# Small reverb shootout for someone



## tokatila (Dec 28, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun Dec 28 said:


> This is the *dry version*. And this is *the version that has three instances of the EA Phoenix*.
> (Saved as 320kpbs mp3 for previewing purposes.)
> _



I repost this here, I think it will bury to the other thread and I hope this will help someone. I think user re-peat has prepared an excellent test file for reverb testing so I used it to prepared the following with the reverb I own:

So here's a little test with 5 reverbs with the file, I used all of them in basically identical way as much as possible (100% wet, Sends -6 dB).

1) Waves Manny Marroquin (Note that, this is based on Convolution and basically pre-delay is the only parameter you can set)
2) Softube TSAR-1
3) Lexicon Native PCM
4) ValhallaRoom (2 instances)
5) Valhalla VintageVerb

General parameters (if applicable):
 
All sends (100% wet, -6.0 dB send)
Based on Large Hall (Random)

Predelay: 25 ms
Decay: 2.5 s
50/50 mix of ER / tail
High-cut around 7.3 Khz
Random modulation
High diffusion

And testfiles (of course in Random order...)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Y7DJkj7lzeSXRGQkNQNkJxOTg/view?usp=sharing (Reverb 1), https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Y7DJkj7lzeRzVTOW1yNzRRZjA/view?usp=sharing (Reverb 2), https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Y7DJkj7lzeZUZwelNxZ0FpYXM/view?usp=sharing (Reverb 3), https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Y7DJkj7lzecjhub3B5MlEzWFE/view?usp=sharing (Reverb 4), https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Y7DJkj7lzeX2tlYk93Sng3aWc/view?usp=sharing (Reverb 5), https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Y7DJkj7lzeOWpqZWp6ZDlaTzQ/view?usp=sharing (Reverb 6)


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Dec 28, 2014)

If people are interested in doing a shootout with Piet's source material, it might be worth going more in depth and having different categories. Halls, Rooms, Chambers, Plates etc. Thoughts?


----------



## AC986 (Dec 28, 2014)

I'm slightly confused in that there are 6 examples up, as opposed to 5. 

For that piece of music example, the Lexicon wins it. Listening on HD 600s and Quested VS2108s via an Apogee. I use the Lexicon, therefore I could be biased towards that particular sound.


----------



## tokatila (Dec 28, 2014)

Oliver_Codd @ Sun Dec 28 said:


> If people are interested in doing a shootout with Piet's source material, it might be worth going more in depth and having different categories. Halls, Rooms, Chambers, Plates etc. Thoughts?



IMO, you can't have too many shootouts. But for one test, for me 6-7 in one test is the absolute maximum, otherwise too much ear fatigue and differences tend to blur. 



adriancook @ Sun Dec 28 said:


> I'm slightly confused in that there are 6 examples up, as opposed to 5.
> 
> For that piece of music example, the Lexicon wins it. Listening on HD 600s and Quested VS2108s via an Apogee. I use the Lexicon, therefore I could be biased towards that particular sound.



They are in random order, so are you sure you recognize Lexicon? There are 6 examples, since there are two Valhalla Rooms, one with default Large Hall and one with M7 - Large Hall preset (by Den).


----------



## blougui (Dec 28, 2014)

Piet's test is already offline. Too bad.
Erik


----------



## re-peat (Dec 28, 2014)

I’ll post it again tomorrow. (I’ve meanwhile rendered all the midi to audio stems, and I'm working on a SPAT-mix).

I would prefer it, for this test, if (varying amounts of) reverb were applied to the different stems separately, rather than one reverb for the summed stereo mix. The idea being, to find out how good a reverb is at creating depth in a mix (with various amounts of track-based adjusted reverb) and to observe, for example, how a reverb deals with incoming panned signals (does that placement get reflected in the reverberation?) and other such things. You obviously can’t do any of that by simply sending the StereoOut through a reverb.
I’m aware it’s a lot more work doing it like this, but it really is the only way if we want to get a good idea of what a reverb is capable of, where it shines and where it doesn't.

The collected stems are going to amount to one seriously big ZIP-file though, because there’s about 20 different instruments in this track and the thing lasts near three minutes ... I will have to find a solution for an upload of that size.

