# Completely unscientific blind reverb throwdown: hardware vs software (including the bricasti debate)



## chillbot (Jan 5, 2020)

I tried to balance all the settings and specs and levels best I could. But let’s be honest, I really just slapped some verb on some samples. If you want to nitpick the settings this is probably not the thread for you. That said, I'm happy to tweak any levels if they don't sound right. These are all hall verbs with 2.7s decay. The hardest part was trying to balance levels between software and hardware verbs, since there isn't an exact setting, I just tried to make them sound good.

Technically these are all hardware... in a way... as I mix everything outside the box. But there is no additional FX or EQ or mastering of any sort. I tried to choose the most basic hall settings for each verb that would give you the best feel. I did write down the settings I used for every example.

I used a dry vocal sample from Sonuscore’s “Lyrical Vocal” and then a flute riff that @windshore recorded for me (hope he doesn’t mind). I think it’s likely a bansuri but not positive on that. @NoamL sent me some dry orch mockups he did from Jumanji by good composer Henry Jackman, I could try using those if there’s any interest but thought I’d start with this.

*[EDIT: Orch samples are near top of page 3, post #**42**.]

[EDIT: Answers posted bottom of page 6, post #**116**.]

[EDIT: More orch samples (6 more verbs) from Anders near bottom of page 10, post #**195**]


HARDWARE*

Bricasti M7
Lexicon PCM92
Yamaha SPX2000

*SOFTWARE*

Seventh Heaven Pro
Lexicon MPX Native
Native Instruments RC48
Eventide Blackhole
Valhalla Room
Relab LX480 (10-day demo copy)

I used an online randomizer to randomly set the order of the nine reverbs so I couldn’t subconsciously influence you with the order, though you’re also free to listen in any order you want:


----------



## chillbot (Jan 5, 2020)




----------



## NoamL (Jan 5, 2020)

A lot of hard work went into this for sure. I think the differences in the end are really subtle... which doesn't necessarily mean that they won't make a difference in a theater setup.

Listening to the flute, #8 was my favorite, it just seemed to give the dry flute a nice space without feeling like a tacked on reverb effect.

EDIT: I also like #1, and very very slightly dislike #4 and #6.


----------



## bbunker (Jan 5, 2020)

This is pretty awesome stuff. Partly because it tells me I should just use whatever reverb I have and never fuss over it again, because literally every example sounded "good."

I realized after about 3 examples that what I was really hearing after a certain point was density and diffusion - so the 2nd and 8th examples felt a bit airier, and that's mostly what I responded to, although I don't necessarily think that those things necessarily make them better or more useful, or even more appropriate to a mix or the instrument. Or maybe it does. After listening to the same ethnic flute riff a few times I've probably just lost all mooring with reality.

You know what would be an awesome side version of this? Well - I should say that I'd dig hearing the Jumanji, of course. Then - percussion! I always feel like snares and rikhs and triangles, all with those noisy metallic top halfs - just destroy a reverb that isn't set right, so it would be amusing to hear those. Maybe edifying? Or just amusing. I don't know nothing.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 5, 2020)

bbunker said:


> Well - I should say that I'd dig hearing the Jumanji, of course. Then - percussion! I always feel like snares and rikhs and triangles, all with those noisy metallic top halfs - just destroy a reverb that isn't set right, so it would be amusing to hear those.


I can do this, I was a bit torn on the Jumanji stuff mostly because I didn't want to throw a big hall on it with a big tail, so I opted for the lazy way out. Less tweaking. I agree there's not a huge difference in the above samples. If you have something you'd want me to throw through nine verbs I'd be happy to do it.


----------



## CT (Jan 5, 2020)

NoamL said:


> A lot of hard work went into this for sure. I think the differences in the end are really subtle... which doesn't necessarily mean that they won't make a difference in a theater setup.
> 
> Listening to the flute, #8 was my favorite, it just seemed to give the dry flute a nice space without feeling like a tacked on reverb effect.
> 
> EDIT: I also like #1, and very very slightly dislike #4 and #6.



Agreed on most things Gnome, but on my first listens I think 4 and 6 seemed to blanket the flute nicely. 9 seemed the most tacked-on.


----------



## Virtuoso (Jan 5, 2020)

4 sounds natural and organic. 9 has a funny resonance build up that skews the image to the left somewhat.


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 6, 2020)

Thanks a lot @chillbot for all your work on this! This is a very cool comparison. Can you maybe add in a poll to the first post, so that people can vote on their favorite?

Afte listening to all examples I can confirm I prefer any reverb over the dry version, and don't really care which reverb is used. I barely notice any differences, and those that I do note I'm not sure I'm just imaging them. I think there is a little difference in frequency buildup and stereo width, but both could be made more similar with mixing tools that I usually use together with reverbs. So I'm quite happy to have my expectation confirmed, that I can just keep using those NI reverbs that I got for free or with komplete. No point in starting to collect reverbs if I can't tell the difference, better to learn about using the ones I have properly!

I do genuinely hope for all bricasti owners, that they are able to tell which one is the bricasti, so that they can feel validated in their purchase decision. I'd be quite bummed out if I owned one and then confused it in a blind test with a 50$ plugin.
So if you do own a bricasti, please tell us which one you think it is, and use (spoiler)tags(/spoiler) to hide your answer, so that you don't influence other bricasti users.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 6, 2020)

Great idea! I there maybe the possibility to download the wav files?


----------



## shomynik (Jan 6, 2020)

Thanks for your effort chillbot!

I like 2,4,6 and 8.


----------



## I like music (Jan 6, 2020)

This is kind of scary, because it tells me that my ears must be shit, as I can't tell enough of a difference for it to matter a huge amount. That said, when I'm trying to create my magic template, and finding a space to blend all my libraries together, the different reverbs I'm trying _are_ giving vastly different results. But I guess that's to do with the IR more than anything. Interesting though.


----------



## Zero&One (Jan 6, 2020)

Listened to the all and the most natural was DRY.

Couldn't tell any notable difference between the others.


----------



## dzilizzi (Jan 6, 2020)

On my phone, they pretty much all sound alike. Except #2 which sounded like it might be Blackhole at first. It sounded like there was reverb on, whereas the rest sounded more natural. 

I'll have to listen on better speakers to see if I hear much more. And? I doubt I would be able to tell the difference as I don't own many of these and they are all very subtle examples.


----------



## Jimmy Hellfire (Jan 6, 2020)

Thanks for the effort!

Well. Some of them sounded a little bit grainier than some of the others. Overall I totally didn't care. People always get mad at me when I say it doesn't matter which reverb you use, but what can I say.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 6, 2020)

Added a poll. Also I am going to add an orch test later today with a smaller size verb that might be more revealing.


----------



## windshore (Jan 6, 2020)

Hey @chillbot, Certainly happy to have you use my flute - yes bansuri on that track!
Like some of the others, I think there are so many great options for verb, it's really hard to say one is dramatically better than the other. In a specific situation I guess it's almost easer to tell when a verb is Not working!


----------



## storyteller (Jan 6, 2020)

Cool test. I find them very distinctly different. 3,4,and 5 are the ones that sound best to my ears. Probably in the order of 5, 3, 4. But my opinion changed a bit depending on which phrase I was hearing. I'd say that #5 was the most clean to my ears, closely followed by 3. Depending on the source, I thought they were easily interchanged depending on how clean or distinct you wanted the reverb to sound. #4 was not as flattering to me as 3 & 5, but it still was better than the others to my ears due to the tail. The others had some mud in them... at least to me.


----------



## tokatila (Jan 6, 2020)

All examples are the same, except dry. He's just messing with you.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 6, 2020)

tokatila said:


> All examples are the same, except dry. He's just messing with you.


Shh.


----------



## Rob (Jan 6, 2020)

voted 3 and 4 my favorites... 7 I really disliked
thanks Chillbot for the test


----------



## NoamL (Jan 6, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> I do genuinely hope for all bricasti owners, that they are able to tell which one is the bricasti, so that they can feel validated in their purchase decision. I'd be quite bummed out if I owned one and then confused it in a blind test with a 50$ plugin.
> So if you do own a bricasti, please tell us which one you think it is, and use (spoiler)tags(/spoiler) to hide your answer, so that you don't influence other bricasti users.



Or it says that Valhalla Room is a high quality plugin


----------



## robgb (Jan 6, 2020)

I like music said:


> This is kind of scary, because it tells me that my ears must be shit, as I can't tell enough of a difference for it to matter a huge amount.


Your ears aren't shit. People generally suffer from confirmation bias (not to mention argumentum ad crumenam). But when the test is blind, there can be no bias.

As I write this, I have not read any of the responses beyond yours, but I have to doubt that some will try to show us how precise their hearing is by pointing out subtle differences in these examples. Those subtleties, however, are so slight that it doesn't make a wit of difference which of these reverbs you use—or many other free or outrageously expensive reverbs that aren't part of this demonstration.

When choosing a reverb what you should probably be looking for is control. How much control does the plugin (or unit) allow you to have over the sound. EQ. Reflections. Modulation. Etc.


----------



## I like music (Jan 6, 2020)

robgb said:


> Your ears aren't shit. People generally suffer from confirmation bias (not to mention argumentum ad crumenam). But when the test is blind, there can be no bias.
> 
> As I write this, I have not read any of the responses beyond yours, but I have to doubt that some will try to show us how precise their hearing is by pointing out subtle differences in these examples. Those subtleties, however, are so slight that it doesn't make a wit of difference which of these reverbs you use—or the many other free or outrageously expensive reverbs that aren't part of this demonstration.
> 
> When choosing a reverb what you should probably be looking for is control. How much control does the plugin (or unit) allow you to have over the sound. EQ. Reflections. Modulation. Etc.



Right. And makes total sense. In that regard, I stuck with Cubase stock (Reverence) and am satisfied with the results. In fact, my worry always was "what if I bought a really expensive reverb, will it actually sound that much better?" And anyway, there are so many other points of failure in the chain for me which I could improve (EQ, balance, orchestration etc) that the reverb shouldn't be a huge deal for me right now. Probably why my ears aren't so sensitive to these examples (because it isn't a priority). I bet when I get the itch to spend money on reverbs, my ears will suddenly "improve" 

And to your final point, yep, their stock reverb has more than enough control that I can't imagine what more I'd need from that perspective. Thanks for saving me money :D


----------



## JohnG (Jan 6, 2020)

Thanks to the chillster for having a go at this.

Nevertheless, if you can't hear a difference it could be for quite a few reasons. I'm particularly alive to the monitoring issue, but hosting on Soundcloud can produce vagaries as well.

Just had an experience with mixing / playback for a show in which a problem with the low end revealed itself only on some systems -- it was very low Hz and, even on a good system, it didn't emerge until you turned up the track to a fairly high monitoring level. However, at a fairly loud level (it's an action-y sort of track) it generated serious problems and, since it was a main title, really needed fixing.

Point being, even with "very" good systems, but not super high end and without correcting for different listening levels, people heard different stuff.

So thanks @chillbot for a noble effort but unless one is listening through a pretty high grade system and with a high quality sample rate / good transmission without a bunch of weirdness that Soundcloud (or any hosting platform) might introduce: pasted-on limiting or other business.

Consequently, I doubt the results of this or any online poll could be reliable.


----------



## storyteller (Jan 6, 2020)

I'd also recommend that when you are learning to hear differences in these types of tests that you listen to small snippets of the way the reverb behaves upon it first receiving a signal, and at the very end of a phrase. If you start each phrase then stop the reverb just a fraction of a second into it, you can start to learn how each reverb is behaving. Then, you can listen to the whole phrase with a better awareness of what is going on. Listening critically is training your ears to behave like a document scanner... but for audio. A scanner starts at the top of the document and scans the image line-by-line. It doesn't just take a photo of it. Similarly, you must train your ear to hear each millisecond of the sound line by line (linearly in real-time) rather than hearing the whole effect of the reverb on a phrase (like a photograph).

*EDIT:* And use a good pair of cans. I use HD650s, but there are a number of cans that are great.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 6, 2020)

Can't at the moment, pick out favorites, they all sound good. The big surprise for me is that there are audible differences, they are subtle, but they are there. I don't think I expected them to be audible.

I will listen some more later and try to cast my votes<G>!


----------



## Zero&One (Jan 6, 2020)

wst3 said:


> Can't at the moment, pick out favorites, they all sound good. The big surprise for me is that there are audible differences, they are subtle, but they are there. <G>!



Big surprise for me is there's a $50 plugin in here. I'm not hearing the night and day difference someone said in the other thread sadly. I wanted to.

I'm not sure what to vote for, other than Valhalla is amazing irrelevant of the voting outcome.


----------



## NoamL (Jan 6, 2020)

Valhalla also did well in the "Reverb World Cup" by @christianhenson and Jake Jackson (video below).

We shouldn't underestimate that one of the reasons these are all sounding about equally good is because Chill took the time to program good sounding presets for all of them. Knowing how to use your tools is maybe more important than which tool you use.


----------



## I like music (Jan 6, 2020)

NoamL said:


> Valhalla also did well in the "Reverb World Cup" by @christianhenson and Jake Jackson (video below).
> 
> We shouldn't underestimate that one of the reasons these are all sounding about equally good is because Chill took the time to program good sounding presets for all of them. Knowing how to use your tools is maybe more important than which tool you use.




There are different valhallas right (shimmer, room, etc) ? Do they cater to different things? Any idea what differentiates them? I can't put my finger on it.


