# Who of you uses a hardware reverb and why?



## germancomponist (Jun 16, 2013)

This.

And if, what hardware reverb do you use?


----------



## dgburns (Jun 16, 2013)

I'm sure not to be in your good books,but I'll bite....

still use a Lexicon from time to time.Just recently found B2 to be the first plug that might take me away from it though...

and btw,loved your post in the other thread about composing in the morning!


----------



## Simon Ravn (Jun 16, 2013)

I use Bricasti as my main hall/whatever reverb. Just because it is so smooth. Yes it does require an analog recording of the verb but I live with that


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 16, 2013)

I use most of the major food groups of hardware reverbs. 

To me, they have more depth than software reverbs. I have a good amount of the well-known software reverbs - plus MIR and SPAT, too. I listen to all of these hardware and software reverbs daily. Hardware is my first 'go-to'. Typically I use different boxes for different instrument groups. I rarely use 'overall' reverb on a mix. 

I tend to use software reverb to get specialty sounds and fx. 

Hardware doesn't take up any processing cycles (except for what your DAW requires to interface with them). 

They also retain most of their value if you purchase wisely. 

I apologize if my answer is a bit terse - but this question has been asked in such generic terms. It's kind of like the bandleader suddenly turning to you between songs and saying, 'OK, solo in the key of C.'

.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 16, 2013)

dgburns @ Sun Jun 16 said:


> I'm sure not to be in your good books,but I'll bite....
> 
> still use a Lexicon from time to time.Just recently found B2 to be the first plug that might take me away from it though...



He he, I have no book. I know that we sometimes discuss hard and take some things personally, We are human beings and react just human. But, we all can work on it.... .

I also use an old Lexi and a Sony/Ibanez SDR 1000+ 



> and btw,loved your post in the other thread about composing in the morning!



Thanks! I wanted the situation in the other thread appease somewhat, but it's true and it is always nice!


----------



## Chriss Ons (Jun 16, 2013)

I still use my trusty old Ensoniq DP/4 from time to time. It just has it's own, distinct sound. Great modulation algorithms, as well.


----------



## dgburns (Jun 16, 2013)

@Gunther, thanks man. What is the ol lexi box?

@Jack,could you elaborate more on which boxes you like.You sound like a man who likes his verbs.

personally,I have been a die hard otb kind of guy,but recently I have been re thinking this due to the new verbs coming out in software.I would spring for a Bricasti,but my gut tells me the B2 would be more then flexible being itb.I do find it sounds a bit "polite" somehow,but workable.

As a source verb,I'm more and more interested in a verb that can make something sound "farther back",rather than "more wet",which the B2 is the first that seems to do this itb...imho

Still looking for that special surround algo verb itb,but can't seem to find one....???


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 16, 2013)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNDQzFTPcj8 :mrgreen:


----------



## guydoingmusic (Jun 16, 2013)

Have you ever heard a Bricasti? All it will take is one listen, and you will want one.


----------



## dgburns (Jun 16, 2013)

problem is dude,I know the 480 well,and the lares and classic cart too(which are not in the relab),so while the relab is quite good,i sadly pick out the real 480 everytime,it's just more gluey,at least too me.

480l with lares was a wonder to work with.sigh....

in any case,software 5.1 algo verb is my quest.thnx for the link.and curious of other success stories...


----------



## wst3 (Jun 16, 2013)

I still use a handful of hardware reverbs for specific sounds. Why? Well because I like the way they sound, I like the way they sit in a mix, I like the way they react to specific inputs... maybe because I am accustomed to them. 

What I have and still use includes:

a Lexicon PCM-90, it just sounds pretty on anything I throw at it, but especially full mixes.

an Ensoniq DP/2 - I use it more for modulation effects than reverbs, but it is quite useable as a reverb too, especially on guitar tracks

A Yamaha SPX-990 (still have an SPX-90 in the guitar rack too<G>). There are a couple of effects that only it will do, but I also like some of the more recognizable reverbs for just that.

A Lexicon LXP-1 and LXP-5 - they don't sound quite as good as their big brother, and these days they get a run for their money from several software reverbs, but they still work, and still sound good on tracks that might not be as exposed.

<Laugh alert>
I also still have, and still use (sparingly) an ART DR-01a. This thing has a 'dynamic' reverb effect that, when you need it, is just killer. Or at least a ton of fun.

(I'd love a Bricasti, or perhaps a QRS, but they are well beyond my reach.)


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 16, 2013)

Hi dgburns,

I have some M7's, lex pcm96 surround, TC M6000 and Eventide 8000. 26 Channels altogether. No longer a fan of EMT's or Quantec so much. Stopped myself from getting a Quantec and a 480L over the last year. Figured I'm pretty much covered for all the food groups with the current setup. The PCM96 Surround covers enough of the 480/960 ground for me - and I could get it fixed if it ever broke - really old digital gear scares me. (I so very, very much wish they had a hardware remote for it. It's hard for me to understand that they haven't so far.) 

B2 is quite important in my template, too (Sample Modeling, etc.). Mostly I run it inside of VE Pro and send audio to it via VSL Audio Input Channels from my DAW. 

MIR is good in surround also. 

.


----------



## dgburns (Jun 17, 2013)

nice choices!


----------



## cc64 (Jun 17, 2013)

How do you guys deal with the latency of going out and back into the DAW?

Do you find it slows your workflow. 

Is it possible to do offline bounces wit the Bricasti?

Thanks,

Claude


----------



## lumcas (Jun 17, 2013)

Don't want to look like a smart ass, but I think these boxes you mention (PCM, TC, Bricasti) are all software reverbs too (yes, they have their own box and DSP), so who uses nice plate or spring true hardware reverb?

