# I bought the Lexicon 1500$ plugin .....WOW



## SvK (Jan 29, 2012)

I bought the Lexicon 1500$ plugin .....WOW

Big bucks...... but that algorithmic reverb is crucial isn't it?
The fact that it "wanders" and "shifts" and is never the same is just glorious on Orchestra.

just great.

best,
SvK


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 29, 2012)

SvK @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> The fact that it "wanders" and "shifts" and is never the same is just glorious on Orchestra.



HUH?!?!?

I dont know about the rest of you, but my experience as an engineer and knowledge of audio dictates that _the one thing I do not want _is for my reverb to be wandering and shifting - _especially_ on an Orchestra. I sincerely hope that this is OE, and not the plug's normal operation.

Cheers.


----------



## whinecellar (Jan 29, 2012)

He's just having fun with some Lexicon parameter names, that's all. The proof is in the pudding: there's a reason you hear Lexicon reverb on so many film scores from the last 30 years


----------



## Ed (Jan 29, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Sun Jan 29 said:


> HUH?!?!?
> 
> I dont know about the rest of you, but my experience as an engineer and knowledge of audio dictates that _the one thing I do not want _is for my reverb to be wandering and shifting - _especially_ on an Orchestra. I sincerely hope that this is OE, and not the plug's normal operation.
> 
> Cheers.



There's a patch called "Random Hall". Its specifically designed to do that. I reccomend you look up how its supposed to work.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 29, 2012)

Ed @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> RiffWraith @ Sun Jan 29 said:
> 
> 
> > HUH?!?!?
> ...



No need. If the unit has a random patch, then that's cool. But the op didn't say that. What he did infer, is that the plug "wanders" and "shifts" and is never the same.

I recommend you learn how to read.


----------



## SvK (Jan 29, 2012)

Riff...

Random Hall is a very FAMOUS verb from Lexi that is used frequently for orchestral tail....It is NOT static and DOES wander

If you were to play a short percussive sound through it, like a woodblock....you will hear very slight differences in the reverb delay patterns of the tail on each restrike......

that IS what it makes it "shimmer" and its like GOD on orchestra....

This is what I meant to say.

best,
SvK


----------



## marcotronic (Jan 29, 2012)

@SvK: Wow! Would definitely LOVE to hear an example of that Random Hall in an orchetral context! A side-by-side comparison with a convolution reverb hall would be awesome (QL Spaces e.g.) Any chance? 

Thanks!
Marco


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 29, 2012)

SvK @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> Riff...
> 
> Random Hall is a very FAMOUS verb from Lexi that is used frequently for orchestral tail....It is NOT static and DOES wander
> 
> ...



Gotcha. Most algo reverbs (tho not all) are random to some extent. But the way you put it originally, made it sound a whole lot different than that. I thought you were saying that the reevrb was wandring and shifting.

Cheers.


----------



## G.R. Baumann (Jan 30, 2012)

SvK @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> I bought the Lexicon 1500$ plugin .....WOW
> 
> Big bucks...... but that algorithmic reverb is crucial isn't it?
> The fact that it "wanders" and "shifts" and is never the same is just glorious on Orchestra.
> ...



Awww... lucky you! Yeah, big bucks for sure, but I imagine it to be just plain fantastic!

Have fun!


----------



## Dan Mott (Jan 30, 2012)

I'm guessing that this plugin is the lexi PCM NATIVE?

I have the LXP Natve. Great verb too.

I tried out the demo of the PCM and LXP. I chose the LXP because I didn't notice much of a difference between the two. I think the PCM has a more rich and thicker sound, where the LXP is a lighter sound.

It's interesting when using the LXP and QL Spaces. I feel that every sound seems to work with the LXP, where as QL Spaces is a bit more fussy. I really dig the LXP for percussion and vocals and Spaces for strings and pads/some perc. It all depends.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jan 30, 2012)

If i remember correctly, this plug is 32 bit only, right?


----------



## whinecellar (Jan 30, 2012)

FWIW, the LXP & PCM bundles share identical algorithms, so PCM has no sonic advantage for those. It does however pick up where LXP leaves off - among other things the PCM bundle contains that famous Random Hall algorithm. And it really is something to behold, especially on orchestral instruments


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Jan 30, 2012)

Can someone brieflt explain why this randomness is good for an orchestra?


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jan 30, 2012)

motion...


----------



## Daryl (Jan 30, 2012)

Did you really pay $1500? If so, you were drastically overcharged. :shock: 

D


----------



## whinecellar (Jan 30, 2012)

Christian Marcussen @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> Can someone brieflt explain why this randomness is good for an orchestra?



Hey Christian, instead of a technical explanation I'd highly recommend demo'ing the PCM Bundle - specifically the random hall algorithm - and comparing it to a static convolution impulse. That will tell you all you need to know 

At the end of the day it's just a further twist on the whole idea of algorithmic verbs vs. convolution. They each have their uses but the latter is just a snapshot - even if a really good one - while the former tends to add a bit of lushness & the GOOD kind of random that you want when emulating a real space.

Somewhere in my archives I have some Lex-vs-convolutions comparisons; I'll see if I can find them...


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jan 30, 2012)

When it first came out I think it was available for around $1350 if you dug deep enough in your searches. It is an incredible production tool though regardless of the rather steep price range even at $1500. I mean - let's face it - there are a ton of really good algorithmic reverbs available now at a fraction of the price (2cAudio, Valhalla, TC VSS3). But at the time I decided not to compromise and wanted to invest in the best. No regrets here in the least.


----------



## Rob Elliott (Jan 30, 2012)

Stephen,

I LOVE the Random Halls (especially the 'small - dark') one. Of late I have also used the same hall and shorten the tail to .70 (essentially creating a very nice ER) and then adding Boston A hall (M7) over that. YMMV.


----------



## George Caplan (Jan 30, 2012)

Daryl @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> Did you really pay $1500? If so, you were drastically overcharged. :shock:
> 
> D




seems a lot/ i have a lexicon hardware unit and that surprises me.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 30, 2012)

Frederick Russ @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> When it first came out I think it was available for around $1350 if you dug deep enough in your searches. It is an incredible production tool though regardless of the rather steep price range even at $1500. I mean - let's face it - there are a ton of really good algorithmic reverbs available now at a fraction of the price (2cAudio, Valhalla, TC VSS3). But at the time I decided not to compromise and wanted to invest in the best. No regrets here in the least.


Yes, but now it's only about $1100 and if you search around you could even pick up one second hand, like I did.

D


----------



## zvenx (Jan 30, 2012)

Also there seems to be serious change on the way at Lexicon... Their chief PCM programmer is no longer with them.

rsp


----------



## GLUKE (Jan 30, 2012)

+ 1 on the Lex PCM plugin. Got it when it first came out and use it all the time. I like it because I don't have to spend a ton of time tweaking it. 

Would LOVE it if the guys over at Bricasti would make a plug in version of their M7.

- Gavin


----------



## marcotronic (Jan 30, 2012)

Too bad you need a 2nd generation iLok key to run the trial... Only have a 1st gen one for my East West stuff.

Marco


----------



## zvenx (Jan 30, 2012)

I imagine all vendors who use ilok will move over to ilok 2 at some point...

rsp


----------



## re-peat (Jan 30, 2012)

I’m not convinced of the necessity of a Lexicon or Bricasti for the type of work most of us are doing. I still need to hear the first example of a virtual orchestra production where the difference between an average or decent reverb on the one hand, and a supposedly stellar reverb (like those two mentioned) on the other, does actually make a meaningful difference. 
Motion? Shifting and wandering? Who cares about any of these things in the background when there’s samples doing their clumsy little routines in front of it? No one.

I will never ever understand why so many people keep believing and insisting that high-end reverb can contribute more to the illusion of a virtual orchestra than an average reverb. It can’t. No matter how good the reverb, the ear of the listener will ALWAYS be distracted first (and last) by the questionnable quality of the audio that’s being processed, as well as by the bizarre illusion that this particular audio is trying to uphold. That’s what grabs people’s attention above all, not the quality of the reverb. The dead-ish sounds, the artificial dynamics, the frankensteinish articulations, the synthetic aroma of it all, the lack of dimensions, the complete absence of performance energy, the fake stereo imaging, etc. … those are the things that listeners are noticing more than anything else (even if they don’t quite know what all these things are), and not some gorgeously wandering RandomHall-cloud that’s hanging behind it.

Process the Efimov nylon with a greatest reverb ever created, to give one example, and still most people’s ears will immediately be fixed exclusively on the fact that they’re not listening to a real guitar. They’ll hear something’s not quite like they expect it to be and from that moment on, everything else in the production becomes futile. And I chose the Efimov on purpose, because it is among the better, if not the best nylon guitar emulations currently available. But the simple fact that it is not a real instrument is what will dominate the mix (and thus the listening experience as well), not the quality of the reverb. 

The uniqueness of RandomHall is completely wasted on virtual instruments, in my opinion. RandomHall may sparkle, wander and sizzle all it wants, it makes no difference at all. Run HS, VSL or LASS or any other great sample-library through RandomHall, and no one will ever pay attention to the reverb, because they’re constantly adjusting their ears and minds listening to samples-desperately-trying-to-pretend-that-they’re-not-samples. It’s unavoidable.