----------



## dzilizzi (Jan 6, 2020)

Some reverbs are made to put sound into a natural room, so it sounds like you are there. Others are really more of an FX like Blackhole, XenoVerb or Valhalla Shimmer. They really aren't supposed to sound natural. Unless you are doing some outer space scifi thing. So, I guess it depends on what you want. Unless they are made to do something special, like Mir or Breeze 2 + Precedence, I think the same settings will sound alike to most of us when using normal speakers. My phone speakers are not EQ'd by me, which will definitely affect how I hear things.


----------



## Michael Antrum (Jan 6, 2020)

Then the question that follows from this test is this:

Which one of these reverbs is worth £ 3,800.00 rather than, say, £ 150.00 for some of the software ones ?

I would also be interested to see if anyone can pick out the hardware M7 ?

However, for most of us, I think, the question is settled.

(I tend to use Spaces II mainly, as it is really quick to get sorted.)

@chillbot Thank you ever so much for doing all this testing. It's really appreciated.


----------



## CT (Jan 6, 2020)

I like music said:


> There are different valhallas right (shimmer, room, etc) ? Do they cater to different things? Any idea what differentiates them? I can't put my finger on it.



Room is for doing, well, rooms. The algorithms are geared towards real spaces. Vintage Verb has the sound of, you guessed it, vintage verbs. Plate is a plate. Shimmer is a massive pitch-shift Eno/Lanois reverb.

I've found that you can do a lot of the same things with all of them, though others may hear finer differences in the individual sound of each. I felt that Plate sounded the most clearly different, possibly only because of the ability to set the return at up to 200% width, and Shimmer obviously has functionality that the others don't. Valhalla Delay can do a lot of what Shimmer does, among many other effects. That's an excellent recent addition.


----------



## tokatila (Jan 6, 2020)

Ok, Bricasti is the best.

Also 1,4,8 are good. And the rest.


----------



## Noeticus (Jan 6, 2020)

For this to be truly unbaised, then there would have to be no comments about which verb we liked the most, so as to not influence the people who have not voted yet.


----------



## Steve Lum (Jan 6, 2020)

robgb said:


> Your ears aren't shit.


First, thank you Sheel-Bat (aka chillbot) for the work and the exercise.

I agree with the sentiment by RobGaBuh (aka robgb).

My comment is this: I can tell there are differences but I wouldn't be inclined to say I like one more than another because they all exhibit characteristics that one might dial up for a specific context. Also, I liked some better for voice vs flute. I think if I were saddled with only one tool I would just work it to get is as close as I could to what's in my mind's eye.

Nonetheless, I picked 5 then 6 for voice, 9 for flute.

Thanks again


----------



## Billy Palmer (Jan 6, 2020)

Here's my unscientific reactions (I'm mostly using this as a bookmark to myself when for when I learn the answers)!

1 don’t like
2 bad and weird return sound
3 ok, but too much build up
4 lovely!
5 good on vocals, less on wind
6 same as above
7 nice (sounds like a good density of taps)
8 very good!
9 subtle but convincing

Thanks for taking the time to make this fun experiment


----------



## OleJoergensen (Jan 6, 2020)

Thank you for doing this, it is a great idea!
I think al of them sounds pretty good.
I like most 4,5 and 3.
Maybe 4 and 5 is hardware reverb.


----------



## robgb (Jan 6, 2020)

Michael Antrum said:


> Which one of these reverbs is worth £ 3,800.00


No reverb is worth that price. End of story.


----------



## Gingerbread (Jan 6, 2020)

Thanks for doing this, Chillibot. 

Most all are very good. Listening on my hd600 cans, I chose to specifically focus on the tail of the flute. 

Based on that condition, my conclusion:

Best: 4 has a buttery smooth tail that feels nicely dense, same with 5. 

Least best (haha): 7 has an unpleasant, artificial-sounding ring in its tail which actually pitches downward flat. None of the others did that.


----------



## dgburns (Jan 6, 2020)

verb 1 is wide and lively but brighter, it's like an effect
verb 2 does not have a lot of width and very little modulation but blends with source
verb 3 darker and modulates but sits behind
verb 4 classic lexi style, warbles and modulates and does not blend with source but is wide and bright
verb 5 it is dark and sits behind and maybe designed to be longer tail algo
verb 6 thick but also feels muddled somehow
verb 7 again that swirling modulation at the end is really exaggerated and lofi dirty
verb 8 thinking this is software, almost like convo verb
verb 9 can't place it but it feels like cheap hardware

of course I'm probably full of shit

I think 4 is Valhalla
I think 2 is bricasti
I think 5 is blackhole

there's a bunch of lexi variants in there, some I don't own but I can spot a lexicon verb by it's width and brightness and warble/ spin/ wander and excitement but ultimately effecty verb.

do I need to get my ears cleaned?


----------



## AllanH (Jan 6, 2020)

I've listened a few times. It's interesting how some of the reverbs provide a sense of a defined space, whereas other just reverberate. Favorite is 4 followed by 5.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 6, 2020)

Follow up, here are some orch snippets by @NoamL from good composer Henry Jackman.

For these I went from a "Large Hall" down to a "Medium Hall" (when applicable) and used a decay of around 2.3s.

All the verbs and numbers are the same order as the ones from the vocal/flute examples.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 6, 2020)

*[EDIT: 6 more orch verbs posted near bottom of page 10, post #**195**.]*


----------



## NoamL (Jan 6, 2020)

With these examples now I see why people like 4, 5, 8. Before on the flute example they seemed nearly indistinguishable to me.

I liked 3, 4, 5 for the strings, 9 is okay. (EDIT: actually 9 might be one of the better ones)

For brass I thought 5 & 9, followed by 4, were the only ones that really sounded like it put the brass into a larger space. The others just felt like a big washy effect, you know?

Reverb levels on 7 seemed really higher than the others?


----------



## chillbot (Jan 6, 2020)

NoamL said:


> reverb levels on 7 seem higher than for the others?


I can change. Balancing levels was the hardest part for me.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 6, 2020)

Only listened to the orchestral, "4" I liked and also "8". "7" seemed to have some unnatural swell in the decay, maybe LX480 could do that if the shape parameter is too high.
Great effort and test!

EDIT:
Listening a bit more closely I come back to #4 as my most transparent yet lively option. That would currently be my reference.

#1 has a somewhat static decay, also in the tail there seems to be something that reminds me to "white noise". I think some algorithms use a bit of a white noise component to beef the sound up, but I am not very fond of it. It may be a matter of taste.
#2 shows some ringing here
#3 is quite good as well
#4 my reference, transparent but lively. Not sure though whether there is some audible detuning in the tail sometimes
#5 seems to be a bit cluttered for me
#6 also has a "white noise" decay
#7 has the mentioned swell in the decay which disturbs me
#8 on second listening I found this a bit intransparent - which might be good for hiding artefacts but of course it depends on the source material
#9 is more transparent

So all in all 3, 4 and 9 are my favorites for the orchestral parts, with 4 on the top, and 8 as the runner-up. However most of them are really good.

EDIT 2: And congratulations to chillbot for setting this up. Unintentionally I have just today done a similar test: Did two mixes with two totally different reverbs, until I liked them both, and afterwards I myself could not tell them apart in a blind test. So much is dependent on the settings, the taste and patience of the operator.


----------



## storyteller (Jan 6, 2020)

NoamL said:


> With these examples now I see why people like 4, 5, 8. Before on the flute example they seemed nearly indistinguishable to me. 9 is good too and I liked 3 for the strings but not the brass.
> 
> reverb levels on 7 seem higher than for the others?


Good test by the bot that chills. Nice mockups as well, @NoamL I still like my top three picks of 5,3,4 (in that same order as before)... but on these latest examples it sounds like reverb 3 would need more dampening on the tail (or a shorter decay time) for it to sit where I would like it compared to the others. Also, #8 sounds much better on these examples than the original tests. I think the levels on #7 are probably fine... but the algorithm (or settings) is/are just not as flattering causing it to sound much more separated from its source.


----------



## NoamL (Jan 6, 2020)

storyteller said:


> Nice mockups as well, @NoamL l



Heh, you're too kind, but these are Adventure Brass + Adventure Strings, in the final mockup I think @Grim_Universe (who did ALL the mixing!) only used a bit of these to bring out the edge and the main mockup was CSS and Berlin.

All the reverbs sounded great on live material... almost like the difference between live and MIDI is more important than the difference between reverbs....


----------



## Kyle Preston (Jan 6, 2020)

This is awesome chillbot, thanks for such a great post! 

5 was my favorite for all samples with 9 close behind. I don't have enough experience (or any really) with hardware verbs to _hear_ the difference. I definitely have a bias toward convolution - I'd absolutely love to be wrong on this though, can't wait to find out what verbs they are .


----------



## CT (Jan 6, 2020)

As Noam pointed out, the biggest difference here seems to be live material vs. samples, rather than the reverbs used.

With the voice/flute example, there was no obvious standout to me, and only minor shortcomings. These bone-dry orchestral samples, though? Well, the strings might have the desirable level of "embrace" in a few of these, but the brass firmly does not want to sound any bigger than it was recorded, whether you throw fifty bucks or three grand at it.

I wonder how much of it is not just the live vs. samples thing, but also that the brain understands that the context of the reverb on the voice and flute is an added effect, whereas with the orchestra, it expects to hear something real.


----------



## constaneum (Jan 6, 2020)

adventure series are indeed sounding great.


----------



## Billy Palmer (Jan 6, 2020)

constaneum said:


> adventure series are indeed sounding great.


orchestra, I like 4 and 8. No strong opinions otherwise


----------



## Virtuoso (Jan 6, 2020)

Damn. Now I'm thinking 3 is the Bricasti. This is the road to madness..!


----------



## storyteller (Jan 6, 2020)

miket said:


> As Noam pointed out, the biggest difference here seems to be live material vs. samples, rather than the reverbs used.
> 
> With the voice/flute example, there was no obvious standout to me, and only minor shortcomings. These bone-dry orchestral samples, though? Well, the strings might have the desirable level of "embrace" in a few of these, but the brass firmly does not want to sound any bigger than it was recorded, whether you throw fifty bucks or three grand at it.
> 
> I wonder how much of it is not just the live vs. samples thing, but also that the brain understands that the context of the reverb on the voice and flute is an added effect, whereas with the orchestra, it expects to hear something real.


I think a good reverb algorithm is probably more evident to a larger majority of listeners in a context like this, but it is harder to discern in solo context. A subjectively "worse" reverb algorithm might have more noticeable appeal in a solo context, but that is sort of like a false positive - like going into an electronics store and choosing a TV when all of their settings are turned up wildly out of context from a proper screen calibration. This is usually why mix engineers recommend never soloing an instrument when trying to eq it, add fx, and getting it to sit in a mix. The context of the arrangement has all sorts of harmonic interplay that cannot be heard when soloed. That said, I do agree that certain reverbs shine on solo instruments for this exact reason as well. But when you know what you are listening for in a reverb, it will likely sound great on a solo instrument or an entire orchestra. My $0.02 at least...


----------



## JohnG (Jan 6, 2020)

NoamL said:


> All the reverbs sounded great on live material... almost like the difference between live and MIDI is more important than the difference between reverbs....



you may be on to something there...


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jan 6, 2020)

So the moral of the story is that a skilled composer could get by with Logic's built in verbs?


----------



## bvaughn0402 (Jan 6, 2020)

I'm hoping I own 4, 5, or 9.

Chillbot, after this is over, would you consider sharing any presets or settings you used specifically on these?

Also, on the orchestral ones ... are those single files, or multiple tracks? If multiple tracks, are you putting them on a bus channel and feeding all into them?


----------



## chillbot (Jan 6, 2020)

bvaughn0402 said:


> Also, on the orchestral ones ... are those single files, or multiple tracks? If multiple tracks, are you putting them on a bus channel and feeding all into them?


These are just on the stereo audio files Gnoam sent me.


----------



## VinRice (Jan 6, 2020)

InLight-Tone said:


> So the moral of the story is that a skilled composer could get by with Logic's built in verbs?



Absolutely. I don't think anybody could argue with that.


----------



## Gingerbread (Jan 6, 2020)

The way 4 and 5 handle the brass shorts at 0:33 is so much better than any of the others. There is none of the artificial "reverb sizzle" that the others have; it just feels natural and blended. Might just be a settings thing...or might just be a better reverb device.


----------



## CT (Jan 6, 2020)

Gingerbread said:


> The way 4 and 5 handle the brass shorts at 0:33 is so much better than any of the others.



That's the exact moment that sold me on 4 as well.



chillbot said:


> Gnoam



Please, it's Gnaom.


----------



## AllanH (Jan 6, 2020)

The brass was interesting and somehow the more "stressing" test. I still find 4 the clearest follow by 5 and/or 8. I now really hope the 4 is Valhalla Rom and not an M7


----------



## CT (Jan 6, 2020)

As much as I love Valhalla Room, I *don't* think it's 4. Will be overjoyed if it is though.


----------



## bill5 (Jan 6, 2020)

robgb said:


> Your ears aren't shit. People generally suffer from confirmation bias (not to mention argumentum ad crumenam). But when the test is blind, there can be no bias.
> 
> As I write this, I have not read any of the responses beyond yours, but I have to doubt that some will try to show us how precise their hearing is by pointing out subtle differences in these examples. Those subtleties, however, are so slight that it doesn't make a wit of difference which of these reverbs you use—or many other free or outrageously expensive reverbs that aren't part of this demonstration.
> 
> When choosing a reverb what you should probably be looking for is control. How much control does the plugin (or unit) allow you to have over the sound. EQ. Reflections. Modulation. Etc.


aw. Beat me to it. Well said. The diff's in most things audio are much smaller than most imagine them to be, and blind tests put that on display every time. When I have more time/money I hope to do some as well as further evidence. Appreciate this!