_


----------



## José Herring (Dec 28, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun Dec 28 said:


> I’ll post it again tomorrow. (I’ve meanwhile rendered all the midi to audio stems, and I'm working on a SPAT-mix).
> 
> I would prefer it, for this test, if (varying amounts of) reverb were applied to the different stems separately, rather than one reverb for the summed stereo mix. The idea being, to find out how good a reverb is at creating depth in a mix (with various amounts of track-based adjusted reverb) and to observe, for example, how a reverb deals with incoming panned signals (does that placement get reflected in the reverberation?) and other such things. You obviously can’t do any of that by simply sending the StereoOut through a reverb.
> I’m aware it’s a lot more work doing it like this, but it really is the only way if we want to get a good idea of what a reverb is capable of, where it shines and where it doesn't.
> ...



If it helps you can use my ftp site. I'd would just need to find my password and stuff because I never use it anymore. But, I have unlimited storage and unlimited download capabilities.

@Tokatila,

Besides being kind of puzzled how this type of test will really tell how a reverb will behave in the real world. I will say that it is really easy to hear the verb.

That being the case here are my impressions. (And by the way I did just read a sound on sound article fully detailing reverberation and now I'm an expert :lol: )

Reverb 1--Great tail and pretty dense early reflections. I thought it gave a pretty good sense of the space. Picked up the instrument flares especially in the solo trumpet rather well. Though the idea of being thick upfront and having a longish tail kind of goes against what I read. Small rooms would have dense initial reflections and large rooms of course longer tails. For some reason it all kind of work in this example.

Reverb 2 -- Too damped sounding though had decent early reflections the tail was too metallic and ringy.

Reverb 3 -- I felt like that was a lot of Aliasing going on so it kind of ruined the experience. Couldn't get beyond it. Or maybe the early reflections were just too bright for my taste as the instruments rose in pitch and volume and brightness. Didn't blend well with the instruments.

Reverb 4 -- Too metallic ruining the depth as it made the space seem too unnatural.

Reverb 5 -- Felt the predelay in the early reflections was off so ruined the sense of space. Since it was all the same predelay maybe it was just too loud. Did like the tail though added a lot of depth.

Reverb 6 -- Felt like the initial reflections where too dense in comparison to the tail so it felt like there were two spaces. 

(Edit: Actually I was wrong about reverb 6. I can hear there's something off with the early reflections but it's not that they are too dense, they are too far apart and so I can hear the individual delays comprising the early reflections so it gives it a sense of splattering the sound initially. Kind of like a cement auditorium. I don't find it desirable.)


It was a quick listen and I could be totally off.

I'm game to join in and explore further.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 28, 2014)

This part of the Sound on Sound article I read will be very useful in setting up reverbs:

Digital reverb became a commercial reality with the EMT 250 in 1976, and early digital reverbs attempted to approximate what goes on in a real room by first using a multitap digital delay line to recreate those tightly spaced early reflections. The delay times would often be adjusted empirically to produce a pleasing result, rather than being a direct emulation of any particular space, and the amplitude of each tap was also adjusted to produce a natural result. Just 20 or 30 delay taps might be enough to approximate the early reflections, and by choosing different patterns and wider or narrower spacings the impression of various sizes of room or hall could be created.
reverb KlarkTeknik.s
reverb Quantec.s
Photos: Mark Ewing.
Two classic early digital reverb units which are still in use today: the Klark Teknik DN780 (above) and the Quantec Room Simulator (below).

As a rule, a wider early-reflection spacing is interpreted by the brain as a larger space. In order to reproduce the build-up in complexity in the decaying reverb tail, multiple re-circulating filters (usually a mixture of comb filters and all-pass filters) were used, sometimes fed from the original input, sometimes from the outputs of the tapped delay line, depending on the designer. In either case, these re-circulating filters had to be carefully tuned so that the reverb didn't ring excessively at specific frequencies, and they also included EQ-like elements to damp the high end in a way that replicated the behaviour of a real space.

Everyone had their own method of designing reverb algorithms, which is why the products from different manufacturers had, and still have, very different characters. Some of the most sought-after reverb devices didn't sound particularly natural, but happened to be musically flattering. While digital synthetic reverbs of this type rarely sound exactly like the rooms they purport to emulate, their sound has become part of popular musical culture. The most famous of the digital reverb manufacturers is probably Lexicon, who have defined the reverb sound of pop music over the past two decades, though there were numerous other early digital reverb devices such as Quantec's Room Simulator, the Ursa Major Space Station, the classic AMS RMX16, and Klark Teknik's DN780.