Said it before: in the land of virtual instruments, the quality of the reverb hardly matters at all. Provided it is not too bad of course. We like to think that it matters, and we keep telling ourselves that it does, mainly because we’re endlessly frustrated by the limitations of the samples themselves and thus start looking for solutions elsewhere, but … it doesn’t. Well, to some extent, probably, but definitely not as much as most people hope or think it does. 
That’s the trouble with sample libraries and modeled instruments: their sonic and musical limitations are always so much in evidence in a mix that our ears have little attention left for anything else, not even the presence of best possible reverb. 
Even if RandomHall — or any other great reverb for that matter — manages to make our mixes sound a little bit wider and a little bit deeper and a little bit more open, all of this shrinks to irrelevant nothingness next to the overpowering imperfections (both sonic and musical) of the sample-based audiotracks themselves.

The best reverbs for virtual instruments, in my opinion, are IrcamSPAT and MIR. I don’t have any experience with MIR, but I do know it has believable spatialization and that’s what matters. That’s also the greatest asset of SPAT. While its reverb engine will probably never be considered the equal of Lexicon’s or Bricasti’s, the fact that it does spatialization (placement in any musical dimension), and does it extremely well, is way more useful in the context of virtual orchestras, in my opinion, than the quality of even the most expensive sounding reverb tail.

_


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2012)

re-peat @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> The best reverbs for virtual instruments, in my opinion, are IrcamSPAT and MIR. I don’t have any experience with MIR, but I do know it has believable spatialization and that’s what matters. That’s also the greatest asset of SPAT. While its reverb engine will probably never be considered the equal of Lexicon’s or Bricasti’s, the fact that it does spatialization (placement in any musical dimension), and does it extremely well, is way more useful in the context of virtual orchestras, in my opinion, than the quality of even the most expensive sounding reverb tail.
> 
> _



A good point, Peat! I am impressed of this both too. 
The last demo from Guy (his first use with MIR) sounds very good, much better than all his other demos, sound wise...., and I remember you, demoing a Samplemodeling instrument with this cool IrcamSPAT.

I think, what we also need is a much better midi documentation. Our midi is from the 80`s. Where is the creativity? I think it should be possible to do more than just 127 steps through a midi cable feasible...... .


----------



## Ed (Jan 30, 2012)

Here's some at $999.95 on ebay - new sealed. 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEXICON-PCM-NATIVE-EFFECTS-PLUG-IN-BUNDLE-NEW-Factory-Sealed-Retail-Box-/110780413026?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19cb06f462 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEXICON-PCM-NAT ... 19cb06f462)


----------



## George Caplan (Jan 30, 2012)

re-peat @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> I will never ever understand why so many people keep believing and insisting that high-end reverb can contribute more to the illusion of a virtual orchestra than an average reverb. It can’t. No matter how good the reverb, the ear of the listener will ALWAYS be distracted first (and last) by the questionnable quality of the audio that’s being processed, as well as by the bizarre illusion that this particular audio is trying to uphold. That’s what grabs people’s attention above all, not the quality of the reverb.
> _



i would put myself in that category of listener. what i find so far is that the lexicon that i have seems to help a lot more on a live recording done by friends and myself say doing a baroque work and then adding reverb. purely amateur. it also helps on synthesizer sounds.
with using samples im not so impressed with the aura it creates with orchestra sounds.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2012)

George Caplan @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> ... im not so impressed with the aura it creates with orchestra sounds.



It depends on your mixing. You can do the same thing what you can do now with MIR only via mixing, but you have to have a lot of knowledge about mixing, working with sub groups e.t.c. . A wide field!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 30, 2012)

re-peat @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> I’m not convinced of the necessity of a Lexicon or Bricasti for the type of work most of us are doing. I still need to hear the first example of a virtual orchestra production where the difference between an average or decent reverb on the one hand, and a supposedly stellar reverb (like those two mentioned) on the other, does actually make a meaningful difference.
> Motion? Shifting and wandering? Who cares about any of these things in the background when there’s samples doing their clumsy little routines in front of it? No one.



Seems fair enough to me.

I'd love to hear an A/B though of the same piece with, say, Spaces and the Lexicon. Ya know, just in case.


----------



## SvK (Jan 30, 2012)

damn i did get overcharged:

http://www.amazon.com/Lexicon-Native-Reverb-Plugin-Bundle/dp/B0037A7GZ2 (http://www.amazon.com/Lexicon-Native-Re ... B0037A7GZ2)

1.264.00

PS..: the 999 price on ebay is NOT the verb package, but instead the effects package (chorus, delay stuff...no reverb)


----------



## SvK (Jan 30, 2012)

For Orchestra work, the trick is to lower the "BassRT" parameter: 1.0x or so....

This way just the lows of the reverb shave a shorter tail...

best,
SvK


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2012)

That was the goal from Lexicon for years, to have that long low reverb....., as it is naturally in so many halls, yes, no?


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 30, 2012)

search in gearslutz under gsilbers and i have the same samples ran through differetn verbs. 
and examples of each to compare a "medium hall" whatever the devs thought a med hall is.
lx480, pcm, eon, rverb
i downloaded all the demos and made mty choice after making the examples. 


i choose the 480xl and i was able to make it sound almost exactly like a random hall from the pcm. 
but i had to tweak it a lot. (then never saved it do'h) 

im waiting for the 480xl upgrade which has been taking way to long. 
not as long as altiverbs


----------



## whinecellar (Jan 30, 2012)

Peat's points are all valid. Now back to problems we CAN solve in early 2012: that Random Hall algorithm just plain sounds awesome 

Assuming you DO have decent skills in other areas, it definitely is one piece of the puzzle toward a better-sounding end result...


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2012)

BTW: The Lexicon PCM reverbs are the best "reverbs" I have ever heared, sold as VI`s.


----------



## re-peat (Jan 30, 2012)

whinecellar @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> (...) Now back to problems we CAN solve in early 2012: that Random Hall algorithm just plain sounds awesome. (...)


It most certainly does. But you don't solve any problems with it. That's precisely my point.
It's a bit like decorating a damp and fungus-infested house with expensive, high-quality and beautifully designed wallpaper: it'll still smell funny. And that's what virtual orchestras do too: they always smell funny. Nature of the beast.

_


----------



## Steve Martin (Jan 30, 2012)

Hi all,


With the Lexicon reverb, can you do panning and depth positioning of the orchestral sections as well as the reverb?


Thanks if anyone can answer me here.


best,


Steve.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2012)

Depth positioning you van organize with sub groups....., with using any reverb.... .


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 30, 2012)

germancomponist @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> Depth positioning you van organize with sub groups....., with using any reverb.... .



Well, there is much more going on with depth than simply the level of reverb.

You have, changes in the ER, air absorption that affects the direct sound, etc. So you need some way to control all of these various parameters. MIR seems to me the most comprehensive attempt to address these aspects. I'd love to try it.


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2012)

synergy543 @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> Well, there is much more going on with depth than simply the level of reverb.
> 
> You have, changes in the ER, air absorption that affects the direct sound, etc. So you need some way to control all of these various parameters. MIR seems to me the most comprehensive attempt to address these aspects. I'd love to try it.



+1

You are right! As I said, you have exactly to know what to do, but the most musicans are not also audio engineers.... .

MIR seems to be a best tool!


----------



## whinecellar (Jan 30, 2012)

Good stuff Peat, and I think we're both barking up the same tree. Agreed that no reverb will ever fix the problems you're talking about - but that's a whole other discussion


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 30, 2012)

whinecellar @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> Good stuff Peat, and I think we're both barking up the same tree. Agreed that no reverb will ever fix the problems you're talking about - but that's a whole other discussion



So, what`s about midi, version 2?


----------



## zacnelson (Jan 30, 2012)

I have recently discovered the importance of reverb, I'm embarrassed to say that for all these years I have only ever used bundled cheap reverbs. Then a month ago I bought Aether on sale ($200) and as you can imagine I was blown away by the quality of a REAL reverb! I had always done everything almost completely dry, even vocals and sampled drums etc, because the reverb sounds I could get with cheap software were so ugly. 

What do you all think of Aether? I imagine the Lexicon plugin is far superior. However, are any of you familiar with a setting or preset in Aether which would in some way approximate the Random Hall setting discussed in this thread?


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 30, 2012)

found my old thread. 

you might wanna read the disclaimer 1st  

also.. sorry if i offend anyone when i called them fool because they bought the PCM expensive reverb. 
its all subjective right? 


http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-sho ... ost5572203


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 30, 2012)

zacnelson @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> What do you all think of Aether? I imagine the Lexicon plugin is far superior. However, are any of you familiar with a setting or preset in Aether which would in some way approximate the Random Hall setting discussed in this thread?