...ok, just joking


----------



## bluejay (Jun 17, 2013)

I'm using the Lexicon PCM 90 still. Lots to love about it. Beautiful sound and mixes well with my other software reverbs.


----------



## wst3 (Jun 17, 2013)

I still use a Micmix spring reverb on vocals sometimes, and I have plans to build a real plate.

But that is getting just a little bit weird I guess...


----------



## Greg (Jun 17, 2013)

I love the reverb on my Elektron Analog 4, and Virus KC. I have yet to find plugins that even come close..


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 17, 2013)

Hardware Reverbs that use their own OS and dedicated audio chips with attached RAM just have better depth.
The audio source is immediately affected by the "Wrap Around" sound I call it, where the audio being treated can be placed via wetness/depth and panning to exactly where you want it, w/o the "free" pre Delay that occurs using non dedicated processors, and the extra trips to System memory.
Once the sounds start getting carried over due to their tails, there's no real control over that.
Also, I like to modulate the Decay so I don't have to use a gate. Soft stuff is steppy and glitchy when you twist the Decay parameter, making realtime control useless.

Using Velocity as a controller, or even a well timed/retriggered LFO will at least clip the tails, like a Sidechained Kick Drum.

Besides, hardware is suppose to emulate a real space, so it is an emulation.
Software emulations, then become an emulation of the emulation.
Probably why I stop at the first emulation.


----------



## synthetic (Jun 17, 2013)

I have Lexicon Native and a PCM96S. The software engineer says they're the same code and sound identical, but they don't. I use the PCM96 on everything. I bought the surround version but mostly use it as two stereo machines – one medium room / scoring stage emulation and one longer hall with Lexicon swirl.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 17, 2013)

chimuelo @ Mon Jun 17 said:


> Besides, hardware is suppose to emulate a real space, so it is an emulation.
> Software emulations, then become an emulation of the emulation.
> Probably why I stop at the first emulation.


----------



## lumcas (Jun 17, 2013)

germancomponist @ Mon Jun 17 said:


> chimuelo @ Mon Jun 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Besides, hardware is suppose to emulate a real space, so it is an emulation.
> ...



+1, I only hope he's being sarcastic, but nevertheless it's a good one


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 17, 2013)

synthetic @ Mon Jun 17 said:


> I have Lexicon Native and a PCM96S. The software engineer says they're the same code and sound identical, but they don't. I use the PCM96 on everything. I bought the surround version but mostly use it as two stereo machines – one medium room / scoring stage emulation and one longer hall with Lexicon swirl.



That's probably because the software nullifies, and hardware just hasn't advanced that far yet.
From what I understand from AES 2013, is that the Lexicon PCM192 and the Bricasti M7S+2 will address this.
When I bought my last hardware unit, due to it being un-nullifiable, it was 50% less than it's predecessor.
So for a few large, the hardware had better nullify or I will ruin my live sound and go 100% software as a form of protest.


----------



## Diffusor (Jun 18, 2013)

Used to own several hardware Lexicons. Now I just own a Bricasti M7 which pretty much covers everything. I also supplement with IRCAM Splat and LX480 natively.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 18, 2013)

Splat must have an unusual sound.

.


----------



## synthetic (Jun 19, 2013)

Nullifies?


----------



## mark812 (Jun 19, 2013)

Jack Weaver @ Tue Jun 18 said:


> Splat must have an unusual sound.
> 
> .



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzhjY4ETXdA


----------



## Daryl (Jun 19, 2013)

I use a Bricasti M7, particularly on Strings because it er, sounds good. :wink: 

D


----------



## dgburns (Jun 19, 2013)

synthetic @ Wed Jun 19 said:


> Nullifies?



yep,scratched my head on that one......all plugin "modulation" aside
/\~O


----------



## quantum7 (Jun 19, 2013)

14k for the Bricasti Design System 4. http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/M7System4/ I would love to see that in my studio one day.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 19, 2013)

Brisacti Mainframe looks tasty.
I am sure we will start seeing Bricasti Mainframe plug ins anyday.
Instead of a duplication of the GUI, maybe use cool pictures of the faceless 1U rackmounts, and pictures of giant Arenas, Canyons and Cathedrals summoned per preset.
Haswell on die HD5000 GFX is suppose to upgrade to 4 monitors, so 4 pictures of different scenery and spaces for some serious emulations of the emulation.

I wonder if the Bricasti Mainframe nullifies. For 14 large it should.
But in case the hardware hasn't caught up to the quality of software I am sure all of the dozens of Bricasti plug ins will nullify.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 20, 2013)

I'd like to edit my earlier comments about 2C Audio's B2 reverb plugin being a bit fussy. 

Andrew Souter took the time and effort to contact me and after a few email back-and-forths was able to figure out the best settings for my system and it seems to be working with greater stability. My template is a bit happier today. 

Thanks, Andrew.

.


----------



## synthetic (Jun 21, 2013)

chimuelo @ Wed Jun 19 said:


> I wonder if the Bricasti Mainframe nullifies. For 14 large it should.
> But in case the hardware hasn't caught up to the quality of software I am sure all of the dozens of Bricasti plug ins will nullify.



I still don't understand what you mean by "nullifies." Do you mean de-correlation? There is a setting in the Bricasti, I think it's called correlation, but it changes the "random seed" that it uses for generating reverb allpass taps. So instead of starting from 63 it starts from 78 or whatever. They added this for surround mixing, so that the front and back don't sound the same. 

Although in general this seems to be less of a problem in algorithmic reverb than it is in convolution-based systems. I think that slight chorusing and randomization you can add to algorithmic reverb sounds more alive and realistic. Maybe due to chaos theory? Or maybe it just sounds cool and who cares why.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 21, 2013)

Jimmy's kidding.

.


----------