----------



## Virtuoso (Jan 6, 2020)

Gingerbread said:


> The way 4 and 5 handle the brass shorts at 0:33 is so much better than any of the others. There is none of the artificial "reverb sizzle" that the others have;


Lots of sizzle on 8 - just listen to the transient at 0:04. Makes me wonder if that's the Eventide Blackhole?

The test doesn't feel complete without the Whispering Gallery of Gol Gumbaz. Chillbot, have you got Altiverb?


----------



## babylonwaves (Jan 7, 2020)

It's an interesting test and independently of what the result is, the first thing that comes to my mind is: it really shows that many things don't matter so much when equipment is operated correctly. Many modern reverbs sound good when you use them right. Same for sample libs and DAWs and gear in general.
Maybe, just maybe, it shows that some would get a bit further by talking more about how to use our gear best and less about the technicalities ...? We live in a beautiful time - it was never so affordable to have a great sound and access to free knowledge.


----------



## Pianolando (Jan 7, 2020)

Great test, thanks for doing this! Would it be possible to upload these files to a Dropbox or something so that we can download them in hi res and listen? Soundcloud is a bit crap when it comes to audio quality.


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 7, 2020)

With the orchestral versions I'm starting to hear bigger differences (or maybe it's because this time I'm using headphones), but I haven't voted, because I looked at the results already and feel like I'm getting biased based on what's popular currently. Without that I'd still have a very hard time picking a favorite. 

If we're doing yet another test, I'd be interested in isolated shorts of strings, brass, woods, snaredrum, timpani, bass drum, cymbals and glockenspiel, with 100% wet reverb, to really hear how it's sounding on its own and what it does to the sound. I agree of course that blended with the dry signal is the more important usecase, but I'd still be curious if the differences get more pronounced that way.


----------



## shomynik (Jan 7, 2020)

Again, thank you chillbot!

And again I like 2,4,6 and 8, but this time I would add 3 as well.

To me, 9 is too detached from the source, 7 and 5 have strong muddy resonances, and 1 sounds cheap.


----------



## Ivan M. (Jan 7, 2020)

Gingerbread said:


> The way 4 and 5 handle the brass shorts at 0:33 is so much better than any of the others. There is none of the artificial "reverb sizzle" that the others have; it just feels natural and blended. Might just be a settings thing...or might just be a better reverb device.



I think 4 and 5 just have highs rolled off and stronger early reflections, which can be easily emulated by any other reverb


----------



## M0rdechai (Jan 7, 2020)

My only experience is as a live musician. I'm just starting out composing, but my view is:



1nice sound (very bright)2unconnected near/far3kind of 'just dies out slowly'4nice sound5ok sound (some freq. seem louder than others)6nice sound7cant say why, but: "close to nice"8different, but nice9wooly for the voice/flute but nice sound for the orchestra


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jan 7, 2020)

InLight-Tone said:


> So the moral of the story is that a skilled composer could get by with Logic's built in verbs?


Wet orchestral libraries + Logic stock 'verbs for everything else has been my choice for a while now. Not trying to imply I'm a skilled composer (!) but I do like having less techie choices to make whilst writing. YMMV etc.


----------



## Buz (Jan 7, 2020)

4 stood out to me as well. Warm resonance without sounding like a delay effect. A few others were similar but side-by-side they had either a slightly harsh quality or unnatural resonance.

I know nothing about reverbs so I'm curious if we're mostly hearing differences in parameters. ie would everyone ignore 4 if you bumped a few knobs that took it out of the sweet spot.


----------



## constaneum (Jan 7, 2020)

Buz said:


> 4 stood out to me as well. Warm resonance without sounding like a delay effect. A few others were similar but side-by-side they had either a slightly harsh quality or unnatural resonance.
> 
> I know nothing about reverbs so I'm curious if we're mostly hearing differences in parameters. ie would everyone ignore 4 if you bumped a few knobs that took it out of the sweet spot.



4 is 7th heaven pro right ? Haha


----------



## constaneum (Jan 7, 2020)

When can the answer be revealed ?


----------



## Mikro93 (Jan 7, 2020)

Can't really be bothered to tell which reverb I prefer, they all sound pretty reverby to me, which is the point, so good job everyone! And since I just bought Valhalla Room, I'm rather content with knowing that I have the tools to get the sound of one of these.

However, I'm particularly happy to have recognized Adventure Strings and Brass from the orchestral extracts


----------



## Anders Wall (Jan 7, 2020)

Pianolando said:


> Great test, thanks for doing this! Would it be possible to upload these files to a Dropbox or something so that we can download them in hi res and listen? Soundcloud is a bit crap when it comes to audio quality.


Nah, I listen though my iPhone speaker... sounds just great.
Have some pointers on the mix and placement, but I can clearly hear what's a plugin and what's the "real deal".
Just sad that no spring reverbs were included in the test.
Like the ones from Pioneer, they are really good.Much better than a Bricasti.

@chillbot
Great work
+1 for wavs with, like, all 24 bits in them 
Also, I've read that the DEMO version of xxx plugin sounds different from the full version.
But if you pay in Bitcoin you can "unlock" the DEMO so that it still sounds like a DEMO.

Best,

/Anders


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 7, 2020)

Anders Wall said:


> but I can clearly hear what's a plugin and what's the "real deal".



Awesome! Please post which one the bricasti is (and whatever else you're sure about) and put your answer in spoiler tags. I will be very impressed when the names are revealed and you called the bricasti right! And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I believe you can tell the difference.

On the other hand if anyone doesn't put down into writing what they think is the bricasti before the reveal, and later claims they "knew it", I'll call bullshit.


----------



## Olfirf (Jan 7, 2020)

Interesting test! I will listen to it later on proper speakers, but I already know, I miss one critical disciplined that (at least in my mind) distinguishes reverbs in a critical way. That is placing a bone-dry brass ensemble in a room. Something like sample modeling brass. The thing with voices, ethnic flutes etc is, you never really get anything offensively wrong sounding from these with whatever reverb. There may be differences, but any well recorded voices will sound great with a long tail, no matter what reverb it is. The differences are rather subtle and mostly depend on taste.
However, the moment you put that same reverb on some brass with lots of dynamics, you will quickly notice the differences. Some reverbs like spat will also include spatialization, so, you might have to add some other processing like power pan and EQ to make up for that. 
All I can say, I had once the opportunity to try a bricasti on a sample modeling horn and I was not able to replace that with any of the software reverbs on that computer. The best result I got from a combo of altiverb (with Little tail) and bricasti. But bricasti was the winner of any single reverb on brass for my ears.


----------



## Zero&One (Jan 7, 2020)

These new samples do make things different. Personally I liked 1 & 6 but I couldn't pick a clear favourite as they all sound great.

@chillbot appreciate all the work, it's been fun. One question, obviously you know the answers... but were you surprised in anyway by the results? Like did you find them similar or was it clear to you?


----------



## chillbot (Jan 7, 2020)

Virtuoso said:


> Chillbot, have you got Altiverb?


I don't, sorry. I only did this because I have the Bricasti. But the dry samples are there if anyone else wants to jump in.


constaneum said:


> When can the answer be revealed ?


I dunno? Whenever?


Pianolando said:


> Would it be possible to upload these files to a Dropbox or something so that we can download them in hi res and listen? Soundcloud is a bit crap when it comes to audio quality.



Does this work:

https://we.tl/t-x8A1fvZ4ct

(If the link looks scary I swear it's ok... will take you to wetransfer and prompt before downloading.)


----------



## chillbot (Jan 7, 2020)

Zero&One said:


> One question, obviously you know the answers... but were you surprised in anyway by the results? Like did you find them similar or was it clear to you?


I am surprised people can tell the difference, honestly. I know I can only pick one or two out of the bunch myself. There may be something to it, though, the results of the poll are... interesting. However, it's a super small sample size for the poll, and someone had mentioned how people will become influenced by the results, that may well be happening here. I'm wondering if #4 and #5 are enjoying a bit of the snowballing/bandwagon effect. I did say right off the bat we were not using the scientific method for this!


----------



## I like music (Jan 7, 2020)

chillbot said:


> I dunno? Whenever?



Put them out of their misery. Please!


----------



## chillbot (Jan 7, 2020)

I like music said:


> Put them out of their misery. Please!


Was thinking some might want to take a guess as to which ones were hardware/software first? Maybe? @Anders Wall ?


----------



## I like music (Jan 7, 2020)

chillbot said:


> Was thinking some might want to take a guess as to which ones were hardware/software first? Maybe? @Anders Wall ?



This might sound like a silly question, but people are actually able to guess that? (Genuine question). I guess I've only ever interacted with two reverbs in my life (Cubase stock, and Reverberate 2) so I've never ever bothered to look into hardware reverbs.

What differentiates them (more processing power?)?


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 7, 2020)

chillbot said:


> Was thinking some might want to take a guess as to which ones were hardware/software first? Maybe? @Anders Wall ?



Yes! While I'm bursting with curiosity, I think we need to ensure that a couple of the bricasti connaisseurs put down the numbers for what they think the bricasti is first, so that we can at least check whether the owners of the "real deal" can reliably pick it out in such a blind test or not.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 7, 2020)

I like music said:


> This might sound like a silly question, but people are actually able to guess that? (Genuine question). I guess I've only ever interacted with two reverbs in my life (Cubase stock, and Reverberate 2) so I've never ever bothered to look into hardware reverbs.



I'm super curious if any one can.



MartinH. said:


> Yes! While I'm bursting with curiosity, I think we need to ensure that a couple of the bricasti connaisseurs put down the numbers for what they think the bricasti is first, so that we can at least check whether the owners of the "real deal" can reliably pick it out in such a blind test or not.



I don't think that's fair, I did my best to try to match them to each other, and it's really a shit test anyway.

Here is something @Jdiggity1 said: "The whole idea of a reverb or plugin is that you keep tweaking until it sounds good on the source material. Not to just dial up some numbers and compare it to another."

No one is going to be swayed one way or another, the software owners are all going to use this test to say "Ha! I told you so!" and the hardware owners are just going to shake their heads (myself included) and say, ok, come back to me when you've worked with a Bricasti for a week.

I think the only real "winners" here are the Valhalla group that can certainly be justified you can get a damn good plugin for $50 bucks.

Mostly the hardware vs software debate comes down to logistics, what is easiest for you to use, and what can you afford. If you're never going to spend $4k on a reverb why are you even in the debate. For me, the way my studio is set up, hardware is so much easier to use than plugins. 98% of my reverb comes from my three external boxes. Other people have said to me, "man, hardware seems painful".

So while I'm not swayed, because I ultimately prefer hardware, I have been very enlightened to just how far plugins have come. 10 years ago we wouldn't be having this debate. Certainly not 20 years ago, when my boss at the time got a Lexicon PCM91 at the studio and as soon as I heard it I thought "YES YES YES that is the sound!" I went out and dropped $2k on it the next day, or whatever it cost at the time. And I've never regretted it, that was like the "now I am a PRO" sound. And that "Lexicon" sound is still a hit today, apparently...


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 7, 2020)

chillbot said:


> If you're never going to spend $4k on a reverb why are you even in the debate.



Curiosity and desire to learn. I'll stick with my NI RC48, NI Raum etc. one way ore another because I don't have the cash to burn on a reverb collection, but I'd be just as happy to see all the bricasti owners teach me by saying "X clearly is the bricasti because of A, B and C in the sound compared to the others".

If it's just an ease of use thing, then fair enough, at the high level that's surely worth thousands to be easier to use. Buy more than one if it makes sense for your setup! But iirc there were plenty of comments over the years by people claiming they can _clearly _tell the difference from sound alone, and I've never seen them back it up with anything, which had me raise an eyebrow to say the least. 


I think it's probably a bit similar to wine:


----------



## bbunker (Jan 7, 2020)

I can't guess on most of the reverbs I don't own and haven't used, but it'll be fun to take a stab on where two of them are and feel like an idiot.

I think 4 is the most popular because everyone else has said it sounds great, and because it does. I'd probably guess that it's the Lexi hardware, because it doesn't really have the (what i think of as) software "I'm hearing the same thing again a half-second later but swoooooosh" feeling, but does have the swirly smoosh I associate with Lexis.

I'll just go for it and say 9 is the Bricasti. Never used one, but that tail is so 'subtle' and not reflective, and feels like the kind of roomy-not-slappy thing I want for orchestral stems that whatever it is, I want it, so I'm guessing that it's the Bric. Which means that now it's 100% the Valhalla.

That was fun. I'm running out of made-up adjectives though.


----------



## Will Blackburn (Jan 7, 2020)

Very interested to know what they are. Can't stand 5, not keen on 1-4, sound rather plasticy. Really like 8 and 9. They maintain stereo imaging better imo. 9 just edges 8 for solo batch and 8 edges 9 for Noamls mockup.


----------



## Vin (Jan 7, 2020)

#7 is the only one that doesn't sound good to my ears - ending of the flute phrase (0:45) sounds very metallic and phasey (old Yamaha )? #5 and #8 are my favorites here, I presume one of those is 480 or PCM, always liked that Lexicon sound. Shame there isn't TC 6000 / Relab VSR S24 in here, as it's definitely my favorite reverb. Great comparison @chillbot, thank you!