The latest Aether update should include Den's presets which are very good. In context, its probably a bit hard to tell the difference between verbs particularly if its just being used as a tail. I still use Altiverb for ER along with a reverb tail. The ER adds much more coloration whereas the tail differences are 'relatively' subtle. Understanding the settings well and how they affect various sounds helps a lot too.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 30, 2012)

Aether to me sounded different from a lexicon sound. 
it sounded very airy and shiny in a good way. 
imo its just different and i could not say it was better or not to others. it just had a different sound.


----------



## Dan Mott (Jan 30, 2012)

Shoot me, but I think Aether sounds terrible. I don't know what is it, but it's just... grose.


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 30, 2012)

gsilbers @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> Aether to me sounded different from a lexicon sound.
> it sounded very airy and shiny in a good way.
> imo its just different and i could not say it was better or not to others. it just had a different sound.


So is the Relab. I tested both the Relab and the Lexicon PCM Native and they were very different in my opinion. Different strokes for different folks.

But in 'context' even Breeze works very nicely for $99

@Dan Jay - B-A-N-G


----------



## whinecellar (Jan 30, 2012)

zacnelson @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> What do you all think of Aether?



Both Aether & its companion product Breeze are capable of sounding incredible. In fact, both can emulate that Lex sound so closely it's insane. They are also capable of a lot of things the Lex stuff CAN'T do. Breeze has become one of my favorite reverbs at any price, but for $99 it's a steal. I used it extensively on the last feature I scored and am thrilled with the results.

Out of the box, I initially had Dan-Jay's reaction (well, maybe not quite as strong) - it didn't bowl me over. But with a little tweaking I was floored at what I could do with it...


----------



## whinecellar (Jan 30, 2012)

p.s. if you search on Gearslutz I posted some comparisons between Breeze and Lexicon a while back, as well as some of my presets - I'll see if I can find the link.


----------



## whinecellar (Jan 30, 2012)

germancomponist @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> So, what`s about midi, version 2?



No, talent version 1 

There are people doing it - it's just the exception & not the norm. Mr. Bergersen comes to mind, among others...


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 30, 2012)

So what's the deal with the Lexicon PCM Native 64-bit - Is it working?

I heard there were various problems being reported so even thought a bought an iLok2, I'm still running the 32-bit Lexicon.

Is is safe to upgrade to 64-bits? I don't want to risk getting crashes or full-level noise. But now that the lead-programmer is gone, the state that its in now is probably as good as its going to get. Yikes!


----------



## devastat (Feb 1, 2012)

Is anyone running these plugins succesfully in VE Pro? I subscribed to the demo license yesterday to try these out, but they seem to crash VE Pro upon launch (they seemed to run fine in Cubase)


----------



## Daryl (Feb 1, 2012)

devastat @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> Is anyone running these plugins succesfully in VE Pro? I subscribed to the demo license yesterday to try these out, but they seem to crash VE Pro upon launch (they seemed to run fine in Cubase)


I've reported this to VSL. Perhaps you could report it to Lexicon, as strictly speaking it is their responsibility to look into it.

Thanks.

D


----------



## devastat (Feb 1, 2012)

Daryl @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> I've reported this to VSL. Perhaps you could report it to Lexicon, as strictly speaking it is their responsibility to look into it.


Done. Hopefully they will release 64bit versions in the near future, also hoping for a chance to buy these reverbs separately.


----------



## Daryl (Feb 1, 2012)

devastat @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Feb 01 said:
> 
> 
> > I've reported this to VSL. Perhaps you could report it to Lexicon, as strictly speaking it is their responsibility to look into it.
> ...


I've got a sneaky suspicion that we won't see 64bit until Pro Tools 11 is released.

D


----------



## wst3 (Feb 1, 2012)

an OT observation - would that be an OTO?

Anyway - I still use a PCM-90, and an LXP-1/LXP-5, all controlled from the lovely little MRC. I thought long and hard about the plug-ins, but I seldom need more than a couple of instances, and so thus far I've saved my meager budget for other things.

Now this thread has me scratching my head again - I think I need to take a break from VI - it's just getting too expensive!!!!


----------



## Erik (Feb 1, 2012)

synergy543 @ Tue 31 Jan said:


> So what's the deal with the Lexicon PCM Native 64-bit - Is it working?
> I heard there were various problems being reported so even thought a bought an iLok2, I'm still running the 32-bit Lexicon.
> Is is safe to upgrade to 64-bits? I don't want to risk getting crashes or full-level noise. But now that the lead-programmer is gone, the state that its in now is probably as good as its going to get. Yikes!



I had serious trouble to get the LXP Native bundle working in Cubase 6. It freezed Cubase completely after clicking for the second time to get the GUI back. I managed to overcome it using JBridge and change settings in the JBridge window. 
Without the JBridge Cubase freezed even on loading the plugin. But opening a project I always had to be careful to make things first in order: that made it sort of a hassle, to say it mildly. In Sonar and Cantabile I didn't have any of these isssues, but Sonar is just not my favourite DAW. So I only have tried out the Lexicon LXP as demo. Apparantly it is not a native 64 bit plugin (it doesn't load in VEPRO for example).

But...in the meantime I discovered coincidentally (on a forum, I don't remember which one now, sorry) a new verb that easily competes with the indeed great qualities of the Lexicon I used.
It is calledValhallaRoom, costs only $ 50 (!!) and you are invited to try out this quality plugin yourself.

I have A/B'ed in many times with the LXP Lexicon (& other plugins from the list herebelow, although MIR remains a special "something" always) and there wasn't any substantial difference between them very often. Beautiful and simple GUI. I realize this kind of posts can readers turn into rage, insanity etc.: reverb #354.
'O man, we have had hundreds of these contributions' etc.. Please know that I also use a.o. MIR, QL-Spaces, VSL Convolution, Aether.
But readers: this Valhalla could replace (one of) these under many circumstances easily. It has very fine presets and some highly interesting parameters (to be changed easily). It may be exactly what you have been looking for the last years. It is just so *damned good*...............(and so *damned cheap*, this bargain).

PS Do not forget to read the "manifesto" of this developper. Plus an excellent blog on concert hall reverb.

If you think that I am completely wrong here, just tell me. I can live with that.


----------



## JJP (Feb 1, 2012)

I'm still unconvinced about the long-term security of spending $1500 for a reverb plugin when I can buy an excellent hardware box for about the same amount.

I'm always afraid of software developers going out of business, having to pay for upgrades, or even operating system and hardware incompatibilities down the line. If I pay $1500-$1700 for a used top-of the line stereo outboard unit, I know it can be in my rack and sound great for 20 years. I can use it with anything -- even if I'm not using a computer.

Does anybody else feel this way?


----------



## whinecellar (Feb 1, 2012)

Jason, you raise a GREAT point about hardware vs software, and that's probably the only thing that's kept me from pulling the trigger on the PCM bundle myself.

In the spirit of Erik's post above, I spent quite a lot of time A/B'ing the PCM bundle against 2C's Breeze and was so stunned at how close I was able to match them (pretty hard to tell which is which in a true blind test after tweaking).

Breeze was on sale for less than $100 at the time, so that's the route I went and I've used it constantly since. It is simply gorgeous IMO with the presets I dialed in.

That said, if the PCM bundle was more in the software price realm (as opposed to hardware) I would have jumped on it with ZERO reservations...


----------



## SvK (Feb 1, 2012)

THE PCM NAtive verb stuff is NOT an emulation of the PCM96...it IS the code used in the PCM96...

Its cheaper than the hardware box.....AND its not rough on your CPU so you in essence you have a gazillion PCM 96's

So oNe for Orhestra Tail
Another super long tail for an oboe solo
A Plate for the Brass section

ANd the famous "floyd wash" for some synth atmospheres.


That would take 3 PCM96 units.

best,
SvK


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 1, 2012)

SvK @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> THE PCM NAtive verb stuff is NOT an emulation of the PCM96...it IS the code used in the PCM96...



Right!

And the PCM Native verb sounds awesome in any ways.


----------



## re-peat (Feb 1, 2012)

JJP @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> (...) when I can buy an excellent hardware box for about the same amount (...)


Don't forget that, if you go the hardware route, ideally, you'd also need a top-quality AD/DA converter, otherwise you run the risk (well, it's more of a certainty, really) of sacrificing the very thing which makes the hardware so superior to begin with. Average converters, and certainly the cheaper ones, often mess with the sound, may introduce all sorts of digital unpleasantness and have also been known to play strange tricks with the stereo image, thus turning your high-end hardware reverb instantly into something far less spectacular.
These top-of-the-line AD/DA converters (+ high-quality cables, to hook everything up) can easily set you back just as much as the hardware reverb unit itself.

Only to say that you're not quite done spending money by only buying the hardware reverb, if you intend to use it in a way that does it justice.

_


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 1, 2012)

re-peat @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> JJP @ Wed Feb 01 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) when I can buy an excellent hardware box for about the same amount (...)
> ...



Well said!

For this reason, last month I have bought a focusrite Saffire audio interface, for inserting my hardware, with what I am in love.... .