Digital reverbs are often brighter and more sparkly than anything you come across in real life, but they work perfectly in a musical context. In fact, they work so well that, when sampling or convolution reverb made it possible to 'copy' reverb from actual spaces, many people found that it didn't sound exciting enough for pop music, so turned the process to sampling pieces of reverb hardware. Perhaps the most important aspect of a good synthetic reverb is the way that it seems to become part of the original sound, rather than seeming to be an effect layered on top — which of course in reality it is! With the better units, adding more reverb increases the sense of space, but doesn't swamp the original sound and doesn't make your mix sound congested. Cheaper reverbs may sound OK in isolation, but can end up making your mix sound messy and cluttered when you try to use them on a real project. This has little to do with technical specifications — it is all down to how the reverb algorithms are designed.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 28, 2014)

So I figured we can analytically determine a reverb's quality by breaking it up into parts. Judging the quality and qualities of its early reflection, judging how smoothly the early reflection transition into the tail, then judging quality and qualities of the tail. Is it smooth or bumpy? Does it turn into digital mush of fade out smoothly. Does all of it give a good sense of a decently emulated hall or room or chamber, ect..?

Thoughts?


----------



## tokatila (Dec 29, 2014)

josejherring @ Mon Dec 29 said:


> @Tokatila,
> 
> Besides being kind of puzzled how this type of test will really tell how a reverb will behave in the real world. I will say that it is really easy to hear the verb.



What can I say. I don't know, but I love tests. :wink: I PMd you the right answers.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 29, 2014)

(WIP)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 29, 2014)

"Cheaper reverbs may sound OK in isolation, but can end up making your mix sound messy and cluttered when you try to use them on a real project"

The key is "may." As I posted before, try and run a solo flute through a lousy reverb. It will sound like ass. And then combine multiple lousy reverbs in a mix, and ouch.

"Digital reverbs are often brighter and more sparkly than anything you come across in real life, but they work perfectly in a musical context. In fact, they work so well that, when sampling or convolution reverb made it possible to 'copy' reverb from actual spaces, many people found that it didn't sound exciting enough for pop music, so turned the process to sampling pieces of reverb hardware."

"Sparkly" is a word I use for lousy reverb, first of all!

And I feel there are reasons higher on the list why a lot of sampled spaces don't always have the sound people are looking for in pop productions. Apart from the sound just being different, many sampled spaces are not as thick - with obvious exceptions like the EW ones in Play (which I assume are convolution).

A theory that occurs to me: people are usually trying to be accurate when they sample halls, so they use flat mics rather than character ones with an opinion. But engineers often use larger-than-life mics for, say, the room mics on drums, and that makes for a thicker sound.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 29, 2014)

Also, one of the best tests for an algorithmic reverb is just this: small spaces. Great reverbs build up quickly and sound right, while lousy ones...well, they don't (historically because they didn't have enough processing power, I assume).


----------



## José Herring (Dec 29, 2014)

I agree. I had to ignore the author's personal opinions and focused on the technical data. "Sparkly" isn't a term I immediately apply to anything desirable.

Though i do see some merit in approaching a reverb test in isolation like this, I still think it's of little real world value. The only good thing is it has allowed me to set up my first Hall sound from scratch.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 29, 2014)

I am curious how this test will perform for comparing software and hardware reverbs.


----------



## dgburns (Dec 29, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Mon Dec 29 said:


> I am curious how this test will perform for comparing software and hardware reverbs.



based on the fire and brimstone being hurled by some on this very subject in other threads,this had better be impressive.

I'm looking at you Piet.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 29, 2014)

Well I am sure Piet will work very hard on this, and if only to prove his point and the incompetence of others. All the better for the forum community. I'm awaiting great things.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 29, 2014)

It's all good people.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 30, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Tue Dec 30 said:


> Well I am sure Piet will work very hard on this, and if only to prove his point and the incompetence of others.(...)