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 7, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> Curiosity and desire to learn. I'll stick with my NI RC48, NI Raum etc. one way ore another because I don't have the cash to burn on a reverb collection, but I'd be just as happy to see all the bricasti owners teach me by saying "X clearly is the bricasti because of A, B and C in the sound compared to the others".
> 
> If it's just an ease of use thing, then fair enough, at the high level that's surely worth thousands to be easier to use. Buy more than one if it makes sense for your setup! But iirc there were plenty of comments over the years by people claiming they can _clearly _tell the difference from sound alone, and I've never seen them back it up with anything, which had me raise an eyebrow to say the least.
> 
> ...






lol. having studied marketing in college , the wine example like in the video is spot on. same with psicological pricing and mercedez benz and the 99.99 instead of 100. you would think this sort of stuff is for dumb poeple but it always works. even on me 

I was facinated a while back with mic preamps a long time ago. before youtube. there was this CD you could buy and it showed the differences. and it was almost impossible to know the difference except for one or two out of 30 or so preamps it presented. 

and i still see/hear it in youtube examples, in youtube exmples thatprovide wav files. and in all the comments its always the same, if peole knew there was an expensive preamps, they would say that one sounded better. if they didnt know, then almost no one would get it right and start assuming and pretending their magical ears can hear the subtleties of the type of tube used or some bs like that. 

i did a similar test like chillbot at gearsluts but i didnt match. i just said, medium hall and whatever the dev said was medium hall so it was more pronounced. by imo the waves rverb was the only one that the actual algorithm was so bad. the others didnt had THAT much of a difference if it was the same style reverb. (random hall, plate etc). 

so same as this one, the one from christian henson and others out there, i noticed there issnt much of a difference in algo verbs so i just went w the easiest. lexicon. and stopped buying reverbs unless it had something different like the eventide blackhole and mangleverb. 

btw- there is also some interesting shootouts for bluesky from strymon and the zoom ms-70cdr and other similar guitar pedal verbs. similar thing. once the user dialed in the same paramters and then try to match by ear, they sounded pretty similar.


----------



## Alex Fraser (Jan 7, 2020)

Look, I’ve previously spent a couple of minutes adjusting a plugin and “hearing” the changes, before realising I was listening to a completely different track. The ears and brain are evil and will conspire to trick you. 😅


----------



## brojd (Jan 7, 2020)

Alex Fraser said:


> Look, I’ve previously spent a couple of minutes adjusting a plugin and “hearing” the changes, before realising I was listening to a completely different track. The ears and brain are evil and will conspire to trick you. 😅


Oh so true! 🙈


----------



## bbunker (Jan 7, 2020)

OK, Chillbot - only one thing to do now, for sure. Some kind of percussion stem with some snares and toms, with that same verb. I think part of the interesting thing is that on the flute and vox parts, everything sounded pretty OK to me, while on the orchestral stems I was pretty all in on 4, 8 and 9, and would probably swap out the rest. I'm thinking percussion would split the good from the great even more.

^ This virtually guarantees that none of the Hardware units are in 4, 8 or 9. So I'll just say it: 4, 8 and 9 are Hardware. How many points do I get?!??!


----------



## Zedcars (Jan 7, 2020)

Alex Fraser said:


> Look, I’ve previously spent a couple of minutes adjusting a plugin and “hearing” the changes, before realising I was listening to a completely different track. The ears and brain are evil and will conspire to trick you. 😅


I’ve done the same. Felt such a fool when I realised!


----------



## shomynik (Jan 7, 2020)

Alex Fraser said:


> Look, I’ve previously spent a couple of minutes adjusting a plugin and “hearing” the changes, before realising I was listening to a completely different track. The ears and brain are evil and will conspire to trick you. 😅


Mhm, a multiple occasions here as well! :D


----------



## I like music (Jan 7, 2020)

shomynik said:


> Mhm, a multiple occasions here as well! :D



Just today I accidentally solo'ed the reference track that I had, and thought for half a second that I was hearing my mockup of the reference. The elation was unbelievable, but the realisation and downfall even worse.


----------



## Architekton (Jan 7, 2020)

I think they all sound good except 7, whatever that is, is either has wrong setup/preset or is really that bad. And I would say 8 is Valhalla Room. For other, I am not sure, but like I said all of them would work in any orchestral context except 7. So, paying couple of thousands of dollars for hw really doesnt make any sense today.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 7, 2020)

chillbot said:


> Does this work:
> 
> https://we.tl/t-x8A1fvZ4ct
> 
> (If the link looks scary I swear it's ok... will take you to wetransfer and prompt before downloading.)


I downloaded it and imported all tracks into Cubase. Then I changed the phase from the dry version and played dry + reverb1, dry + reverb2 aso. In this way I can listen only to the reverb. (By adjusting the volume level here and there a little bit, to hide the dry signal.) I think to listen only to the reverb is very important, at least for me. The first thing, what I alway do is that I add an eq into the reverb channel and cut the low and high frequencies ... .

BTW.: What John G. said about the monitor volume in a best treated room is absolutely the truth!

In my words: Any room has its own best volume setting. Only then you can listen to the little monsters what are fighting against your mix ... .


----------



## bill5 (Jan 7, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> I think it's probably a bit similar to wine:


It's VERY similar to wine. Confirmation bias is rampant lol. However, with wine, when you get to the really low end (I'm talking Mad Dog and etc), even I can readily tell a diff between that and even a moderately priced good (not amazing) wine and I'm no "expert."


----------



## Gingerbread (Jan 7, 2020)

It's clear that, with all these excellent reverbs available, some for very low cost, the main challenge lies in knowing how to use them _well_. Does anyone know of especially good resources for learning the best practices and most important fundamentals of this? Most YouTube videos on reverbs are simply tech reviews, with little in-depth understanding.

Chillibot (and others with experience), you clearly have good expertise at dialing in reverbs to their best potential. Would you be willing to share some of your methods, and what you look/listen for, in fine-tuning settings? Perhaps starting another thread, so as not to get off-topic here.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 7, 2020)

Gingerbread said:


> It's clear that, with all these excellent reverbs available, some for very low cost, the main challenge lies in knowing how to use them _well_. Does anyone know of especially good resources for learning the best practices and most important fundamentals of this? Most YouTube videos on reverbs are simply tech reviews, with little in-depth understanding.
> 
> Chillibot (and others with experience), you clearly have good expertise at dialing in reverbs to their best potential. Would you be willing to share some of your methods, and what you look/listen for, in fine-tuning settings? Perhaps starting another thread, so as not to get off-topic here.



For example:


----------



## bvaughn0402 (Jan 7, 2020)

For you Valhalla guys ... what are the "must have" purchases? Delay? Room? If you could pick only 2, which ones?


----------



## John Longley (Jan 7, 2020)

Once I did a day long reverb shootout, then I changed the source and I realized it's only useful per source, in context. I've found equal joy and utility from a 6K and an Alesis Wedge lol It's fun to listen, but I think once you have a fairly decent preset, differences disapear once you start shaping the return signal and tweaking the finer points of the modulation, diffusion etc...


----------



## Noeticus (Jan 7, 2020)

bvaughn0402 said:


> For you Valhalla guys ... what are the "must have" purchases? Delay? Room? If you could pick only 2, which ones?



Room and Vintage.


----------



## CT (Jan 7, 2020)

bvaughn0402 said:


> For you Valhalla guys ... what are the "must have" purchases? Delay? Room? If you could pick only 2, which ones?



Those two.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 7, 2020)

There should be another shootout where it says it’s hardware vs reverb with the name of 24 different commercial reverbs to later only be actually 2 reverbs example Files named differently 24 times.


----------



## mholloway (Jan 7, 2020)

would be nice to see the answers.... I think the arc of the posts here suggests there's not a lot of real polling left to be done.


----------



## maestro2be (Jan 7, 2020)

I am a little slow. I read this thread and I swear I read some people saying the orchestral parts were "the real thing" which was what made it sound awesome. I swear I also read that it was "Adventure Strings". Anyone can confirm, is this a real orchestra string section or is it sampled strings?


----------



## CT (Jan 7, 2020)

Adventure Strings and Brass.


----------



## Anders Wall (Jan 7, 2020)

chillbot said:


> Was thinking some might want to take a guess as to which ones were hardware/software first? Maybe? @Anders Wall ?


Oooo, sure.
Long day at work it's almost 3am here.
Been in the studio since 8am *insert emojicon*
On my iphone the orchestral one (1) sounds the most like a Bricasti.

I could add a TC6000, plate, some spring reverbs and a bitcrusher if you want to extend the tests.
Some people collect samples, I collect reverbs. What can I say :O
Let me know and I'll send the files.
But it'll be tomorrow, need some sleep now.

Best,
Anders


----------



## maestro2be (Jan 7, 2020)

miket said:


> Adventure Strings and Brass.



Thank you.


----------



## tack (Jan 7, 2020)

bvaughn0402 said:


> For you Valhalla guys ... what are the "must have" purchases? Delay? Room? If you could pick only 2, which ones?


This is a tough question, because it would depend on what I already owned. But if I had no existing reverb or delay, then it would be VintageVerb and Delay. But I really like Valhalla Plate, so if I already had a capable delay, I'd get VVV and VP.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 7, 2020)

Anders Wall said:


> I could add a TC6000, plate, some spring reverbs and a bitcrusher if you want to extend the tests.


I'm out for this test, and if you added any to this it wouldn't be completely blind any more, but feel free to, I'm sure people would love to hear it!


----------



## chillbot (Jan 7, 2020)

Here's the answer key for anyone still interested:



Spoiler: VERB TEST SOLUTION



1) Bricasti M7 (hardware)
2) Relab LX480 (software)
3) Seventh Heaven Pro (software)
4) Lexicon MPX Native (software)
5) Lexicon PCM92 (hardware)
6) Native Instruments RC48 (software)
7) Eventide Blackhole (software)
8) Valhalla Room (software)
9) Yamaha SPX2000 (hardware)


----------



## CT (Jan 7, 2020)

Spoiler



I guess everyone is about to spend $100.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jan 7, 2020)

InLight-Tone said:


> So the moral of the story is that a skilled composer could get by with Logic's built in verbs?


Paging @charlieclouser


----------



## VinRice (Jan 7, 2020)

How very interesting.


----------



## charlieclouser (Jan 7, 2020)

AlexRuger said:


> Paging @charlieclouser



Space Designer Piano Hall 2.3sec preset FTW! 

But I still have bought just about every reverb plugin on the planet. Which I almost never use. Oddly one of my favorites is Lexicon MPX Native. I wish there was an Alesis QuadraVerb plugin.


----------



## storyteller (Jan 7, 2020)

Thanks for doing this @chillbot. Cool results. Just curious - what was your blind ranking list?



Spoiler: DISCUSSES RESULT REVEAL



(5,3,4)
PCM92 was my number one followed by Seventh Heaven Pro. MPX was 3rd place. The number of people who loved MPX really speaks to the lexicon sound.

I think the only real non-surprise here is that Michael Carnes may be the most genius reverb algorithm developer to have ever walked this planet.

Biggest surprise is the M7's place....


----------



## Lee Blaske (Jan 7, 2020)

Just looked at the spoiler. Yet another confirmation that there's no need to invest in expensive, 10+ year old stand-alone hardware (even though those remotes are a real pleasure to have in your workspace).

Also interesting to contemplate some of the qualities people might have been reacting to in the demos. Makes me wonder if an imaging plug-in (like iZotope's) plus a nice reverb would totally squash any of the competition. When you're A/B-ing examples, a spacious sound is going to stand out. And, a good imaging plug-in would really get the ball rolling in that department.


----------



## John Longley (Jan 7, 2020)

I'll answer instead of just being annoying lol. 

I like 1 for the actual blend with the source, I like 4 for the tail and 6 for the way the transient is caught.


----------



## David Kudell (Jan 7, 2020)

I see the Bricasti website was just updated with:

“Voted 5th best reverb on VI-Control!”


----------



## Lee Blaske (Jan 7, 2020)

bill5 said:


> It's VERY similar to wine. Confirmation bias is rampant lol. However, with wine, when you get to the really low end (I'm talking Mad Dog and etc), even I can readily tell a diff between that and even a moderately priced good (not amazing) wine and I'm no "expert."



That might be true for wine, but not for plug-ins, because once a plug-in is coded, it's as cheap to make one copy of it as it is a zillion. Expensive wine has expensive production costs for each and every bottle. The reverbs in Logic Pro are a good example. It was interesting that Logic's ChromaVerb scored high in the CH/JJ blind test. That reverb comes "free" with Logic Pro X, which itself, is worth WAY more that the $199 asking price. But, Apple makes their profit from that in lots and lots and lots of hardware sales. (The same goes for FCPX. The value of FCPX is way more than $299).

These are very good times for getting quality plug-ins cheaply. Some, are really just generous gifts from developers (using them as enticements to sell hardware). Others, are real values because the developer is moving lots of copies and has the advantage of economy of scale. The biggest challenge for users like us is to get over the thinking that just because we didn't pay much for them, they can't be very good. 

In the previous M7 discussions, it kind of amazed me that among a lot of people who have never tried a real M7, there was a bias that even if software emulations (of the M7, and other non-related plug-ins) sounded about as good as the M7, the hardware M7 just HAD to be a little bit better.


----------



## paulmatthew (Jan 7, 2020)

It came down to 3 , 4 and 5 for me. 4 was the cleanest sounding verb to my ears but i liked the tone of 3 and 5. I thought 3 was better for the vocal, 5 sounded better on the flute, and 4 was the best all arounder.


----------



## Lee Blaske (Jan 7, 2020)

BTW, really glad you included #9. Interesting how some loved it and some hated it. Also interesting to read how many criticized #7. I use that one a lot, but for special purposes.