----------



## studioj (Feb 1, 2012)

whinecellar @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> Jason, you raise a GREAT point about hardware vs software, and that's probably the only thing that's kept me from pulling the trigger on the PCM bundle myself.
> 
> In the spirit of Erik's post above, I spent quite a lot of time A/B'ing the PCM bundle against 2C's Breeze and was so stunned at how close I was able to match them (pretty hard to tell which is which in a true blind test after tweaking).
> 
> ...



btw, Jim I use your Breeze lexi preset all the time! its really great, and I can't believe that I'm getting that sound from a hundred dollar plugin. Thanks for posting that last year! Anyway Breeze is really quite amazing, and I have most of the contenders save the lexicon and mir. My favorite these days though is VSL's hybrid, i think for me it beats out Spaces and Altiverb for that smooth and deep orchestral sound. Still love Altiverb though for putting something in a smaller room. 
-j


----------



## mm (Feb 1, 2012)

studioj @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> whinecellar @ Wed Feb 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Jason, you raise a GREAT point about hardware vs software, and that's probably the only thing that's kept me from pulling the trigger on the PCM bundle myself.
> ...



Where can we find Jim's Breeze lexi preset? I would like to download that...


----------



## FriFlo (Feb 1, 2012)

Does anyone happen to know, how the Lexicon PCM native compares to the UAD Lexicon 224?


----------



## jlb (Feb 1, 2012)

I don't understand everyone raving about this $1500 plug in. $1500 is a LOT of money. I am just going to buy Breeze when it comes out in 64 bit, Jim has done some great stuff with it.

jlb


----------



## whinecellar (Feb 1, 2012)

Give me a day or two fellas - I'm out of town. When I get back I'll throw my latest batch of Lex presets up here for those of you interested in Breeze.

BTW, I'd suggest trying the free demo with those presets. Even better, download the Lex demo (iLok required) and compare them side by side - that should put my money where my mouth is


----------



## whinecellar (Feb 1, 2012)

Hey Guys,

Just realized I do have the Breeze presets with me. I believe this should be the most recent:

http://www.box.com/s/u4iviii3xha4qpu09mn6

Un-ZIP the archive and drag the contents of the resulting folder here:

HD > Library > App Support > 2C-Audio > Breeze > Presets > user

I've also included Den's Lex emu presets as well since he has made them publicly available. This puts all the good stuff together in one place, but I do prefer my presets for most orchestral duties 

Enjoy!


----------



## autopilot (Feb 1, 2012)

Hey Jim - can you make that a public file - needs me to login to access


----------



## JJP (Feb 1, 2012)

re-peat @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> Don't forget that, if you go the hardware route, ideally, you'd also need a top-quality AD/DA converter...


However, don't forget that most good reverb boxes have had digital outs for many years. But you may be looking at a decent clock, then. If these methods go out of style, I can always use analog with a decent converter.

Quality is never cheap, but I like to be certain my investment will last. That's where my hesitation with pricey plug-ins comes in to play. I'd rather spend more on something that I'm certain will last me for a long time. I just don't want to worry about my latest sequencer or OS update or next generation of motherboard revision knocking out my $1500+ reverb. I bought a screaming Mac G5 right before the Intel switch years ago. Perhaps that influences my hesitation. :? 

Please note, I'm not knocking the quality of the Lexicon plugins or Lexicon's support. I'm just thinking out loud and sharing my preference for going the hardware route in this price range. I bought my first hardware unit for about $2k almost a decade ago because I needed something that wouldn't overload my computer. I have since come to appreciate the longevity of the purchase. It has outlasted computers and survived software updates without a hitch, and I still get asked, "What's that nice reverb I'm hearing?"


----------



## whinecellar (Feb 1, 2012)

autopilot @ Wed Feb 01 said:


> Hey Jim - can you make that a public file - needs me to login to access



Yeah, sorry - I'm having issues with Box right now. Here it is on Dropbox - this should be public:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19965122/JimD-Den%20Presets.zip


----------



## autopilot (Feb 1, 2012)

Thanks Jim! Gottem. Awesome.


----------



## rabiang (Feb 1, 2012)

Thanks a lot, Jim.


----------



## whinecellar (Feb 1, 2012)

You're more than welcome - hope you find them useful!


----------



## Jean Paul (Feb 1, 2012)

Rob Elliott @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> Stephen,
> 
> I LOVE the Random Halls (especially the 'small - dark') one. Of late I have also used the same hall and shorten the tail to .70 (essentially creating a very nice ER) and then adding Boston A hall (M7) over that. YMMV.



I am checking the Lex demo. One question for Svk/ Rob, or anyone who can help: 

I am trying to get the timpani to sound deep and nice. Are you using the Plate algo for the Percussion subgroup ? or just the Random Hall? Any recommendations on RT, Bass RT, etc would be appreciated.

thanks
JP


----------



## Mike Connelly (Feb 2, 2012)

whinecellar @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> Breeze has become one of my favorite reverbs at any price, but for $99 it's a steal.



Sorry to get a bit off topic, but has there been any word when they might have their verbs updated to 64 bit? I bought Breeze back when it was first released at the intro price based on their statement that a 64 bit version wouldn't be long, and it's been months now.


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 3, 2012)

re-peat @ Mon Jan 30 said:


> I’m not convinced of the necessity of a Lexicon or Bricasti for the type of work most of us are doing. I still need to hear the first example of a virtual orchestra production where the difference between an average or decent reverb on the one hand, and a supposedly stellar reverb (like those two mentioned) on the other, does actually make a meaningful difference.
> Motion? Shifting and wandering? Who cares about any of these things in the background when there’s samples doing their clumsy little routines in front of it? No one.
> 
> I will never ever understand why so many people keep believing and insisting that high-end reverb can contribute more to the illusion of a virtual orchestra than an average reverb. It can’t. No matter how good the reverb, the ear of the listener will ALWAYS be distracted first (and last) by the questionnable quality of the audio that’s being processed, as well as by the bizarre illusion that this particular audio is trying to uphold. That’s what grabs people’s attention above all, not the quality of the reverb. The dead-ish sounds, the artificial dynamics, the frankensteinish articulations, the synthetic aroma of it all, the lack of dimensions, the complete absence of performance energy, the fake stereo imaging, etc. … those are the things that listeners are noticing more than anything else (even if they don’t quite know what all these things are), and not some gorgeously wandering RandomHall-cloud that’s hanging behind it.
> ...



Pete, I basically agree with you that its kind of a paradoxon. We try to make something more alive but we just use dead stuff 

However, I almost hear this in every category in music. Like, why do you care about being so excessive which EQ, compressor, reverb, layering samples, reworking patches etc. blabla .... and then a long time ago I've seen a little video from Dave Pensado who was exactly getting into this matter. He simply said. See it as tuning a bike!
If you are able to get rid of some weight here and get it faster there, all these little percentages will add up to a huge amount.

Of course I am aware that a bad composed track cannot be "fixed" with the technical stuff ... but I say a well composed track can sound MUCH better when caring about all these little things. In the end this 1% here, the 0,5% there and some 2% over here will finally add up. Don't you think?

However, I agree with you, that many people totally only focus on the gear (I am not talking of SvK here ) while leaving out completely the importance of composing a good track!


----------



## re-peat (Feb 3, 2012)

Waywyn @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> (...) all these little percentages will add up to a huge amount (...)


Sure they will, but that’s not what I was talking about. I was talking about the wide-spread, and in my opinion completely delusional and ridiculous idea that high-end reverbs are somehow better suited to increase the perceived realism of a mock-up than average devices are. I simply refuse to believe that (and no one’s ever produced anything to make me even begin to consider changing my mind about this). Just like I refuse to accept that you can create more believable mock-ups with a fully loaded UAD Quad card (or even a fully-equipped high-end studio if you like) than you can with Logic’s, Sonar’s, DP's or Cubase’s built-in arsenal of production tools. And just like I will never agree with the silly notion that Altiverb’s ToddAO IR, or any IR that's included with QL Spaces, has anything beneficial to contribute when striving for mock-realism with virtual instruments. Not saying these things are without use, but their use lies definitely not in the area of increasing realism.

Take that little QL SoloViolin demo of mine, for instance. No one is ever going to convince me that I can increase the ‘believabilty’ of the violin part (which, let’s be honest, sounds completely fake and unbelievable from start to finish) if I run it through a Bricasti or a Lexicon (hardware or plug-in). That’s utter nonsense to me. A Bricasti may add a better-sounding reverb, sure, but no matter how glorious that reverb may sound in itself, it adds in no way to the illusion of realism. I mean, that mock-up violin sounds so unrealistic, and its performance is so sterile and artificial, that no amount of processing, not even with the best possible tools, is ever going to be able to even slighty increase the illusion of realism.

You can’t make HS, or LASS or whatever, more believable by running it through the most expensive channel strip (virtual or real). You can’t make CineBrass more realistic by running it through Slate’s VCC or UAD's Ampex tape-emulation. There’s no way to increase the perceived realism of any of Vienna’s instruments by running them through the Vienna Suite of plug-ins. That’s my point. 
In short: there are no software or hardware tools — no EQ’s, no reverbs, no dynamic processors, no nothing — which can improve the attempted realism of a mock-up. Sure, these tools can make a mock-up sound ‘better’ (as an audio production, I mean) — no discussion there — but they most certainly can NOT make it sound any more realistic.