You got me all wrong, Hannes. While it is true that José (whom I hereby want to thank for his kind and chivalrous offer of wanting to help me out with server space) and me probably won’t be exchanging many warm and fuzzy Christmas cards during our lifetime, I’m not so spiteful as to let a certain frostiness between myself and a fellow member ruin a potentially good thread. 
Believe me, I would have much preferred José’s reverb shoot-out to be a sticky-worthy thread containing a damn good reverb comparison, an informative resource that people from within and without can visit and revisit, in short: an asset to V.I.
Secondly, trying to prove someone’s else incompetence is another manifestation of small-mindedness which is quite alien to me. That was never what my previous interventions were about. This is not a schoolyard where hierarchies and pecking-orders need to be established, this is a serious forum for serious, grown-up musicians. And the only thing that concerns me, in the previous thread and in this one, is delivering quality listening material and engaging in discussions that hopefully will prove genuinely helpful to those who seek solid, reliable information on the topic at hand.

Having that dispensed with (and let's not discuss this any further, please), I now have to apologize for a small delay in the arrival of my audio files. Or, as they used to say on Belgian television whenever the broadcast got interrupted: _“Onze excuses voor de onderbreking. De filmas is gebroken.”_.
At the moment, I’ve got a new EA Phoenix version ready, I’m nearly finished with a ReLab LX480 version (which I rather like) and I also have a first draft of a SPAT-version. The latter, however, is presenting me with a few technical challenges in that I’ve never done a mix with 21 instances of SPAT before and it appears that Logic, on my computer, will only go as far as to accommodate for 10, 12 instances at most before wheezing, quite out of breath: “Screw this, I quit.”
So I’m currently figuring out a way of using VEPro and the VE Audio Plugin (which allows me to offload the remaining required SPAT-instances to the Vienna software). It sort of works, but not yet quite the way I want it. But I’ll get there.

I'll post the Phoenix and the ReLab versions later today.

_


----------



## José Herring (Dec 30, 2014)

There really is no hard feelings. I'm far past the point in my life where any criticism of me is of any concern. I mean really how many of people here have filmscores playing across the world and airing 3 times a month on tv here in the US. Not braggin or anything 

What this did force me to do is really look at what I knew about reverb. The little research lead to me learning how to program new presets from scratch. So I'm looking forward to Piet's test to pit my new reverb programs against already well established ones. Just out of pure curiosity.

The more test the better.

And as far as Christmas cards, I didn't even send my own mother one, so don't go expecting any from me.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 30, 2014)

If 21 instruments should be distributed in space with SPAT then in my experience it is more fortunate to use multichannel routing and reduce the number of SPAT instances to 2 or 3. I have run mixes with > 50 voices with that method, and without VEPro. However one comes to appreciate VSS2 (free field setting or low intensity ERs) and combine that with SPAT. Well, in a practical world.


----------



## jamwerks (Dec 30, 2014)

I'd forgotten about the possibility of running SPAT in VEP. I'll have to learn that one. In C8 afaik only 6.0 FX channels are the highest (so three stereo sources only). For things like Vsl, BBB, SM are you guys using mono sources?


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 30, 2014)

Stereo here always. Working with stereo stems might need more care for avoding phasing but there is more sonical information in them than in mono stems (this is especially true for strings and might be different for winds).


----------



## re-peat (Dec 30, 2014)

Okay, here’s the *Phoenix* and the *480*. And the *dry version* as well. (Please check out this dry version first, to get a better idea of what the reverbs are doing in the other versions.)

A few remarks:
(1) These examples are only intended to show the reverbs in action, and contain therefore way too much reverb on several of the instruments. For my taste anyway. (My personal preference, for quite a few of these sounds, veers much more towards the dry version actually. Well, not that dry of course, but add just a touch of reverb, and it would be OK for me. I also prefer smaller spaces than the ones I used in these examples.)

(2) For the Phoenix version, I started from a Medium Hall preset, which has a reverb length of about 2 seconds give or take. There are no other spatialization techniques used in these mixes — apart from simple panning and level adjustments of course, but I mean: no delays, dedicated placement tools or EQ’s or anything — in autres mots: all suggestions of depth were created solely with the reverb (mostly a matter of finding the right balance between these three ingredients: source, early reflections and tail). The movement of the saxophone, for example, was done by automating those three parameters, to suggest the front-to-back movement, as well as automating the panning _before_ the signal entered the reverb, to create the move to the right.

(3) Same thing for the ReLab LX480: base preset for the entire mix is the MedHall+Stage preset (found in the RandomHall preset folder) which also defaults at a 2.0 sec reverb tail. And again: there is no other processing present in the mix, except for a limiter on the MasterOut.