----------



## bbunker (Jan 7, 2020)

Spoiler: Discusses Spoiler Information



OK: 1 out of 3 ain't bad. I'm pretty stoked though, because I've always seen the MPX Native and thought "Nah...it won't be as good as the hardware, so I'll just be annoyed with it." But apparently I like it better (!!!) so I'll just nab that sucker next time it's on sale. And Valhalla Room. I knew Vintage was good, but the demos never convinced me on that one. It wasn't my favorite, but it sure sounded good here.



Non-Spoiler question: I use 2C Breeze pretty much 90% of the time, and it'd be cool to hear how it compares to some of the other options that I've seen and haven't really heard. I'd offer to duplicate the experiment but my rig is going to be tied up for another day or so...any chance anybody has it and wouldn't mind doing the honors?


----------



## Lee Blaske (Jan 7, 2020)

This test also makes me wonder what the future holds. It was interesting to see things around 20 years old compete favorably with more modern entries. Makes you wonder if for most intents and purposes, we haven't arrived, as far as reverb is concerned. The products we already have might realistically be as good as we'll ever need, given the fact that human hearing has built-in limitations.


----------



## Lee Blaske (Jan 7, 2020)

bbunker said:


> Spoiler: Discusses Spoiler Information
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All the 2C products are excellent. I have many of the ones on this test list, as well as the 2C products, and IMO, the 2C products do hold their own. If 2C is all you're using, there's noting to worry about.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 7, 2020)

storyteller said:


> Just curious - what was your blind ranking list?


My ranking? I couldn't do it blindly.



Spoiler



I got Valhalla Room just for this test, at $50 bucks it's a steal. I was impressed.

I may have treated the Bricasti with kid gloves, I tried to make it sound as neutral as possible instead of as good as possible so as not to be accused of "sweetening" it. Because it's my favorite, and I use it all the time. So I dunno if I unconsciously influenced the outcome. I said early on this was not going to be scientific.

I really love the Lexicon MPX, in fact I recently bought a second license for it so I could use it on both my slave and master. As I mentioned previously I've used the Lexicon hardware for 20 years so I'm definitely biased towards the PCM92 but the MPX sounds great as well.

Blackhole is my #1 go-to software reverb. (95% of my verb is hardware though.) The reason is I just use it to make things sound BIG... not necessarily natural. I use it primarily on ethnic winds and vocals, and sometimes on big perc hits just to make them sound HUGE. I could not for the life of me get it to work on the orch example... I almost canned it a couple times and threw in the towel. So much mid-range swirling around, I spent so long tweaking and finally gave up and printed it.


----------



## paulmatthew (Jan 7, 2020)

miket said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I guess everyone is about to spend $100.


I'm thinking about it. It was my favorite.


----------



## John Longley (Jan 7, 2020)

paulmatthew said:


> I'm thinking about it. It was my favorite.


I haven't read the thread yet, is there a reveal posted?


----------



## NoamL (Jan 7, 2020)

@John Longley yes, here  https://vi-control.net/community/th...the-bricasti-debate.88901/page-6#post-4493591


----------



## paulmatthew (Jan 7, 2020)

John Longley said:


> I haven't read the thread yet, is there a reveal posted?


yes , NoamL just posted a link to the page with the full list for the spoiler list of all verbs used.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 7, 2020)

Spoiler






Anders Wall said:


> On my iphone the orchestral one (1) sounds the most like a Bricasti.


I wish you had had time to comment on more of them, if you were honestly able to pick this one out on your iphone then mad props, you nailed it!


----------



## Vashi (Jan 7, 2020)

Was thinking of getting Valhalla but upon seeing the Precedence/Breeze demo, I went with that. 
For this test, it turns out that my only choice chosen for being the most natural in what I consider natural "should" be turns out to be Valhalla.


----------



## John Longley (Jan 7, 2020)

paulmatthew said:


> yes , NoamL just posted a link to the page with the full list for the spoiler list of all verbs used.


Thanks! The section I did read had the post and I missed it lol. 

My picks were pretty boring, but consistent for my taste I guess.


----------



## dzilizzi (Jan 7, 2020)

I think I have the popular choice already. I haven't actually tried it. Bought it on sale while traveling last summer and almost forgot to download it when I got home. I really need to quit buying when I'm traveling. 

Though I really couldn't tell much of a difference between them all, the only one I thought didn't sound quite as good was 6 because there was a spot that sounded muddier than the others in the orchestral music. And I think it's not a true test in that having them all the same doesn't allow for the best parts of each to Shine through. Although if it were done so the best parts come out, Blackhole would be very obvious. 

How close is Seventh Heaven to the Bricasti? Just curious since you have both.


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 8, 2020)

Anders Wall said:


> On my iphone the orchestral one (1) sounds the most like a Bricasti.





Spoiler



Kudos to you for a) having the balls to call which one the bricasti is, and most importantly b) for getting it actually right! And on poor speakers no less! Very impressive! 
Could you describe what makes the Bricasti stand out so that others could be able to pick it out too, or is it too complex und you just have to get the practice of working with one for an extended period of time?


----------



## Architekton (Jan 8, 2020)

But guys, dont forget that Bricast adds z dimension to the sound and it stands out so much compared to software reverbs. You can easily hear that. Sarcasm off...this is just what some people wrote in Bricasti thread. And when blind test come, they never come out and say which example is hw and which one is sw. I believe this dicussion is now over regarding this topic and final conclusion is: you dont need no 3000 usd hw reverb to sound professional, sw reverbs which cost 50 to 100 usd are good as hw or even better.


----------



## shomynik (Jan 8, 2020)

Architekton said:


> But guys, dont forget that Bricast adds z dimension to the sound and it stands out so much compared to software reverbs. You can easily hear that. Sarcasm off...this is just what some people wrote in Bricasti thread. And when blind test come, they never come out and say which example is hw and which one is sw. I believe this dicussion is now over regarding this topic and final conclusion is: you dont need no 3000 usd hw reverb to sound professional, sw reverbs which cost 50 to 100 usd are good as hw or even better.


I called Yamaha too detached, HW Lex muddy/resonant and M7 cheap! You did great guys but I win!!!


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 8, 2020)

well this did 4 things, a.) made me happy that I got used to only using a few reverbs b.) im glad I own 7th heaven. c.) im glad I never bought a bricasti d.) im picking up that lexicon plugin, because I really like what it does for brass.


----------



## shomynik (Jan 8, 2020)

I dunno guys, this shootout didn't prove, aparently, anything to me! After I favoured only soft solutions and then saw the results and listened and compared everything again, I now (again!) think M7 sounds the best and it's so obvious! (no hope for me, this device will haunt me untill I die! ...or give up and finally buy the bloody thing)


----------



## Architekton (Jan 8, 2020)

shomynik said:


> I dunno guys, this shootout didn't prove, aparently, anything to me! After seeing the results and listening and comparing everything again, I now (again!) think M7 sounds the best and it's so obvious! (no hope for me, this device will haunt me untill I die! ...or give up and finally buy the bloody thing)



Yes, thats why you wrote 1 sounds cheap


----------



## AllanH (Jan 8, 2020)

chillbot said:


> ..."
> No one is going to be swayed one way or another, the software owners are all going to use this test to say "Ha! I told you so!" and the hardware owners are just going to shake their heads (myself included) and say, ok, come back to me when you've worked with a Bricasti for a week.
> ...



I think this is an important bias for me: I have never had access to e.g. a Bricasti, so maybe my ears/brain has gotten tuned to my software reverbs and I realistically do not have the ability to hear the advantages of hardware until I've had the opportunity to work with one for some time. (If I've only ever eaten at McDonalds who's to say that I'd like a real steak). At least it's lack of experience.

Thanks for putting this together.


----------



## Zero&One (Jan 8, 2020)

I picked number 1 
24 months interest free option is looking good


----------



## Symfoniq (Jan 8, 2020)

The Lexicon MPX Native plugin is only ~$33 USD at Best Service right now.


----------



## I like music (Jan 8, 2020)

Symfoniq said:


> The Lexicon MPX Native plugin is only ~$33 USD at Best Service right now.



My conspiracy theory:

Chillbot puts a ton of reverb tests in a poll.
He sees whichever one does the best.
He tells us that is Lexicon Native plugin.
It happens to be on as a deal on Bestservice.
Everyone goes and buys it from there.
Bestservice gives Chillbot 20% of each sale.
Chillbot becomes a millionaire, retires, and we never hear from him again.

Well played.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jan 8, 2020)

Lee Blaske said:


> That might be true for wine, but not for plug-ins, because once a plug-in is coded, it's as cheap to make one copy of it as it is a zillion. Expensive wine has expensive production costs for each and every bottle. The reverbs in Logic Pro are a good example. It was interesting that Logic's ChromaVerb scored high in the CH/JJ blind test. That reverb comes "free" with Logic Pro X, which itself, is worth WAY more that the $199 asking price. But, Apple makes their profit from that in lots and lots and lots of hardware sales. (The same goes for FCPX. The value of FCPX is way more than $299).
> 
> These are very good times for getting quality plug-ins cheaply. Some, are really just generous gifts from developers (using them as enticements to sell hardware). Others, are real values because the developer is moving lots of copies and has the advantage of economy of scale. The biggest challenge for users like us is to get over the thinking that just because we didn't pay much for them, they can't be very good.
> 
> In the previous M7 discussions, it kind of amazed me that among a lot of people who have never tried a real M7, there was a bias that even if software emulations (of the M7, and other non-related plug-ins) sounded about as good as the M7, the hardware M7 just HAD to be a little bit better.


PLEASE stop talking about wine, I'm trying to complete a dry January!!!


----------



## bbunker (Jan 8, 2020)

I like music said:


> My conspiracy theory:
> 
> Chillbot puts a ton of reverb tests in a poll.
> He sees whichever one does the best.
> ...



I hope he enjoys my $6 very much then.


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 8, 2020)

InLight-Tone said:


> PLEASE stop talking about wine, I'm trying to complete a dry January!!!



Stay strong, you can do it!


----------



## I like music (Jan 8, 2020)

Out of interest, Lexicon says it needs iLok 2 dongle. Is my Steinberg dongle an iLok 2 dongle, or would I need to use one more USB slot on my meagre laptop?


----------



## Vin (Jan 8, 2020)

I like music said:


> Out of interest, Lexicon says it needs iLok 2 dongle. Is my Steinberg dongle an iLok 2 dongle, or would I need to use one more USB slot on my meagre laptop?



No, it's different dongle. Steinberg uses eLicenser.


----------



## I like music (Jan 8, 2020)

Vin said:


> No, it's different dongle. Steinberg uses eLicenser.



Ah, pain in the ass. I have the Hollywood series and that has iLok, but seems that iLok also has a physical component which HW series doesn't use, but other developers do use. Shame, I'll have to pass, but sounds like a good reverb option to have (cheap).

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## InLight-Tone (Jan 8, 2020)

I like music said:


> Ah, pain in the ass. I have the Hollywood series and that has iLok, but seems that iLok also has a physical component which HW series doesn't use, but other developers do use. Shame, I'll have to pass, but sounds like a good reverb option to have (cheap).
> 
> Thanks for the reply.


Well now you've got the choice of Valhalla?!?


----------



## Mikro93 (Jan 8, 2020)

InLight-Tone said:


> Well now you've got the choice of Valhalla?!?



BUT HOW COULD I, IT ONLY MADE IT TO THE THIRD PLACE.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 8, 2020)

Symfoniq said:


> The Lexicon MPX Native plugin is only ~$33 USD at Best Service right now.


its cool, 30 minutes after I paid 99$ for it. 

le sigh


----------



## storyteller (Jan 8, 2020)

*Fun fact: *

For the Bricasti M7 lovers, Seventh Heaven Standard (yes, the cheaper one!) is actually a sonically more accurate representation of the unit than the Pro version... despite marketing saying they are the same. Regardless, between the two, I really like the Pro version as it has a specific characteristic that I find flattering whereas the Standard version (as well as the M7 hardware unit) have a specific characteristic that I do not like at all (as evidenced in my voting as well). 

*There has been a "third version" of the SHP plugin in existence since it was designed though it is not marketed or publicly available... just a heads up.  The more you know...*

FWIW: My top verbs are SP2016 and Phoenix Verb.... and IR1 for convolution.


----------



## zvenx (Jan 8, 2020)

I liked 4 and 8.. Have no idea what is what.
Sorry you didn't have any Exponential Audio Reverbs to throw in the mix but like you said the raw one is there.
rsp


----------



## chrisr (Jan 8, 2020)

storyteller said:


> *There has been a "third version" of the SHP plugin in existence since it was designed though it is not marketed or publicly available... just a heads up.  The more you know...*



I think I remember that Liquidsonics used to have a GPU based convolution plug. Are you saying that they also produced one using the Bricasti IR's? Or do I have wrong end of stick?


----------



## robgb (Jan 8, 2020)

If you're a Bricasti owner who dropped $4K on your unit, if you value your sanity, DO NOT LOOK AT THE RESULTS.


----------



## zvenx (Jan 8, 2020)

chillbot said:


> Here's the answer key for anyone still interested:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I did my listening before I read this.
Somewhat surprises by my preferences.

I for sure would have thought I would have loved the Bricasti and Relab the most. But nope I voted for the Lexicon MPX then the Valhalla room, and even after knowing the results and listening again I would have voted for those two.
Interesting.
rsp


----------



## robgb (Jan 8, 2020)

Lee Blaske said:


> Makes me wonder if an imaging plug-in (like iZotope's) plus a nice reverb would totally squash any of the competition. When you're A/B-ing examples, a spacious sound is going to stand out. And, a good imaging plug-in would really get the ball rolling in that department.


That's exactly what I use when I'm looking for a spacious sound.