_


----------



## jlb (Feb 3, 2012)

Mike Connelly @ Thu Feb 02 said:


> whinecellar @ Mon Jan 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Breeze has become one of my favorite reverbs at any price, but for $99 it's a steal.
> ...



By the spring, I have been waiting ages too

Jlb


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Feb 3, 2012)

re-peat @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> Waywyn @ Fri Feb 03 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) all these little percentages will add up to a huge amount (...)
> ...



I totally agree.


----------



## Waywyn (Feb 3, 2012)

Sorry Pete, maybe I did not express myself very well.
I didn't mean that reverb adds realism to the samples, but in general these little tweaks and tiny percentages sum up and - if used right - alter the sound quality in a good way.

I mean if someone does a killer mockup, top arrangement with top samples it may sound good already, but if the guy doesn't care about tweaking some EQ curves here or adding some reverb there, the track wouldn't sound as good as if he did care, no?


----------



## SvK (Feb 3, 2012)

if i create a bang up / great mockup ( yes Pete, it will still sound nothing close to the real deal ), and run the mix through freeverb....

and then take that same mock-up and run it through Lexi PCM instead, the LEXi mix will sound infinitely better...

end of story....

best,
SvK


----------



## SvK (Feb 3, 2012)

If I try to create a bang up / great mockup with a bunch of soundfonts and do another with HB and HS, 

the HS / HB one will sound infinitely better.


----------



## SvK (Feb 3, 2012)

If I record a cue with a competent real live orchestra, and compare it to my bang up / great mock-up

the live orchestra recording will sound infinitely better..

best,
SvK


----------



## studioj (Feb 3, 2012)

I think creating a sense of space is the most important thing when increasing the realism of a sampled instrument. or at least as important as the programming and performance. Its also three times as difficult to do well in my experience!


----------



## re-peat (Feb 3, 2012)

Stephen,

I don’t dispute any of that. Of course you’re right. On every point. Just as Alex is, by the way. But we keep confusing two things here, it seems to me: there’s the _quality of the production_ (which seems to be what you guys are mainly talking about), and then there’s _the believability of the mock-up illusion_ (which is what I have been going on about). Two entirely different things in my opinion, although I’m aware that they can, and usually will, influence one another to a certain degree.

All I’m saying is that your Lexicon, or my TC VSS3 (or IrcamSPAT), or anyone else’s Bricasti or Softube TSAR, or whatever, will never ever improve the perceived realism of the virtual instruments we process with it. And I’m not talking about the sound _an sich_, I’m talking about the illusion of a virtual instrument programmed to pretend to be a real one. The immense gap between LASS, or HS, and a real string orchestra can’t be bridged by a reverb, even the most fabulous one, that’s what I’m saying. 
But, obviously, using an excellent reverb in a mix, and doing so with taste and knowledge, will yield better sounding results than using a crap one. Absolutely.

_


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 3, 2012)

re-peat @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> ... But, obviously, using an excellent reverb in a mix, and doing so with taste and knowledge, will yield better sounding results than using a crap one. Absolutely.
> 
> _



Absolutely! o/~


----------



## Ed (Feb 3, 2012)

I think good reverb makes an amazing amount of difference. Just saying.


----------



## re-peat (Feb 3, 2012)

Well, just disagreeing, but I don't think it does. Not in dreary Mock-up Land anyway. Too much going wrong there for one good thing (the reverb) to be able to make everything right again.

_


----------



## Ed (Feb 3, 2012)

re-peat @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> Too much going wrong there for one good thing (the reverb) to be able to make everything right again.



Well not sure who is saying that, but Ive only ever worked with virtual instruments and I do notice that good reverb makes a huge difference. Cheap metallic cold reverbs can easily make good sounds sound bad. Warm lush reverbs can make mediocre sound shine. I approach everything from a sound design perspective, so maybe thats why we differ.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 3, 2012)

Apples vs oranges.... .

I exactly know what Piet is talking about, and he is right: There is not only one orchestra lib on the market what comes (nearly) close to the real thing. (beside Samplemodeling...  )

But, the used reverb is at least 30% or more of the end result, audio wise!


----------



## Ed (Feb 3, 2012)

germancomponist @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> Apples vs oranges.... .
> 
> I exactly know what Piet is talking about, and he is right: There is not only one orchestra lib on the market what comes (nearly) close to the real thing. (beside Samplemodeling...  )



Im just not sure what the the relevance of any of that is. To me its all just sound. Reverb on a synth, reverb on percussion, reverb on piano, reverb on string samples. Difference? Nothing in the sense that good reverb makes sounds sound better. Good reverb on live instruments makes them sound better too. If anything its more important to have good reverb with samples because you have to cover up the fact that its not live so anything you can do to sweeten it is preferable.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 3, 2012)

Let me say it in other words. A piece, done with samples...., will never sound like the same piece, played by real players. This is what Piet is talking about.


----------



## Ed (Feb 3, 2012)

germancomponist @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> Let me say it in other words. A piece, done with samples...., will never sound like the same piece, played by real players. This is what Piet is talking about.



.... :| okay... and the relevance to reverb discussion is....?


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 3, 2012)

Ed @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> .... :| okay... and the relevance to reverb discussion is....?



... another theme..... .  o-[][]-o


----------



## re-peat (Feb 3, 2012)

Ed @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> If anything its more important to have good reverb with samples because you have to cover up the fact that its not live so anything you can do to sweeten it is preferable.


Ed,

Well, that’s precisely my point: you can’t. Waste of time, waste of effort and certainly a waste of good reverb too.

The concept of virtual-instruments-posing-as-real-ones is so fundamentally sour to begin with — both sonically and musically —, that no amount of sweetening can come to its rescue. It’s like I said two pages ago: the trouble with virtual-instruments-posing-as-real-ones is that their many limitations are always so much in evidence in a mix that our ears have little attention left for anything else, not even the presence of best possible reverb. Reverb as a 'realism increaser' is a totally impotent element, an absurd idea, a chimera.

And the problem is not the reverb itself — obviously —, the problem is not even the samples as such, the problem is: the role these samples have to perform, the mock-realism. That particular illusion is simply too unviable, too transparent, too hopeless, too … unbelievable for it ever to work. Reverb or no reverb. The moment you say to a bunch of clarinet samples: “Now, go out into the real world and pretend you’re a real clarinet.”, the game is over. Damage done. Battle lost.
(If, however, you instruct that same bunch of samples to go out into the world and act _like a bunch of samples_, that changes things completely, because then you’re not aiming for realism, but you’re turning the very identity of those samples — their artificialness — into a valid musical ingredient. Musically, a much wiser, much more creative and much more courageous route, in my opinion. But that’s a different discussion of course.)

But again, I’m not saying that reverb can’t improve the sound of a mock-up, it most certainly can, I’m saying that reverb is totally incapable of covering up, let alone curing, that most fundamental of flaws immanent to the concept of mock-ups: virtual posing as real.
I’m saying that you can’t turn the Vienna Appassionatas into a believable stringsection by running them through a high-end reverb. No way. They may come out sounding marginally better (although I seriously doubt it), but they certainly won’t come out sounding any more realistic. No matter what you run them through, they will always remain a sampled stringsection. (And I’m not even saying that ‘real’ is always and automatically better than ‘virtual’ — that would depend entirely on the musical context — I’m merely saying that the difference will always be there, no matter what.) Throw whatever you have (or wish you’d have) at the Appassionatas, you’ll always end up with the Appassionatas, NEVER with a believable stringsection.

Let me phrase it differently: while reverb can be of help to create a nice-sounding environment for a mock-up to live in, it is of no use whatsoever to help mask the innate sonic and musical flaws of a mock-up.

_


----------



## Ed (Feb 3, 2012)

Re-Peat we clearly see things very differently. I simply dont care about whether its real or sampled. Something that is real sounds better because of specific reasons and sometimes a real recording is less desirable than a sampled version. No one is saying you can turn Vienna Appassionata Strings "into a believable string section" with nice reverb, but you can certainly make it sound a lot warmer and more pleasant to listen to. All the audience cares about it what it sounds like. If you take VSL strings and run it through a cheap metalic reverb it will do nothing to help the sound at all, but run it through an expensive warm lush reverb and it can drastically change the sound and therefore someones perception of what they are listening to. The reason why someone might say it sounds more "real" to them is because they think it sounds more professional and closer to a professional recording - ie. professional recordings don't use cheap reverbs or spaces to record.

If reverb/the location where the instruments are recorded matters in real instruments, then it matters in samples too, there is no difference at all. Record a violin in a bathroom its going to sound very different to doing so in a nice hall. It does surprise me how anyone can imply otherwise, just because you're talking about samples, but there you are...

I'll also offer this example... I used to want Mark Snows piano module he used on The X-Files because I really liked the way it sounded. It was only a Kurzweil Micro Piano and eventually I found one, but then I realised it was the reverb and production that made it sound the way I liked. "Out of the box" with normal reverb it had no depth and it was quite disappointing. Neither the sound Snow had nor the one I had was real, but one sounded a lot better. That's all that matters. Apparently what sounds "real" is the number 1 thing that matters to you. To me the reason for recording real instruments is to make it sound better not for realisms sake but because most of the time thats what realism gives you. Whether its a synth or a real recording or a string sample, reverb does make a difference.


