Earlier, I read this post and then another in the Recording Techniques board and as I typed a reply to the other it seemed to be a really great fit for this one. So please forgive the apparent vanity as I quote myself and post about half of that response here as a thought to consider for this situation.
So that was the technical part of the answer - but I have a conceptual comment here too that relates to another thread I just read asking about 'In the box' mixing...
Folks who mix in the box, and most expecially those who have only ever mixed inside the box, tend to approach reverb in a very different way than those of us who have mixed across consoles, whether live or in the studio. It's really evident in Chris's response. And I've found that it's really evident in the mixes I hear.
See, when we mix across a console, we very rarely have 24, 32, or more individual reverb processors for our system. We might have only one, or maybe a couple of different processors, but rarely more than just a handful. As a result, we don't individually patch a reverb into every single channel... but we certainly want a little reverb on everything in the mix. What we do is to patch an auxiliary send out to a reverb processor (or two, or three) and bring the output of those devices back into the mix on another set of channels. Then we run along the Aux sends for each channel dialing a little or a lot of each instrument into this single, unifying, "room" or "space" we have created. Not much kick or bass, but more snare, overheads, guitar, etc. Maybe we'll put a single reverb on for a special effect, like a floor tom hit ringing for 6 seconds or something. But in general, there is a primary sound for the room so the resulting mix sounds more like a group of instruments performing in the same acoustical space.
In the box, things end up a little different.
Most people seem to decide that an instrument needs reverb and so they click on a plug for that individual channel. Maybe they will use similar presets which at least gets closer to a 'single room' sound. But often enough they will use a reverb on snare that they think sounds good for the snare, and then a single reverb for guitar, for vocals, for keys, for whatever might be in the mix. The result that I hear all the time is a mix that sounds more like a "tossed salad" of acoustic spaces, rather than a smooth, blended, "fondue" of a single space where all of our instruments were played.
We hear endlessly about how ITB mixes don't sound the same, don't "feel" right, are too clinical, cold, inhuman, etc. you can pick your favorite adjective. Well maybe the result isn't to mix across an analog desk or summing network, or to mix to tape, or any of the other attempts to add a unifying single color to a mix. Maybe it's as simple as opening an "Aux Track" on your DAW, assigning an internal aux buss to get there, and putting a single reverb on that bus to which each individual track will submit a little piece of its sound. I would even say that the more close mic sounds, the more direct inputs, the more synth & VST sounds, and the more mono tracks you have, the more critically important this concept is to unifying your mix. In those cases you are trying to combine sounds that never existed in the same acoustic space (or indeed in any acoustic space) and so creating a single space for all the "preformers" to "play in" together is an enormous step in turning that fruit salad into a smoothie.
There you go.
Forgive the apparent blasphemy as I suggest it might not be tubes, transformers, tape, analog boards, stacks of resistors, or some other audio voodoo. And forgive the food references which may still get worse as I go. Sure those things will certainly help individual sounds and overall mixes in their own special ways, but if the goal is to make the mix sound more like a band playing in a room together, then maybe there's another approach to try first.
Imagine that I was trying to record a string orchestra piece. And to do it, I grab a couple violinists and have them play the first parts and second parts in my living room, and I record with a stereo XY pair. Then I find a violist and record three takes of the same part in a practice room with a close mono mic. Then I find a couple cellists and record them in a classroom at school, but for the bass, I can't a player who can do the part so I use a really nice VST instrument. Now what are the chances of making them sound like they are all placed around the stage in a nice concert hall? I'd offer that they will be greater if I'm at least using the same reverb on each part of the group and not creating one sound for each of the four instruments. And I know without a doubt it would have been better if I had at least had everybody record in the same room - even if they were still recorded individually, just having that initial similarity in the sound of early reflections would afford me a better chance later.
So is that really
any different than when you might record drums in a friends basement, overdub a DI bass, an acoustic in your living room with a stereo pair, an electric guitar with a single SM-57 on the amp, and the vocals in your bedroom closet?
It still won't be easy to take such disparate sounds and blend them into a single, consistent, and blended sound, but I'm guessing that starting off with chasing down the sound of a single acoustic space will maybe make things a little easier.