----------



## tomosane (Jan 8, 2020)

chillbot said:


> Here's the answer key for anyone still interested:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Very cool test. Out of curiosity, what settings did you use for VRoom? Would you mind posting the preset here? I think it's possible to just copy the preset as text from the plugin.


----------



## gussunkri (Jan 8, 2020)

chillbot said:


> I don't, sorry. I only did this because I have the Bricasti. But the dry samples are there if anyone else wants to jump in.
> 
> I dunno? Whenever?
> 
> ...


This is great, and you are very kind for taking the time to do this! It would be fantastic if you could update the first post with the link to the wave versions.


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 8, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> its cool, 30 minutes after I paid 99$ for it.
> 
> le sigh



Now I feel a bit bad because I had thought about linking the thomann page where it costs 38 Euro, but then I thought I don't want to advertise a plugin that uses iLok, so I held back. I wanted people to buy Valhalla room intead. Sorry! 
Goes to show no matter how good your intentions, wallets on VI:C will get hurt either way. What a bleak world we live in :(.


----------



## Noeticus (Jan 8, 2020)

I voted for # 11, which was Altiverb.


----------



## robgb (Jan 8, 2020)

storyteller said:


> For the Bricasti M7 lovers, Seventh Heaven Standard (yes, the cheaper one!) is actually a sonically more accurate representation of the unit than the Pro version..


I use the free Bricasti M7 IRs with Melda Productions ConvolutionMB. Works just fine.


----------



## robgb (Jan 8, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> Now I feel a bit bad because I had thought about linking the thomann page where it costs 38 Euro, but then I thought I don't want to advertise a plugin that uses iLok, so I held back. I wanted people to buy Valhalla room intead. Sorry!
> Goes to show no matter how good your intentions, wallets on VI:C will get hurt either way. What a bleak world we live in :(.


You did the right thing. iLock dongles are, in my humble opinion, the devil.


----------



## storyteller (Jan 8, 2020)

chrisr said:


> I think I remember that Liquidsonics used to have a GPU based convolution plug. Are you saying that they also produced one using the Bricasti IR's? Or do I have wrong end of stick?


It is still the Seventh Heaven plugin... just with a more robust IR dataset (~17GB) from their same sampling session. Matt has never talked about it publicly to my knowledge. *Even so, I still like the Pro version better...* but this third version of his plugin basically uses the more sonically-accurate approach the Standard version of the plugin takes, but requires the much larger dataset due to the pro version's additional controls and larger preset library. I wasn't a beta tester, but to my knowledge, no beta tester ever identified the sonic differences either. And, I imagine no audiophile engineer ever took the time to critically analyze the two plugins against each other either. My ears are good, but I don't think they are substantially better than other audiophile's ears. However, there is definitely an audible difference between the two that causes me to strongly favor one and dislike the other. Strange how that small subtlety dramatically changes my opinion. But I think it is probably subconsciously why so many people like the pro version better than the standard version and why SHP placed higher than the actual M7 in this poll.



robgb said:


> I use the free Bricasti M7 IRs with Melda Productions ConvolutionMB. Works just fine.


Yep! They are good. I have a free preset pack available on the Storyteller site for Waves IR1 with those IRs included. But my favorite IRs for orchestral use are a blend of four separate Disney Hall IRs included in the IR1 download. I actually discovered the differences in the Seventh Heaven plugins when trying to replicate the sound of SH/SHP with the Samplicity IRs.


----------



## Anders Wall (Jan 8, 2020)

chillbot said:


> My ranking? I couldn't do it blindly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Blackhole in H8000 is Epic, even more so than the software (but I guess we're not allowed to talk about that...).
I need to clean the studio and might as well do those additional renders tonight. Not sure how the whole poll thing works. Hope it's OK to send you a msg with the files. Last time I did an AB, on YouTube, I forgot about it and apparently upset a lot of people. Took me a few years to find that account to comment on the file 

Thing is, this means nothing :O
At the end of the day it is not the stuff that makes you great, or even half decent, or even kind of ok...
Me, I suck at composing but happen to live at "the right part of the world" have had my health with me and have been working hard, like 15hours + every day since I was 17.
I don't care about cars or clothes and don't throw my money on crack and... well you get the point.
My wife since when "the West African black rhinoceros" walked the earth also have been blessed with similar features. So we do ok.

I know one day all this will go away and I'm guessing the only thing I'd regret is not having to spent every woken second with my family.
But until then I'm sure I'll find the time to buy some more stuff I don't need.

Over and out,

/Anders


----------



## Anders Wall (Jan 8, 2020)

chillbot said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you had had time to comment on more of them, if you were honestly able to pick this one out on your iphone then mad props, you nailed it!


No I was just taking the piss. Sorry.
I'm on Genelec,cthe ones.
Sorry.
What I meant with the whole iPhone business is that most of my (our) crowd sees the shows we work on on different "devices" iPads/phones and whatnots.
So using anything else than the shittiest reverb is actually overkill, no one care.
They watch it for thirty minutes/an hour and move on.

Me, I'd go mad listening crappy reverbs.
I'd loose all the inspiration.
But I live in the studio (figure of speech I've got a house...) and can afford to get stuff I think I need.
So I do 

Best,
Anders


----------



## Anders Wall (Jan 8, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, sorry about the iPhone thing. I think I've addressed that in a different answer.
Next time I'll try to be funny 

Anyhow.
There was something familiar to those percussion hits in the beginning of the orchestral piece.
Not synthetic sounding, more like a bricasti.
Also something with the Hall that sounded familiar, especially with the strings and bones.

I don't really use the bricasti on orchestral music *insert weird emoticon*
I think it shines on rooms and plates.
When I do use it as a Hall reverb I mostly use the Sandors Hall (modified).
I bet my left foot this was not Sandors Hall. 

All the best,
Anders


----------



## wst3 (Jan 8, 2020)

Finally had some time to really listen. And thanks much Chillbot, this was instructive.

My first reaction remains - they are all pretty darned good, the differences remain subtle for the most part.

I am very curious to look at the key, but before I do I feel I should post my thoughts...

I am especially curious to see if anyone else found similar pairs in the group.

#1 - sounds a lot like #3, probably the closest match to my ears, and very very nice. I could live with one of these.
#2 - oddly this sounds similar to #8, and again I could be very happy with either of these too. They remind me of the UAD Lexi 480, they have that vibe. And the 480 is not my favorite reverb plugin, but it is very good.
#3 - sounds like #1, and it sounds good.
#4 - this would be near the bottom of my list. It is good, but I didn't like it as much as the others. It reminds me of my LXP-1, which is not high praise<G>!
#5 - LOVE THIS! I didn't expect to have a favorite, but I really like this. I'd love it if this was the Valhalla, and hate it if it is the Bricasti. Please do not let it be the Bricasti.
#6 - didn't care for the one as much either. Something odd going on there.
#7 - I would not choose this for every track, but I do like it. It seems somehow specialized. Kind of like the Zynaptiz reverb.
#8 - Sounds like #2, and probably my second favorite - nothing beats #5<G>
#9 - this was my least favorite, and I can't put my finger on it, but it just sounds like an early attempt. If #4 isn't the LXP-1 maybe this is?

Thanks again, and now I will discover just how bad my ears are!


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 8, 2020)

storyteller said:


> *Fun fact: *
> 
> For the Bricasti M7 lovers, Seventh Heaven Standard (yes, the cheaper one!) is actually a sonically more accurate representation of the unit than the Pro version... despite marketing saying they are the same. Regardless, between the two, I really like the Pro version as it has a specific characteristic that I find flattering whereas the Standard version (as well as the M7 hardware unit) have a specific characteristic that I do not like at all (as evidenced in my voting as well).
> 
> ...


I don’t know if it’s my favorite, but I really like the Eventide SP2016. I find Phoenixverb to be pretty good. Black hole is fun, though not a general use ‘verb for me.

Until recently Valhalla Room was my go to reverb, and part of the reason for that was that I was using a very old computer. Valhalla is VERY kind to your CPU-a factor to be considered for the CPU-challenged.


----------



## Gingerbread (Jan 8, 2020)

Question for those with advanced skills:

Let's say you're applying reverb to the strings, _and_ the strings you're using are _all from the same library_ (for example, CSS). Would you apply a reverb to each string section individually to fine-tune tweak the cellos, violins, and violas, etc.....

...OR would you send all these strings to a aux, and apply the reverb to the whole string section as one overall string reverb?


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jan 8, 2020)

Gingerbread said:


> Let's say you're applying reverb to the strings, _and_ the strings you're using are _all from the same library_ (for example, CSS). Would you apply a reverb to each string section individually to fine-tune tweak the cellos, violins, and violas, etc.....
> 
> ...OR would you send all these strings to a aux, and apply the reverb to the whole string section as one overall string reverb?


It seems like it's important to be very careful with reverb for CSS. It doesn't need much. First of all you might want to do a roll-off of low end on the way to the reverb like the famous 'Abbey Road trick'. This will help pre-empt low-end build-up. 

Also I don't think it's as important to apply individual reverb types to the various string groups - as much as it is to have different reverbs for shorts and longs (of the whole string section).

.


----------



## dzilizzi (Jan 8, 2020)

wst3 said:


> Finally had some time to really listen. And thanks much Chillbot, this was instructive.
> 
> My first reaction remains - they are all pretty darned good, the differences remain subtle for the most part.
> 
> ...


Wow, I need to work on my ears. And maybe try more reverbs. This was really good.


----------



## Gingerbread (Jan 8, 2020)

Jack Weaver said:


> It seems like it's important to be very careful with reverb for CSS. It doesn't need much. First of all you might want to do a roll-off of low end on the way to the reverb like the famous 'Abbey Road trick'. This will help pre-empt low-end build-up.
> 
> Also I don't think it's as important to apply individual reverb types to the various string groups - as much as it is to have different reverbs for shorts and longs (of the whole string section).
> 
> .


Thanks for your response. Indeed, I always apply the Abbey Road trick. I agree that reverb between shorts and longs is perceived very differently. The problem is that shorts and longs are both contained in the same patch for most libraries, CSS included.

The only way I can think of to deal with that would be to load _two_ patches for _each_ section (two cellos, two violas, etc.), one for longs, and one for shorts. Is that the only practicable way to apply reverb separately to each? Or is there an easier way?


----------



## Mikro93 (Jan 8, 2020)

Jack Weaver said:


> I don't think it's as important to apply individual reverb types to the various string groups - as much as it is to have different reverbs for shorts and longs (of the whole string section).


I would never, ever in the whole world, have considered that, since string players don't go to a different place to record different articulations during an actual recording of a piece... What is the reasoning behind that?


----------



## shomynik (Jan 8, 2020)

Gingerbread said:


> Question for those with advanced skills:
> 
> Let's say you're applying reverb to the strings, _and_ the strings you're using are _all from the same library_ (for example, CSS). Would you apply a reverb to each string section individually to fine-tune tweak the cellos, violins, and violas, etc.....
> 
> ...OR would you send all these strings to a aux, and apply the reverb to the whole string section as one overall string reverb?


I'm using separate instances of the same verb (different settings) for high longs, high shorts, low longs and low shorts. But if you are going for a concert hall sound, you might have sucesss witn one instance and just different send levels.


----------



## paulmatthew (Jan 8, 2020)

Symfoniq said:


> The Lexicon MPX Native plugin is only ~$33 USD at Best Service right now.


You’re killing me


----------



## shomynik (Jan 8, 2020)

Architekton said:


> Yes, thats why you wrote 1 sounds cheap


Exactly...as someone wrote here, our brains are evil - mine will convince me in doing what it wants no matter what! Even after a fail such as this here.  The struggle is futile!


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Jan 8, 2020)

I chose #5 as my favorite, followed by #1. I liked how #5 blended the sound. It seemed continuous to me and didn't bloat the midrange the way that many of the others did. Real rooms don't build up around a voice or instrument that way unless amplification is involved to fully energize a room. I thought #5 did the best job with that. #1 also stood out to me, even after repeated listenings and jumping around between the options.

The rest were are all fungible for me - they all worked and could be interchanged without loosing musical meaning. None of the rest stood out to me. So, I ended up with a preference for #5, and then #1, with everything else in a bucket marked "musically adequate". 

After looking at the results, it appears that I like hardware in this set of source material. In my template, I use 2C software reverbs and an Eventide H9k. I do find that I can make either of them work for a given track. Which I think matches the experience most of us have had with this experiment. 

I can say that pulling all reverbs and delays out of my standard template for "rock tracks" cut my static CPU in half. The H9k becomes a UAD accelerator for time-based effects, in a way....


----------



## ironbut (Jan 8, 2020)

Awesome shootout! 
Hats off to chillbot for putting this together.
I have a bunch of 'verbs (thankfully, one that I picked!) but I confess to having a tough time deciding which one to use when.
Because of this, I always check out all the reverb tut's I stumble across.
The ones that help the most are the ones that force me to listen closely and that is exactly what this thread has accomplished!


----------



## Pianolando (Jan 8, 2020)

Haha, that was a super interesting listen! I thought 1 and 4 were Bricasti and 7th heaven, and that they sounded very much alike. So it turns out that I thought the Lex software were the Bricasti (and liked it a lot). Now when I listen of course I hear differences between them, but I know I can only really trust what I hear before I know the answers. I love blind testing, it really shows things for what they truly are. That Lex bundle is a total steal!


----------



## Ihnoc (Jan 8, 2020)

Thanks for this test. I had preferences to 1,2,7,8 and 9. Results were mighty interesting. I think I'll be sticking with Valhalla Room then.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jan 8, 2020)

Mikro93 said:


> I would never, ever in the whole world, have considered that, since string players don't go to a different place to record different articulations during an actual recording of a piece... What is the reasoning behind that?