----------



## re-peat (Feb 3, 2012)

Ed @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> (...) Apparently what sounds "real" is the number 1 thing that matters to you.(...)


No, no, no, Ed, absolutely not. Most definitely not. I would have thought this was abundantly clear by now, actually. I don't believe in 'something sounding real'. Something either is, or it isn't. 
That violin thingy which I posted today, for example, most certainly isn't. I never believed for a second that it would, I never had any illusions whatsoever that it could. It's a flock of samples in full flight, nothing more. And I knew that before I even started, like I always know every time I load a set of samples.
Whenever I do mock-ups, I never go for 'real', I go for 'meaningful, effective referencing' at most. In other words: the best I hope for is that my choice of sounds will point the listener's imagination in the direction I want it to turn. That's all. 'Real' really is the last consideration on my mind whenever I use samples-in-a-simulating-capacity.

_


----------



## noiseboyuk (Feb 3, 2012)

Gee, I dunno. I've never really bought this argument, and I hear it a lot. Your Solo Violin demo, Piet, will sound real to a huge number of people. Not critical listeners or string players, sure, but your average Joe on the street probably wouldn't even think there was anything odd about it. It seems a little disingenuous to say you're not going for realism - they are samples of a solo violin that you have skillfully woven to sound like a performance of a violin. You haven't made those samples sound like an unreal or hybrid instrument.

But perhaps I misunderstand you. If you mean that when you are composing / performing absolute realism isn't the primary aim, and just sounding good, emotive etc with what is in front of you is the goal, then that makes complete sense. But I heard nothing in your piece that, conceptually, made it not sound like a real violin (note - this is very different from saying it achieved complete realism).


----------



## Udo (Feb 3, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Sat Feb 04 said:


> ... It seems a little disingenuous to say you're not going for realism ...


False modesty? :wink:


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Feb 3, 2012)

re-peat @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> Ed @ Fri Feb 03 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Apparently what sounds "real" is the number 1 thing that matters to you.(...)
> ...



Yep.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 3, 2012)

I envy those who can indulge themselves in a $1500 reverb plug-in, when I have seen so many shoot-outs in which people could not correctly identify the expensive reverb vs. the excellent cheap-o.

As to Piet's point (and Jay's inevitable agreement, he's felt this way forever) I believe it's perfectly valid for them, and exactly what they believe. It's not true of me-I'm shooting for "realism". Not to 'fool' anyone on VI Control, where we are all avidly listening for that plastic sound or stiff phrasing, that section lacking any air-no, I'm going for average listener/client realism. I don't pretend to think I'm achieving it, but that's the ideal-for ME.

Here's the crux from a supplier perspective-when a producer/director/whatever client asks me "are those real horns?" (substitute oboe or strings or whatever, same idea)-my job instantly gets easier. My real-world working life is assisted by better sounds, better use of those sounds, and yes, for me, idiomatic and tonal "realism", to whatever degree I can achieve that.


----------



## David Story (Feb 3, 2012)

Easier to put yourself out of work. People who'll buy fake horns will also buy fake composers. It won't be the first time a group drove the price and quality low enough that they could be replaced. Programmers come to mind. Now only the high end work needs to be done in the US, UK, Australia.

In composing, the high end is live. Unless you're going for electronica. And that's a bit more to Piet's point. Let samples and synths be their own thing, and stop making "better fakes" a goal.

But I get this is an audio engineering forum, and I appreciate the technical fine points of a great reverb. There are talented folks who don't get that music isn't sound. That's just what happens around it. Beautiful, interesting, but superficial. Easy to copy with the right tools.

And then there's the collaboration with other artists thing. And making sustainable choices that are good for the community, not just the short term gain of a few. Or respecting tradition. And simple humility.

The union was right when they saw synths as a threat. But it's not the technology, it's those who use it without compassion and foresight. Who teach producers to expect a flashy computer instead of a brilliant band. The 80's guys now regret that they did mock-up shows. Pandora's box. Here's another one- tempting. 

The Lexicon plug sounds very good. Here the modeling of hardware can get close to the real hardware, at least for a while with the right sound sources. I look forward to what Steve does with it.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 3, 2012)

Do you also get that this is a "virtual instruments" forum?

A tad preachy there, David, but hey. It's a big world. Lots of opinions. I respect yours, but man, that ship has sailed. I still need to cross the ocean.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Feb 4, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> I envy those who can indulge themselves in a $1500 reverb plug-in, when I have seen so many shoot-outs in which people could not correctly identify the expensive reverb vs. the excellent cheap-o.
> 
> As to Piet's point (and Jay's inevitable agreement, he's felt this way forever) I believe it's perfectly valid for them, and exactly what they believe. It's not true of me-I'm shooting for "realism". Not to 'fool' anyone on VI Control, where we are all avidly listening for that plastic sound or stiff phrasing, that section lacking any air-no, I'm going for average listener/client realism. I don't pretend to think I'm achieving it, but that's the ideal-for ME.
> 
> Here's the crux from a supplier perspective-when a producer/director/whatever client asks me "are those real horns?" (substitute oboe or strings or whatever, same idea)-my job instantly gets easier. My real-world working life is assisted by better sounds, better use of those sounds, and yes, for me, idiomatic and tonal "realism", to whatever degree I can achieve that.



Larry, the reason you get those comments about your horns has nothing to do with reverb or even the samples as much as because you are a superb horn arranger. 

And obviously we don't want our pieces to sound fake to our clients. If you are going for the "average listen/client level" of realism and then making it sound better with plug-ins, well, that is what I go for too. But few clients make a distinction between better and more real. If it sounds good to them, they will say it sounds real. I used to get those "are those strings real?" comments even back when I used an Proteus Orchestral Plus, Kurzweill 1000 PX and a DX7 and I guarantee you few here would have thought they sound "real".

But Piet is right: good verb helps things sound better but has zero effect on the "reality" factor to knowledgeable listeners.


----------



## re-peat (Feb 4, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Sat Feb 04 said:


> Gee, I dunno. (...) It seems a little disingenuous to say you're not going for realism (...)


Guy,

Believe it or not, but — and I’m being 100% truthful here — I am not. Really. I always tackle these (and similar) pieces from start to finish as ‘compositions for samples’. Always did, always will. That’s the only way I can wrap my mind around this strange species of music and the shaky premise on which its aural characteristics is based. 
That little 'violin' piece was specifically written for QL SoloViolin, sampled xylophone and sampled pizzicati (*), NOT for violin, xylophone and small string orchestra. Huge and fundamental difference, to me. And never ever during the proces of creating pieces such as this, do I stop to think: “Does this sound real?” Because it’s an absurd question, in my opinion. (I don’t even ask: “Does this sound good?” because I know, all too well unfortunately, that creating someting which sounds good — as in: _really_ good, the way truly great recordings/productions can sound good — falls completely outside my abilities and those of the tools/equipment I happen to work with.)

_(*) Spitfire pizzicati, to be precise, because, if I had chosen another set of sampled pizzicati, the writing would have turned out differently as well._

When working on my music (those pieces which involve simulations of existing instruments anyway), the only two questions I always ask are: (1) does this communicate my musical ideas accurately, and (2) is this well written for the collection of samples I chose to write it for. That’s it. Those are my only two guidelines. Oh, and during the mix: is this not too unpleasant to listen to, sonically speaking? 
In the case of this particular piece, the main question was: does this piece bring out the character and the many possibilities of the collection-of-samples-and-scripts-that-is-being-sold-as-the-QLSoloViolin? You see, not: “does this sound like a real violin”, but: “does it offer a good representation of the QL SoloViolin’s character and capabilities”. That some of these capabilities lie in the field of emulating a real violin, is more than obvious of course — it would be silly to deny it — but I have no hopes or illusions whatsoever for this emulation ever to be anything more than an extremely superficial and inadequate approximation.
Here’s another example: I never write for trumpet, but I do write for SM’s The Trumpet. Never for clarinet, but quite often for the clarinet-like sounds that Synful is capable of generating. The distinction might seem silly and meaningless to some, but it is actually a rather important difference, I think. Certainly important to me.

