if other people still use it. I guess my question was answered

Just because an item is not used by many people does not mean that it should be removed or not improved if it is used by a few and there is no other tool to replace it (no other reverb in the Logic stock has negative delay to play it before the dry signal). I don't really understand why EnVerb bother you... We all have our preferred plug-ins, and ignore the others! This is what makes Logic so rich.

Consider also that not all elements need to be thick, present, loud and upfront in a mix. Do that, and you'll have problems. It will generally lead to a bad sounding mix.

 

In reality you only want a small handful of core or primary sounds to be the most present in the mix, while the others get pushed back and sometimes off to the sides. This doesn't necessarily equate to use of reverb and/or delay. It can, but all your processors comes into play here, as well as your level and pan settings.

 

For example, reducing high frequency content will help push a sound back win a mix, as will more a more heavy handed approach to compression, especially with faster attack and longer release times. Parallel processing can help bolster a sound and make it more present. Therefore the lack of it, or only a small amount on your secondary tracks will help the out front sounds stay upfront.

 

What you use, how use use it and what you use it on can be very dependant from genre to genre too. Making the drums punchy and upfront works great for most modern genres, but not necessarily what you want for jazz. Meanwhile some other genres tend to like their drums sounding forward, but not too forward so you need to be bit carful not to make them stand out too much. So its very dependant and a good mixer learns to spot and adapt to these differences, project depending. It's also another case where having good references can offer a good guide.

 

Making this whole point relevant...

 

You don't necessary need your most luscious sounding reverb on every track as it won't help your upfront elements stand out. Using a reverb that is less "lush" will help to push those secondary elements back in the mix to a degree that you might not notice that is as metallic and grainy as sounding Silververb, The same thing goes for your other processors too. If you used harmonically rich and present eqs and compressors all over the mix, then how does any track stand out when they are all standing out as a result. Instead, consider saving your best processors for the main elements of the mic and use other alternatives for the remaining elements. This will also help create depth and separation.

 

Though, sometimes things can be too seperate and using the same processor across all your tracks can be of benefit. This is where you need to start using your own judgement. Putting everything through a submix buss, not just the drums can also help here.

 

My point was not so much about having different textures, but more about having a plugin that can easily be replaced by, for example, Space Designer, by loading a specific Impulse Response or even lowering the quality inside Space Designer. For example if Apple decided to put the old Guitar Amp (or whatever that was called) into the legacy folder, it means it can be somehow replaced by the new Amp Designer, even though if we go more in depth, there are features inside the Guitar Amp that are not present in Amp Designer.

 

But yeah, it's just a personal workflow. I don't see myself using the EnVerb at all. I rather stick to Space Designer and import metallic, grainy impulse responses. Just my workflow

 

Thanks for the extra info!

 

Yeah I get ya. And as usually, with most things I post it isn't specifically targeted at the OP or other people involved in the conversation, it's also targeting anyone else who might surf these pages looking for ideas and insights. Personally I also find viewing mixing this way doesn't just help me create "deeper" mixes, but it also helps me to get more value out of the older stuff that I've already paid for along side the newer, more exciting stuff. Thats a personal thing though.

 

I personally think its an odd choice keeping these two reverbs around, at least without offering the choice of a new and improved algorithm as well, but hey, it is what it is and I'm sure I'll find some way to use these things.