For those who like to listen to the FLAC-versions of these files, I’ve bundled them *here*.

And here’s a listing of the libraries used:
- Peter Erskine Living Drums (opening snare & toms)
- SonicCouture Grand Marimba
- Orange Tree ‘Angelic’ Harp
- VSL (flute, oboe, bass clarinet, glockenspiel)
- Waves Factory ‘Black Toms’ (the big ones that appear after the trumpet solo)
- London Percussion (bass drum, tambourine, claves)
- XSample Spinet
- Soundiron’s Emotional Piano
- Efimov Nylon Guitar
- CosmoD Solo Cello
- Sample Modeling Solo Horn
- EVB3 Electric Organ
- Big Fish Audio (saxophone solo, and 'Greg Adams' trumpet solo brass stabs)
- ProjectSAM’s Lumina (the orchestral cluster behind the saxophone solo)
- the finger snapping I did myself

_


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Dec 30, 2014)

Thanks for this Piet! Would it be possible to upload the stems? I wouldn't mind having a go with the Bricasti.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 30, 2014)

Immediately liked the LX480 version. The early reflections have a nice sort of bloom to them, that leads rather smoothly into a nice hall tail.


The phoenix verb is definitely passable but for some reason didn't come off as good to me. More cloudy, really noticeable ringy early reflections. But for all purposes I would find this verb more than good enough. Just being nitpicky.

And, yes please do post the stems.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 30, 2014)

josejherring @ Tue Dec 30 said:


> Immediately liked the LX480 version.


My choice too. I've done 3 different Phoenix versions by now, and somehow I can't get any of them to sound as cohesive as the LX480. The fault might be entirely mine however. 
Another difference perhaps worth noting is that the LX480 sounded great almost instantly (adding the reverb took barely half an hour) whereas with the Phoenix, I had to spend much more time tweaking parameters before everything started to fall into place.

Anyway, here’s *the link to the stems*.

My original plan was to save every single instrument as a separate stem, but that resulted in 21 stems and a ZIP-file well over 500Mb, which is no fun uploading nor downloading. So then I thought, seeing as there are so few overlaps in the music, why not put those instruments that have big enough gaps between them on the same track? Doing so, resulted in only 7 stems and a final ZIP-file of barely 36Mb.
Anyone who wants to have a go at this, will now have to cut up the stems again of course, and place each instrument on its own track. If done right, you’ll end up with 21 tracks. I’ve included a text file with the audio tracks, detailing which instruments are contained in each of them. 

Many thanks in advance!

Next up (though it might be a few days): the SPAT-version.

_


----------



## Jack Weaver (Dec 30, 2014)

Completely enjoyable reverb test.

I had tried the XL480 when it first came out and decided not to purchase. However, it sounded lively and generally flattering here on these wide-ranging examples. Might have to double think my purchase decision on this one. I haven't bought a hardware 480 simply because I don't want to own a 30-year old piece of digital maintenance nightmare. 

I have the EA reverbs and used them on the last score I mixed. I confess that during that mix I didn't have the time to run them through my complete testing. But it seems as though my initial perceptions are consistent with what I'm hearing here. I'm not sold yet - they seem cloudy to me and I have too many other good reverb choices that are extremely clear. I start another mix in a couple days and if they don't perform quickly for me they may have to go sit on the shelf. Being surround, they'll still get one more test from me after that. Overall the results surprise me since I'm rather a fan of Michael Carnes' earlier PCM96 and its software derivatives. 

Thanks for the revealing testing. 

.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 30, 2014)

I'll have a go at it. But realize I'd like to do it with a bit of a selfish motive in mind. This little reverb rumble in the digital jungle got me to the point that I started to program my own presets. I have 3 loosely based on my memories of my favorite halls in NY. So I want to test them out and see what people think. And anybody can be as brutal as possible but please be precise and detailed.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 30, 2014)

Here's Piet's test with my own Halls programmed in Valhalla Room. Be as brutally honest as you'd like. I really want opinions as I'm thinking of starting to use these in my work. But have so little experience with programming verbs that I just need all the feedback possible.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R9OghYcycseGpFeWJNZ19wZGc/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R9Og ... sp=sharing)


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 30, 2014)

I sold two NuVerbs years ago after Altiverb came out.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Dec 30, 2014)

Nick B: Ironic Contrarian Supreme.

Happy New Year, man.