Try it.

.


----------



## Gingerbread (Jan 8, 2020)

shomynik said:


> I'm using separate instances of the same verb (different settings) for high longs, high shorts, low longs and low shorts. But if you are going for a concert hall sound, you might have sucesss witn one instance and just different send levels.


To do this, do you have two patches for the cellos (for example), one for short notes and one for long notes? So you can assign different reverbs to their respective outputs?


----------



## wst3 (Jan 8, 2020)

dzilizzi said:


> Wow, I need to work on my ears. And maybe try more reverbs. This was really good.


I don't know about that, I think it is more about wrestling with reverb for a very long time. I had the good fortune to use chambers early on, and nothing else ever really rose to that level until very recently. So for years it was Yamaha and low end Lexicon. When I finally saved up for a PCM-90 it was a revelation.

Which not to say that the early digital reverbs were bad, they weren't - I still like the Eventide 2016, and the Ursa Major, and the early Lexicon reverbs. Heck, I still have an SPX-900 and the LXP-1 & LXP-5 I was moaning about. They have their places, although they are getting less and less use as the plugins continue to move forward.


----------



## shomynik (Jan 8, 2020)

Gingerbread said:


> To do this, do you have two patches for the cellos (for example), one for short notes and one for long notes? So you can assign different reverbs to their respective outputs?


Absolutely and quite a few more then that artuculation-wise. Usually 2 legato patches per section for divisi, then sustains, specials(trems, trills, harmonics, etc), shorts, al separate... you get the point. It's like a track per articulation except I don't have them fixed but I can change articulations as I need them on fly. But I have separate patches (5-6 per section...per library) loaded with my template and they are all sent to either short or the long verb.

Nothing special, pretty common thing around here.


----------



## Gingerbread (Jan 8, 2020)

shomynik said:


> Absolutely and quite a few more then that artuculation-wise. Usually 2 legato patches per section for divisi, then sustains, specials(trems, trills, harmonics, etc), shorts, al separate... you get the point. It's like a track per articulation except I don't have them fixed but I can change articulations as I need them on fly. But I have separate patches (5-6 per section...per library) loaded with my template and they are all sent to either short or the long verb.
> 
> Nothing special, pretty common thing around here.


Thanks for explaining this process! Certainly, the advantage of having articulations on separate tracks would be better control of the reverb. It's annoying to dial in perfect reverb for legato....and then finding that the short staccatos now sound a mile away.


----------



## I like music (Jan 8, 2020)

Gingerbread said:


> Thanks for explaining this process! Certainly, the advantage of having articulations on separate tracks would be better control of the reverb. It's annoying to dial in perfect reverb for legato....and then finding that the short staccatos now sound a mile away.



I'm basically a noob, but I noticed that on Berlin Woods, the shorts tended to have much more ... ambience? Hard to describe it, but I was forced to have a separate reverb for the shorts to the longs. Not sure what or why, but it worked. I wonder if this is something that happens with all sampling or just some devs.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 8, 2020)

Anders sent 6 more verbs to compare. They are (not in this order):

Bricasti Sandors Hall
Lexicon 200 Reverb PGM 1.2
DSpatial CType Concert Hall 3sec
TC6000 Warm Hall
Eventide H8000 Masterverb Hall 2
Yamaha REX50 Hall 1














EDIT: Here is the answer key for these six:



Spoiler


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 8, 2020)

I like music said:


> I'm basically a noob, but I noticed that on Berlin Woods, the shorts tended to have much more ... ambience? Hard to describe it, but I was forced to have a separate reverb for the shorts to the longs. Not sure what or why, but it worked. I wonder if this is something that happens with all sampling or just some devs.



You could try adjusting the release tail length to make them more similar in this regard, maybe then one reverb for shorts and longs will be enough? To me this sounds like a shortcoming of the library and not a general "best practice" aproach, but I'm not very experienced with this.


Edit: @chillbot new thread and new poll? Maybe this time with disabling the ability to view votes before voting yourself?


----------



## shomynik (Jan 8, 2020)

Well yeah, and I have it setup like that, but that is lately heavily under-utilized as I started
using wet libraries that really work great as they are and you really dont need much verb with those, and much simpler setup is totally fine.


----------



## I like music (Jan 8, 2020)

MartinH. said:


> You could try adjusting the release tail length to make them more similar in this regard, maybe then one reverb for shorts and longs will be enough? To me this sounds like a shortcoming of the library and not a general "best practice" aproach, but I'm not very experienced with this.


I did try that but still found it to be like they were recorded in different rooms! That was ages ago so maybe something else was going on. Will try again. Curious now.


----------



## shomynik (Jan 8, 2020)

@chillbot woa, are you serious! You are on fire man! This is amazing! We are having a fresh poll! This is gonna be fun!!! Come on blind ppl! Did we learn anything? :D

@Anders Wall Thank you for this hall of fame!


----------



## MartinH. (Jan 8, 2020)

I like music said:


> I did try that but still found it to be like they were recorded in different rooms!



I remember Alexander Schiborr said the same thing once - that different articulations often don't sound like they are recorded consistently, so he brings them back together with all kinds of mixing magic for each affected articulation. He really knows his stuff, so you may very well be right here as well.


----------



## CT (Jan 8, 2020)

I like music said:


> I'm basically a noob, but I noticed that on Berlin Woods, the shorts tended to have much more ... ambience? Hard to describe it, but I was forced to have a separate reverb for the shorts to the longs. Not sure what or why, but it worked. I wonder if this is something that happens with all sampling or just some devs.



Well the transients in short notes are always going to excite the room more than smoother long notes do, for one thing.


----------



## wst3 (Jan 8, 2020)

Just found the key - I'm way behind here!

Mostly it makes sense to me - I have a PCM-91 in my studio that I will never part with, not sure why I like it better than anything else, but on most everything I do, and I almost wish I had a couple of them! And thank heavens #5 was not the Bricasti, my wallet wouldn't have been happy!

#4 and #9 were at the bottom of my list not, I think, because they are bad, but more because for many years my only reverb options were Yamaha SPX and Lexi LXPs. And they are not awful, but they aren't top shelf either. They are cool for certain sounds, but that's it for me.

#2 - wow, that is way better than I remember the LX480 when I tried it. Much more like the real deal.

#8 - yeah, Valhalla sells their plug-ins for a lot less than they have to<G>! They are really good.

#7 - yup, Blackhole is a very cool, if somewhat specialized reverb. Should have guessed that one.

#1 - well it is good, and #3 is a darned close copy. I do understand why some people must have one or the other, but I'm really glad it wasn't my favorite in this test.

This was a very good experiment for me - it got me to thinking about my plethora of reverbs, and it makes me appreciate them just a little bit more.


----------



## bill5 (Jan 8, 2020)

Lee Blaske said:


> That might be true for wine, but not for plug-ins, because once a plug-in is coded, it's as cheap to make one copy of it as it is a zillion. Expensive wine has expensive production costs for each and every bottle. The reverbs in Logic Pro are a good example. It was interesting that Logic's ChromaVerb scored high in the CH/JJ blind test. That reverb comes "free" with Logic Pro X, which itself, is worth WAY more that the $199 asking price. But, Apple makes their profit from that in lots and lots and lots of hardware sales. (The same goes for FCPX. The value of FCPX is way more than $299).


? That's the business end. I didn't say plugins are like wine in every respect; that would be absurd. I meant in terms of the "you get what you pay for" nonsense, the confirmation bias, etc. 



> These are very good times for getting quality plug-ins cheaply.
> 
> The biggest challenge for users like us is to get over the thinking that just because we didn't pay much for them, they can't be very good.


Yes, exactly on both counts.


----------



## bill5 (Jan 8, 2020)

Lee Blaske said:


> This test also makes me wonder what the future holds. It was interesting to see things around 20 years old compete favorably with more modern entries. Makes you wonder if for most intents and purposes, we haven't arrived, as far as reverb is concerned. The products we already have might realistically be as good as we'll ever need, given the fact that human hearing has built-in limitations.


Agree. I think in terms of quality and for far more than just reverbs, we have absolutely arrived. It's more a question of features and workflow now.


----------



## JFB (Jan 8, 2020)

So the Moderator of Man Cards at Gearslutz has informed me that, due to this poll, I must relinquish my Certificate of Bragging Rights awarded to me when I bought my 2 M7's 10 years ago. Alas, all good things must come to an end. It was a great run! (Rumor has it the same notification will be going out to owners of Sony C-800G mics)

But I'm _not_ getting rid of the Truck Nutz I hung on them in the rack. Although, after 10 years they aren't looking quite as new. Sometimes you shouldn't buy organic...


----------



## dgburns (Jan 8, 2020)

well move over Bricasti and Helloooo Lexicon MPX.

Wonder how B2 would do here?


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 8, 2020)

JFB said:


> So the Moderator of Man Cards at Gearslutz has informed me that, due to this poll, I must relinquish my Certificate of Bragging Rights awarded to me when I bought my 2 M7's 10 years ago. Alas, all good things must come to an end. It was a great run! (Rumor has it the same notification will be going out to owners of Sony C-800G mics)
> 
> But I'm _not_ getting rid of the Truck Nutz I hung on them in the rack. Although, after 10 years they aren't looking quite as new. Sometimes you shouldn't buy organic...


happily trade you all my verbs for those two units


----------



## JFB (Jan 8, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> happily trade you all my verbs for those two units



The M7's or the Truck Nutz?


----------



## SBK (Jan 8, 2020)

Awesome test man!
I am about to do something similar with reverbs too but it will have something exciting in it.

funny how I picked 4 and then while saw which one is M7 I liked that better! lol


----------



## mholloway (Jan 8, 2020)

Well I went ahead and bought the MPX (from Thomann though, not Best Service-- both have it for USD 35 right now) and had it up and running in a couple minutes, iLok authorization and all (I don't LIKE dongles, but I do tolerate them).

And....yeah, it's really nice! For 35 bucks it was an easy purchase. So, uh, thanks to this thread and the OP's hard work, _I own another damn reverb, <SIGH>._

I'm pretty happy though, It's dead-simple to use and sounds very nice. The straight-forward UI is a nice break from some more complicated verbs I have.


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Jan 8, 2020)

Of the new ones courtesy of Anders, I think #2 is the best on the track in question. It definitely feels more intense and emotionally engaging. It is crystal clear and doesn't seem to hurt the articulation - no smearing, and a the timing of the decay with the tempo - there's something there that just works. The other one that stands out to me is #5 - it sounds the most like an actual orchestra in a hall. Most halls don't have such long pronounced tails. I know that is a common effect and sound, but #5 seems the most natural. That said, I still prefer #2 - it improves the track, and makes it more exciting.

This one will be interesting because I have access to the H8k's algorithms in my H9K... Will I pick something I have, or something I don't have? 

Again, all of these could be musically useful or tweaked slightly to sound more like each other. Thanks for the fun aural exercise of listening to reverb tails!


----------



## chillbot (Jan 8, 2020)

Well I get to chime in now too, since I don't know which is which. Anders sent me the answers in a JPG but I haven't looked at it yet.

If you missed it, Anders made six new ones posted here.

I am clueless but I think I like #3 then #1.

1) Love it! Especially on brass, not as much on strings.
2) Maybe too much verb for me? Level too hot.
3) Yes. Favorite so far.
4) Very similar to 3, good, but more dull, less tail.
5) Very similar to 4, my ears are fried. Shoot me. More tail? I like tail.
6) Dry, but longer tail. Least favorite aside from 2 which I can't really tell.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jan 8, 2020)

JFB said:


> The M7's or the Truck Nutz?


lol


----------



## Pianolando (Jan 9, 2020)

These new ones sounds pretty great all of them. These are my thoughts.

1 Great
2 A bit wetter sounding than the others, needs to be dialed back a bit, now it’s a bit blurry. Nice tail though.
3 Not unlike 1. 
4 Too much mid for my taste, makes everything smaller.
5 A bit short and synthetic on strings, better on brass.
6 Super nice and big without blurring on strings.

My favorite is 6 followed by 1 and 3. Only one I dislike is 4.
This is hard!


----------



## shomynik (Jan 9, 2020)

-The only one I didn't like with this material is 6. Yamaha maybe? Sounds like ORCH 9. Again too detached for me. Sounds like the dry signal with added tail behind. Can that unit go deeper and blend more with more wet settings?

-4 is very different sounding but I really like it. Sounds like a mono to stereo verb, but ERs are shaping the sounds in a way I really dig it.

-I love 1 and 3. Maybe those are TC and Bricasti.

-2 sounds like Lex to me, it's great, and 5 I have no idea what is it. Eventide maybe or that thing I never heard of.  Sounds great too IMO.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jan 9, 2020)

mholloway said:


> Well I went ahead and bought the MPX (from Thomann though, not Best Service-- both have it for USD 35 right now) and had it up and running in a couple minutes, iLok authorization and all (I don't LIKE dongles, but I do tolerate them).
> 
> And....yeah, it's really nice! For 35 bucks it was an easy purchase. So, uh, thanks to this thread and the OP's hard work, _I own another damn reverb, <SIGH>._
> 
> I'm pretty happy though, It's dead-simple to use and sounds very nice. The straight-forward UI is a nice break from some more complicated verbs I have.


I bought it too (sigh). I DON'T NEED another 'verb unless Chilliy wants to gift me his Bricasti. I hear he gives away desks.

The onliest thing worse than verb addiction is strings addiction, 'cause they're generally way more expensive.