David makes a good point about ‘electronic music’ and it goes straight to the heart of the matter. I will never ever claim that I write orchestral music, I’m always fully aware that I’m doing electronic music. Every aspect of it. (Even if a lot of it turns out sounding vaguely like some type of orchestra.)
There are these questions which often pop up here on the forum: “What’s the best reverb for orchestral music?”, or “What are the best plugins to master orchestral music with?” My first reaction to those type of questions invariably is: "What do you mean, _orchestral_ music? You’re not making orchestral music, are you? You’re working with samples, soundwaves, algorithms and plugins, inside a computer, which means that you’re doing electronic music.” Nothing could be further removed from orchestral music, even if the results (or hoped-for results) sound not entirely dissimilar. 
And this is absolutely not about naming things as they should be named, this is actually a very crucial point, I think. Because I’m completely convinced that nearly all mock-ups would immediately sound a whole lot better if only the people who make them don’t think of them as ‘orchestral music’, but write and produce them as pieces of electronic music. I very much believe that, the moment you manage to free yourself from the straight-jacket that is “the-delusion-of-making-orchestral-music-when-in-fact-you’re-working-with-samples” (and all the irrelevant laws and axioms which you assume your virtual instruments have to abide by), the road which leads to decent sounding mixes becomes at once much wider, much clearer and a whole lot less slippery. Seriously.
Whenever I manage to make something that doesn't sound too bad, it is never because I think ‘orchestral music’, it is always, without exception, because I think ‘electronic music’. In practice, this translates into: using samples, midi, synths, compressors, expanders, transient designers, delays, reverbs, ... in short: everything my DAW and my studio has to offer … with one single purpose: to use, combine and contrast digital sounds and timbres as effectively as possible, in order to project the musical content as accurately as possible. The ‘realism’-element in all of this is always secondary at best, if it even enters at all.

But I agree, it’s all a bit of a shady area, and I have to admit that I’m not entirely immune to the pleasures of making a, hopefully believable, soundalike. After all, it is jolly good fun, isn’t it? So, on the one hand, I firmly believe that ‘mock realism’ will always be far more ‘mock’ than ‘realism’, no matter how good and sophisticated the tools at our disposal, and yet, on the other, I do like to indulge in the game of mocking up instruments. But honestly, that’s what mocking-up is to me: playful entertainment, nothing more. I never think of it as serious musical work. (To get back to that QL SoloViolin piece, for one last second: the mock-up aspect of it is not something I'm especially proud of. It's nice enough and all that, I suppose, and it does what it was meant to do, but it has no real musical value as such, as far as I’m concerned. If there's anything in that piece I'm reasonably pleased with, it's a few sections of the composition. One bar of good writing means infinitely more to me than ten minutes of decent-sounding mockuppery.)

Having said that: a lot of the music that wells up in my mind seems to be served best by sounds which are, in one way or another, related to, or reminiscent of the familiar colours of the orchestra. And that’s something I can’t ignore of course. 
And also: there’s the simple (professional) reality that much of the music I’m asked to come up with, needs to sound ‘orchestral’ and needs to do so convincingly. So, at the end of the day, the art and craft of creating a more or less realistic-sounding virtual orchestra, is something I have to take pretty seriously, even if, strictly musically speaking, it has very little meaning and offeres hardly any satisfaction to me.

(Sorry for this long-winded post.)

_


----------



## noiseboyuk (Feb 4, 2012)

Very interesting debate! Excuse snipping for screen real estate:



re-peat @ Sat Feb 04 said:


> And also: there’s the simple (professional) reality that much of the music I’m asked to come up with, needs to sound ‘orchestral’ and needs to do so convincingly. So, at the end of the day, the art and craft of creating a more or less realistic-sounding virtual orchestra, is something I have to take pretty seriously, even if, strictly musically speaking, it has very little meaning and offeres hardly any satisfaction to me.



I think that hits the nail on the head. You've given us composers a fascinating insight into your process, but I suspect your clients don't care too much about your process. They need something that sounds orchestral - you deliver something that sounds orchestral - everyone is happy.

Lets take two examples. Example A is the professional composer who will ultimately score with a real orchestra, but does his or her mock up entirely electronically. I guess this serves two purposes - first, the composition process itself (this component no doubt varies wildly among composers, some won't need midi at all for this, others rely on it 100%). But second its to show to the client what they're gonna get. Assuming it's a straight orchestral score with everything replaced, the end result will be "just like that, only better". So for these people, working with samples HAS to be about realism. A cor anglais needs to sound like a cor anglais, a cornet a cornet. Someone said in the Solo Violin thread that they'd never use a sampled violin to mock up. In that case either they'd have real string players on tap, or they won't get work in the business, I'd have thought. And for those who are using mocking up to compose, I'd have thought it stands to reason that the more real sounding the tool, the most playable and with the most options, the more useful it will be when composing.

Now let's look at example B. This person is working on low budget, indies and TV. The final score will be mostly or entirely VI. Their requirements are dictated by the producers. Often, they'll want an orchestral score, but they can't afford one, so they need something that sounds like an orchestra. In my experience these people won't care about the process, but will care if it sounds "cheap" or "wrong". Some of us might argue it ALL sounds wrong. But they are the client, so it's there sensibilities (and wallets) that dictate the form. 

My stuff falls into this category. Producers occasionally pull me up if they think something sounds "fake", and I have to do it again. This, it could be argued, is a low art approach, all about emulation which will always fall short - acceptance is nothing more than rising beyond bar marked "too awful to use". All true - but as you say, that's how it is. But for our clients - and ultimately our audience I'd argue - it's pretty immaterial. If we've fooled enough people, we've done our job. It's a magic trick.

All this only applies for pure orchestral scores. With hybrid stuff, none of this really matters. But regardless of our methods for getting there... realism I think is vital in the marketplace.

Huh? What was this thread about again?


----------



## Ed (Feb 4, 2012)

re-peat @ Fri Feb 03 said:


> Ed @ Fri Feb 03 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Apparently what sounds "real" is the number 1 thing that matters to you.(...)
> ...



In that case Im not sure why you don't agree with me that good reverb makes a difference.

Does it sound better to record a violin in a hall rather than a bathroom?
Does it sound better to take a dry recording and run it through a wet hall rather than a small bathroom reverb?

With me so far? Surely no one is going to say it sounds better in the bathroom or through a bathroom reverb. 

Samples are just recordings, so forget about samples. Just think about recordings. 

If you take VSL, its a very dry sound. It was not recorded in a space that will allow the best "bloom" in the sound. In this case the reverb is extremely important, the drier the sound the more important the reverb is especially when that instrument is meant to be played in an ambient space like orchestral instruments. 

If you now look at wet recording like Spitfire and ProjectSAM, external reverb still makes a difference, but not as much as a dry recordings like VSL because you already have the good reverb recorded with the sound. Your reverb is then to gel it all together and to gel any other sounds not recorded in the same space together. A good quality reverb can help make it glisten with that nice professional sheen you wont get with a cheap metallic one. It won't turn crap music, crap samples, or crap recordings into greatness, but it can potentially make them sound a lot better than they would otherwise. Good reverbs are also great for sound design.

Anyway... the bottom line is if you agree that where you record is important for live instruments then you have to agree that reverb is important when writing for samples. I haven't see anyone explain why it makes any difference that they are samples, except when you say that you cant make VSL turn into a "believable string section", well Im not sure anyone ever suggested it could but good mixing and reverb sure as hell can make it sound much more pleasant, just like all recordings. It differs to what degree reverb matters depending on what sample/recording materials you use, which is why I don't like dry orchestra libraries because its too much work to make them sound nice.

As another observation, why do you think adding more reverb tends to help coverup a samples flaws? Good reverbs have been around for longer than good samples and people have been using good reverb on samples for ages, more reverb helps cover up the fakeyness. And if you really never thought that, accept that most people do think that. The thing with a good reverb is you can add a lot more to a sound than you can a cheap and crappy one which will only help make your track sound even more cheap and crappy. Now obviously adding loads of reverb can sound a bit muddy, but that mud can sound much nicer, even pleasant, if its a good reverb than a cheap one.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Feb 4, 2012)

A number of posts have been really, really good! Much to think about...

For my part, even though I care, and continue to experiment with reverb, I have to admit that in 15 years of doing this full-time, I have never heard the word reverb or space or any other related terms used by a director/producer in a meeting with me or via email/phone. Same for mixers. Never a comment. I'm not saying that that's the case in general, just my personal experience. And it's not because I've only used high-quality reverbs, as I've gone from Logic's early reverbs, Ensoniq DSP4, LXP-1,only much later Altiverb, and only once a Bricasti external.


----------



## David Story (Feb 4, 2012)

I like electronics that sound expressive and synthetic. And can blend well with live. The lexicon native does that very well, and seems more friendly than altiverb. But altiverb can sound deep and layered, and I've also heard that hybrid sound done well with Ars Acoustic or a pcm91. This is all home studio, in a high end studio they get that sound with a 960, or TC6000 or M7. That does sound better to my ears, more musical and flowing.

Maybe there's more motion to the lex plugin sound, to my ears. I've yet to try the new altiverb, but I will guess it's different enough that both could be handy for certain effects.

And Mark Isham says that filtering is more important than reverb for electronics.

But the most practical point is from Guy, in another thread. Does the new software really do something I can't do with what I've got? And from Ned- does anyone but audiophiles notice?

The Lex Native does sound beautiful and synthetic and so do others...So it's personal taste even more than budget. Sorry if this seems too passionate or redundant, but I love musical technology.