.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 30, 2014)

No comments on my first solo verb effort. C'mon guys where are you to kick me in the teeth when I'm really asking for it this time?!


----------



## re-peat (Dec 30, 2014)

All three sound perfectly fine to me, José. At many moments, I even prefer the overall sound you’re getting compared to my results, but that is, I think, largely because there’s much less reverb in your mixes than in mine. Like I said, I much exaggerated the reverb presence in order to really hear its sound and character. Perhaps I shouldn’t have done that because, hearing it back now, this exaggerated focus on the reverbs also creates the impression that they sound more heavy and ponderous than they would if mixed in at a more natural level. 
I had already planned to revisit the Phoenix mix anyway, because, like Jack, I’m also a little surprised that a Michael Carnes-written reverb would only sound as good as I made it sound here. It must be capable of better things. So, first the SPAT, then a bit of ring-out-the-old-ring-in-the-new, and after that, the Phoenix again.

An element that is less noticeable in your mixes however, and is something which I spent quite a bit of time on, is the suggestion that there is front-to-back depth in this group of instruments. (I was curious to find out if the reverb on its own was capable of creating that illusion convincingly.) In my mixes, for example, the bassdrum and the claves are much further back, as is the piano (compare that with the spinet and notice the different depth) and, perhaps the clearest example: the french horn which appears to come from way behind the harp (at least, that’s what I was aiming for). 

Anyway, thanks very much for doing these. Nice work. Very helpful and interesting.

_


----------



## José Herring (Dec 30, 2014)

It is very interesting.

Please understand that I think orchestral by default. To me all percussion is in the back of the stage behind the orchestra. So that's where I tried to placed them. 

The solo sax, trumpet and horn are towards the front like they are soloist in front of the orchestra. The piano marimba and bells are placed towards the middle as are the woodwinds.

To do that I tried just using the fader on Valhalla room that adjust the early reflections relative to the later reflections. I probably could have done that more. And, I could have experimented with different levels of sends for each track. 

Should I have time in the next few days I will see if I can get that depth with my new verb programs. If you could give me more detail on what you had in mind in terms of where to place each track. What space you had envisioned, that might be a big help. One of my biggest pet peeves in my own use of reverb is that everything comes out drenched in the middle and muddy. So, it's something I need to work on for sure.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 31, 2014)

Well, you can do it any way you like, as far as I’m concerned. The way I decided to do it was partly based on convention (percussion indeed very much at the back) and partly on how I happen to like to hear things: the piano accompaniment well behind the spinet, the horn far back (so as to trigger the room into giving its most spacious response), the woodwinds somewhere in the middle, the nylon guitar up front … And considering the part that the cello plays, I placed it much closer than a(n orchestral) cello usually would be (I did push it a bit back and to the side though the moment the guitar enters).
Those brass stabs, being obviously more big-band-ish than orchestral, and having a very close-miked sound, also didn’t take their more usual position behind the woodwinds, but were left very close.
Harp and glockenspiel were placed in the middle with the latter a touch further away.
Trumpet not too close (although I’m aware that that position conflicts with its close-miked sound) and the saxophone starts off very close but then decides to walk away towards the exit at the far right.

The details of the various placements don’t matter all that much, I feel. One of the objectives of the excercise, for me anyway, was simply to find out how good a particular reverb is at suggesting all these different positions and distances in the first place.

_


----------



## muk (Dec 31, 2014)

José your presets sound very fine to my ears. Out of the three I like Carnegie the best (it's a close one with Fisher, though). It's clear, unobtrusive, and doesn't add color. It presents a nice depth too (eventhough I liked that even more on the LX480). The Tully, in comparison, sounds a bit narrow and shallow. On it's own I'm sure I'd be perfectly happy with it, but in direct comparison with Carnegie I like the latter even more.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 31, 2014)

Thanks for your feedback guys, I appreciate it.


----------



## José Herring (Jan 5, 2015)

Tried to simulate a bit more contrast of distance and movement. Just using the reverb and the early reflection to tail balance. Seems to have worked out though in real life I probably would try to do a lot of this with EQ so as to not drown things out in verb.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R9OghYcycsamxuRmJLdUlwdG8/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R9Og ... sp=sharing)


----------



## ErnestCholakis (Jan 17, 2015)

re-peat

Cannot download any of your links - get a 404 error. 

Ernest


----------