----------



## I like music (Jan 9, 2020)

Valhalla Room is an algorithmic reverb right? I use Cubase's ReVerence for the Convolution side. Am looking into applying a second reverb to my mix (I've seen it suggested _many_ times to have this on my master, for a tail, and often that suggestion involves an algo reverb).

Assuming I can't really go wrong for 50 dollars, right? Especially given that I currently only use Cubase's stock verb.


----------



## sinkd (Jan 9, 2020)

Steve Lum said:


> First, thank you Sheel-Bat (aka chillbot) for the work and the exercise.
> 
> I agree with the sentiment by RobGaBuh (aka robgb).


In my mind, I will now always hear their forum names this way.


----------



## Vin (Jan 9, 2020)

chillbot said:


> Anders sent 6 more verbs to compare. They are (not in this order):
> 
> Bricasti Sandors Hall
> Lexicon 200 Reverb PGM 1.2
> ...




#3 is definitely my favorite and I'd say it's 6000.

#6 is either Eventide or Lexicon, I'm not familiar with DSpatial CType. Didn't like it for orchestral. #4 has a bit of noise in signal, could be the old Lexicon 

Anyway, #3 is my favorite by far for this track. #5 takes the second place, but didn't like it nearly as much as #3. Thanks Anders and Chill!


----------



## Anders Wall (Jan 9, 2020)

I don't know how to do internet, but here's the link to a less reverberent no2.



@chillbot this new file is in the same google-folder in case you want to update the soundcloud file.

---

I wrote this, not sure if it's been posted.

These are the verbs, all hardware but the DSpatial
The Yamaha cost me $30. I don't really use it for verbs but I thought I'd bring it in.
Is $3k sounding better than $30?
The DSpatial is a joker, not many composers (that I know of) use it, let see if any likes it.
I use it in post all the time, the preset I use for this test should be an algo-verb not an IR.

In random order:

Bricasti Sandors Hall
Lexicon 200 Reverb PGM 1.2
DSpatial CType Concert Hall 3sec
TC6000 Warm Hall
Eventide H8000 Masterverb Hall 2
Yamaha REX50 Hall 1

All modified as close to 2.7sec as possible

I have only tried to mach the levels and the decay time, the colouring could need some work if one where to "match" the Bricasti.
Theres some spatial shifting, IE some files may or may not sound tilted compared to others.
Welcome to the magical world of analog 

See this more as a "how does this unit sound using a similar preset".
The Lex200 is king on percussion, the H8000 on those ambient shifting atmospheric delay things etc..

Best,
Anders

EDIT: If you've got some free time, listen to all the clips in mono...
That'll screw you up for life, sooo much safe than drugs, same effect on the brain :O
I recon most of you will changes your list, I know I do. All the time!


----------



## shomynik (Jan 9, 2020)

@chillbot Any chance we could get the wav files again?


----------



## zvenx (Jan 9, 2020)

So I, (probably like a few others here) bought a license on best service.
I am yet to receive my activation code so I emailed them and got this response.



> Dear Richard!
> ..........
> 
> For the reverb we just have no serial numbers anymore in our backend, but they are ordered already.
> ...



I sent her a link to this thread 
rsp


----------



## Bernard Duc (Jan 9, 2020)

Here are my comments for the two batches. I would like to add that it's as much a critic of the presets than a critic of the algorithms. In several cases I think what was bothering me could have been easily fixed.
Voice + woodwind:
1, Nice, but weird beginning of the tail. Transparent but doesn't add much sense of space.

2, Not as nice sounding. Because it's quieter? Very transparent. Shorter tail?

3, very slightly less transparent. Don't like too much the tail.

4, Nice sense of space, natural tail. medium transparency. Favorite?

5, Seems to have stronger reflections sometimes creating a tremolo effect, nice space.

6, Don't like it much. Souds metallic and tremolo-y

7, Pitch going down on some tails, weird. Don't like it.

8, Very strong early tail that mixes with the wet signal, meh.

9, Reverb disconnected from source and, very "dead" and unnatural shape but not a bad sound.

Same batch, orchestra


1, Doesn't feel to be in a consistent space. and I don't like the sound too much

2. Better, brass has some HF ringing

3, blah, no ringing frequency but 2 feels more natural

4, nice again!

5, Too tremolo-y, hollow sound.

6, Not always precise imaging, not the smoothest tail, but sounds nice on brass.

7, Nah, not natural at all.

8, sounds stronger. Great on brass!

9, The tail doesn't seem to have a natural shape, creating some problems.

Anders:

1, Too much reverb... Very smooth tail but not transparent.One ringing frequency is very audible at the beginning making it sound as if there was a piano playing to me.

2, Similar but I like it better. Some higher frequencies ringing on the brass.

3, Sounds thin sometimes.

4, Don't like the sound, metallic and slightly nasal tail.

5, Favorite by far! Excitement, but still a lot transparency. Great for 2-bus reverb.

6, Similar to 1, too long and probably too much reverb. Some unnaturally stronger delays can be heard in the reverb (might be some modulation that's too strong). But the sound is nice.


----------



## Loïc D (Jan 9, 2020)

My favs are 2, 5 & 8. Runner-up : 1
I didn't like 7 & 9.
But the ranking varies depending on the source (for example, I like 1 on solo instruments).

My preferences are solely based on the waveform display in SoundCloud 

PS : anyone for a FabFilter Pro-R test ? I'd like hear how it compares...


----------



## SBK (Jan 9, 2020)

deleted, will post new one soon!


----------



## mralmostpopular (Jan 9, 2020)

I picked 4 with both sources. I saw that it’s the Lexicon MXP, and that it’s on sale right now. I also saw that it requires the hardware iLok. Pass.

I really do like the Lexicon sound, and would probably go that direction over Bricasti.


----------



## Vin (Jan 10, 2020)

Reveal time?


----------



## chillbot (Jan 10, 2020)

Vin said:


> Reveal time?


Oh I almost forgot about that!



Spoiler: ANDERS TEST


----------



## Bernard Duc (Jan 10, 2020)

@Anders Wall,

Interesting, I really liked the sound of the DSpatial, I would simply have tweaked a little bit the preset for orchestral music as it seems to have a couple of stronger reflections. 

After looking at the names for both sets of audio files, I can tell that you get what you pay for... up to a certain point. All the worst ones to my ears were the cheapest, except the Lexicon plugin, but it’s still the algorithm from a much more expensive unit. The most expensive were however not my favorite reverbs!


----------



## shomynik (Jan 10, 2020)

I like the 30$ device and German ebay is full of it!


----------



## Anders Wall (Jan 10, 2020)

Bernard Duc said:


> @Anders Wall,
> 
> Interesting, I really liked the sound of the DSpatial, I would simply have tweaked a little bit the preset for orchestral music as it seems to have a couple of stronger reflections.


Yeah, I never use it for music.
Just picked a hall and set the decay to 2.7.

This reverb excels in room, cars, outdoors etc.
And especially with automation.
A great verb if you work in post.

The company has been quick to answer support questions and are really helpful finding solutions to problems that might occur.

I believe there’s a demo on their site.
If not I’m sure you could ask for one.
That way you could dial the reverb to your liking.

They run sales every now and then, might even be one for Namm.

Best,
/Anders


----------



## Nathanael Iversen (Jan 10, 2020)

Interesting! On the files from Anders, I picked out the TC and the Eventide 8K reverbs as my preference. So whatever else may be true, on these tracks I've preferred hardware. Even happier I have that Eventide MasterHall algorithm in my H9K! Time to find that and get it loaded up! Thanks to @chillbot and @Anders Wall for their time in preparing these, it was a great experiment. 

A solo piano track that went out today had a tiny splash of a 2C Audio's B2 reverb - a tweaked version of the Piano Ambience patch. The piano recording was nice, but it gave it just a tiny bit of width and presence. Subtle, but perfect. It is a great time to be producing music - the tools are just fantastic.


----------



## koolkeys (Jan 11, 2020)

Well great. I didn't need another reverb. But I am now the proud owner of the Lexicon MXP. $35 was a steal. Just gotta wait for the new serials to arrive. 

I have no self control......


----------



## Bernard Duc (Jan 11, 2020)

Nathanael Iversen said:


> Interesting! On the files from Anders, I picked out the TC and the Eventide 8K reverbs as my preference. So whatever else may be true, on these tracks I've preferred hardware. Even happier I have that Eventide MasterHall algorithm in my H9K! Time to find that and get it loaded up! Thanks to @chillbot and @Anders Wall for their time in preparing these, it was a great experiment.
> 
> A solo piano track that went out today had a tiny splash of a 2C Audio's B2 reverb - a tweaked version of the Piano Ambience patch. The piano recording was nice, but it gave it just a tiny bit of width and presence. Subtle, but perfect. It is a great time to be producing music - the tools are just fantastic.


Same choice here (but in the opposite order). That being said I think it has nothing to do with hardware vs software, but simply with the quality of the algorithms.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 11, 2020)

here is another reverb that should be included in the shootout ...

hot from the press.. 

system tc6000 clone.


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Jan 11, 2020)

Not that anyone asked my opinion, but, in my own separate testing of many software reverbs, I preferred Nimbus to anything else for "real" / "transparent" and Sonsig A to anything else for any other time. Vintage Verb as the 3rd, and Shimmer and Blackhole for effects.

To my ears,

Room was good, just not as good/easy to dial in

VintageVerb is quite good, but requires digging in to avoid build up

VRS24 was nearly as good as Sonsig to me and id take as a donation. Heh.

Relab Lex stuff was really fantastic but a pain to use and expensive. It didn't wow me, but that could be my skills or lack of

Breeze was too plastix/shiny/effect

TC was harder to use and was good but didn't wow me any more than Room

Seventh Heaven was dark and syrupy and was perfect on some sources and really not so good on others. Finicky.

Illusion was one of my top picks on sound, but didn't quite make the cut.

Acon is similar to Valhalla in that it's pretty fantastic for the money. It just didn't blend as well for me or something. Maybe the new hall was too lush. Heh

There were more but I don't remember as it was awhile back when Sonsig was newly released. Basically, you can do no wrong buying Valhalla. Are they categorically the best? Not to my ears (the Delay is, however, magic). But they're right up there with the best of the best. And only $50.

I clearly favor exponential (now izotope) and relab, followed by Valhalla.

EDIT: I downloaded the Lex MPX demo and am trying it out with some strings, a snare, a tom, and a synth pad with it's internal reverb off. It's very "boosted" vs Sonsig or Nimbus when set to the same numbers. I've yet to do it by ear, which would be the next test, which I suspect could be closer. So far, for $35, I think I'd just spend $15 more and get Valhalla instead. Maybe I don't like noisy reverbs?


----------



## Mark Schmieder (Jan 13, 2020)

The ReLab product announcement seems to be a GUI facelift for the VSR24, from what is being said about it elsewhere, so I think it was already included in the survey? For some reason, I only see reveals on the first six of the nine demoed.


----------



## dzilizzi (Jan 13, 2020)

Mark Schmieder said:


> The ReLab product announcement seems to be a GUI facelift for the VSR24, from what is being said about it elsewhere, so I think it was already included in the survey? For some reason, I only see reveals on the first six of the nine demoed.


There were two sets of samples, the first 9 from Chillbot https://vi-control.net/community/goto/post?id=4493591 

and the second 6 from Anders - https://vi-control.net/community/th...luding-the-bricasti-debate.88901/post-4494107.


----------



## Mark Schmieder (Jan 13, 2020)

Ah, thanks for clarifying -- I came onto this thread quite late, and by accident while doing a search on discussions of a specific product, so it got pretty confusing as I also can't do audio at work and so haven't heard ANY of the samples yet. Hopefully tonight at home.


----------



## Bman70 (Dec 6, 2020)

Man that's no fun doing research on Google, finding a VIC thread, but all the links are dead so it's effectively useless.


----------



## chillbot (Dec 6, 2020)

Bman70 said:


> Man that's no fun doing research on Google, finding a VIC thread, but all the links are dead so it's effectively useless.


You should file a complaint with the appropriate bureau. I think @kmaster is currently accepting complaints.


----------



## Kent (Dec 6, 2020)

chillbot said:


> You should file a complaint with the appropriate bureau. I think @kmaster is currently accepting complaints.


I’m currently accepting _compliments_, @chillbot. Easy mistake to make!


----------



## chillbot (Dec 6, 2020)

Here's a compliment: you handle complaints well.


----------



## shomynik (Dec 6, 2020)

Bman70 said:


> Man that's no fun doing research on Google, finding a VIC thread, but all the links are dead so it's effectively useless.


If you are up for coming over and searching for these (I might have saved them) among zillion of my local GBs I would let you do it... otherwise I will send you if I find them.

Meanwhile what I learned is:

1. Hardware is worth it...if you have money to burn.

2. Soft verbs are not the reason the mix sucks.

Best
Milos


----------



## Bman70 (Dec 6, 2020)

shomynik said:


> If you are up for coming over and searching for these (I might have saved them) among zillion of my local GBs I would let you do it... otherwise I will send you if I find them.
> 
> Meanwhile what I learned is:
> 
> ...




Seems like a lot less trouble to use Vi-control's file attachment system (the paper clip icon below) for audio. Then even if you need space on Soundcloud and have to delete all those old files, the thread will still be up "helping musicians".


----------



## shomynik (Dec 7, 2020)

Bman70 said:


> Seems like a lot less trouble to use Vi-control's file attachment system (the paper clip icon below) for audio. Then even if you need space on Soundcloud and have to delete all those old files, the thread will still be up "helping musicians".


Sure but here ppl like to do things..."differently"...and what you described would be a "proper way to do it" 🤮


----------