----------



## re-peat (Feb 4, 2012)

Ed,

When you instruct samples to pretend to be a French horn, you create a ‘being’ of such bewildering artificiality that it instantly makes most other production considerations (which are aimed at getting quality results, I mean) superfluous and/or meaningless. And that includes the choice of reverb as well, I'm afraid. As soon as a virtual stringsection enters your virtual stage (that’s two completely fake and fundamentally flawed ingredients already), you can throw a lot of those quality considerations, which usually apply in ‘pro audio circumstances’, straight out of the window because they instantly cease to matter much.

Not only is there no samplelibrary in existence that has a truly pro audio quality to begin with — the soundquality of every samplelibrary, even the very best ones, is inevitably compromised to some extent, if only to make the product workable (not to mention the fact that the very concept of 'samples' robs any resulting audio of a lot of its potential life) — but on top of that, we’re making it even infinitely more difficult for ourselves by asking these so-and-so recordings, the samples, to take on the musical identity of something completely different: real life instruments played by real life human beings. (And not just any human beings, but talented, dedicated and highly trained individuals with finely-tuned musical instincts and a well-developed sense for imbuing their performances with appropriate, idiomatic stylings, depending on whatever type or genre of music they are asked to perform. All of which is missing completely in nearly all sample-libraries, for obvious reasons.)
That’s already two gigantic, unsurmountable obstacles right there (a musical one and a technical one), and then we haven’t even started blending various libraries (of widely varying quality and with completely different ‘sonic imprints’), or started messing with a language as ancient and primitive as MIDI, let alone considered the fairly mediocre audio equipment which most of us have to work with.

So, on top of the musical absurdity of it all, there’s also all these audio-related technical issues. How much, do you think, can the difference between a Lexicon and an average reverb really matter in these poorest of poor conditions? Very, very, very little, if you ask me. As I said before: there is sooooo much intrinsically flawed in a mock-up, on every conceivable level (sonically, technically and musically), that it’s simply way too much for quality ingredients (like a good reverb, for example) to neutralize any of it. You say that plenty of good reverb can cover up flaws in a sample-based performance, right? I say: no, it can't, it only adds to the mess. Covering up things has no place in music (not in the writing, not in the arranging, not in the recording, not in the mixing and not in the production), so if the need to do so is felt anyway, there's is something profoundly wrong. Which there always is, in mock-ups.

If you (or anyone else who happens to read this) know of a mock-up in which the quality of the reverb plays an essential role in that mock-up being considered a success, I’d love to hear it. I’ve never heard one. I have never heard a mock-up where the quality of the reverb has a substantial bearing on the proceedings. I’ll go one further: I’ve never even heard a mock-up where the quality of the reverb can be said to be truly meaningful presence at all.
I can’t really say that I’ve noticed a signifant improvement in the quality (musically and sonically) of the Vienna demos now that MIR has appeared. (According to what you're saying, that should have happened, shouldn’t it?) EastWest’s demos don’t sound distinctly better since the arrival of QL Spaces either (and if they do, it's got everything to do with the increased quality of their libraries, not with the increased quality of the reverb), and the production level of most mock-ups here in the V.I. Members Compositions section hasn’t exactly reached new heights either (production-wise and believability-wise) in recent times, even though we may assume that most of us have access to some pretty decent reverbs by now. 

Really, reverb does not matter. Well, not in the way and/or to the extent that you believe it does. Just slap some on that doesn’t sound too bad and that more or less does what you want it to do, and be done with it, that’s what I say. And spend the time you gain, focusing more on the music itself, the shaping of the performance, the selection of samples, the arrangements, the balance, etc. … because all of that makes A LOT more difference in the final evaluation.

You know what, here’s what I’ll do: next time I have something new to post, I’ll do a few different mixes. Well, same mix, only different reverbs. We can observe the differences then and see if they actually matter in the grand virtual scheme of virtual things.

_


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 4, 2012)

Piet's last statement speaks to my earlier post-in a shootout, reverb often gets misidentified by even the best ears.


----------



## RiffWraith (Feb 4, 2012)

re-peat @ Sun Feb 05 said:


> If you (or anyone else who happens to read this) know of a mock-up in which the quality of the reverb plays an essential role in that mock-up being considered a success, I’d love to hear it.



Oh, John Rodd, where are you?


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 4, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Feb 04 said:


> NYC Composer @ Fri Feb 03 said:
> 
> 
> > I envy those who can indulge themselves in a $1500 reverb plug-in, when I have seen so many shoot-outs in which people could not correctly identify the expensive reverb vs. the excellent cheap-o.
> ...



In all honesty, Jay (and I know this is sort of a sidebar) my pieces always went down well with clients before I got my recent brace of horn samples, but since, the "did you hire horns?' comments have been more forthcoming by a large factor, so great sounds DO make a difference. Reverb, less, I think.

As far as putting people out of work (David), well, I get a whopping $750, if that, to do library tracks. Hmm-think 20 guys would work for $25 bucks apiece, a studio in NYC would take $100 to record a big band track, and I should work for $150 for my chart? I don't think that's union rate, and since I was a member for almost 40 years and hired beaucoup musicians, I should know.


----------



## noiseboyuk (Feb 4, 2012)

re-peat @ Sat Feb 04 said:


> Just slap some on that doesn’t sound too bad and that more or less does what you want it to do, and be done with it, that’s what I say.



I'm still curious to hear an A/B with this amazing Lexicon shifting thing vs, say, Spaces, but in the absence of some revelatory direct comparison, Piet's comment sums it up for me. Dial in 1 decent Early Reflection send for the dry libs, 1 decent tail to taste, job done.


----------



## PMortise (Feb 4, 2012)

This thread has been a really interesting read, but this paragraph pretty much sums it up for me:



re-peat @ Sat Feb 04 said:


> If you (or anyone else who happens to read this) know of a mock-up in which the quality of the reverb plays an essential role in that mock-up being considered a success, I’d love to hear it. I’ve never heard one. I have never heard a mock-up where the quality of the reverb has a substantial bearing on the proceedings. I’ll go one further: I’ve never even heard a mock-up where the quality of the reverb can be said to be truly meaningful presence at all.


I regulary study (as well as listen for enjoyment) to some pretty fantastic work from folks like J. Bacal, M. Verta, TJ, Ned B., Alex Temple, & Colin O'Malley (just the names that immediately come to mind), and the above quote holds true on every one.

Granted, I don't have the refined ear of an engineer by any stretch of the imagination. I consider myself a perennial neophyte actually. :lol: But while I do believe in the necessity of quality tools and the need for the modern composer to be able to effectively use them, a part of me is uncomfortable with the idea of being so taken in by the bells and whistles of technology that the above statement may not actually be as true for me one day as it is today.


----------



## Udo (Feb 4, 2012)

I think a large part of Piet's/re-peat's philosophical dissertation can be summed up with a statement I've made here at least once before:

VIs and sample libraries should be considered instruments in their own right and learned to be "played" as uniqoe instruments. 

Related processes, like effects/mixing/mastering, are in essence generally no different from the way they're used with normal instrument recordings.

I strongly disagree with Piet's following statement, regarding compositions created with VI's:


re-peat @ Sat Feb 04 said:


> .... I never think of it as serious musical work....


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 4, 2012)

Udo @ Sat Feb 04 said:


> I think a large part of Piet's/re-peat's philosophical dissertation can be summed up with a statement I've made here at least once before:
> 
> VIs and sample libraries should be considered instruments in their own right and learned to be "played" as uniqoe instruments.
> 
> ...



I'm stuck in small-minded thinking-when I play an oboe sound, I generally try to make it sound as if an oboe player is playing. I know I could make it sound more like a kazoo if I tried (sometimes unintentionally, I'm sure I do!) but my usual goal is to achieve that that oboe vibe. What can I say-I lack creative vision


----------



## wst3 (Feb 4, 2012)

another way to look at it perhaps...

When I record an artist I give it my best shot. That means I use my best microphones, my best reverb processor, etc. The actual piece, or the actual performance may not be "Grammy Ready", but every single element plays a role in getting it closer to that vaunted status.

Will my PCM-90 (my best reverb, but substitute 224 if you like) make the final result BETTER? No... but it could be the icing on the cake. (and ok, yes, it's true that time based processors can hide a multitude of sins, but that's another topic.)

When I am working with silicon players, i.e. sample libraries, I take the same approach. I don't pretend for a second that any discerning listener is going to confuse my mock-up for the real deal, and that really isn't the object.

The object is to create a piece that is pleasant to listen to. And that includes little touches like reverb.

Now do I need a $1500 reverb plug-in? Will it make my recording sound better, or more realistic? Hard to say really, but probably not. It is just one element.

If I had the client roster to justify the Lexicon plugin I'd grab it in a second... well, after LASS and CineBrass and a couple other libraries that might have a bigger impact on the quality of my mockups.

Realism is only one part of the equation. Playing the parts in instead of typing them into a score makes a big difference. Choosing appropriate sample libraries makes a big difference. Choosing suitable processing (compression, equalization, and yes, reverb) makes a big difference.

But all of these things make a difference in the perception of the listener, and it's usually (hopefully) more about did I like it than did it sound realistic.

There are exceptions, and we're about it, but there are folks who will listen to a really well crafted mock-up and be impressed with the level of realism.

But I'll bet all of us will still be bowled over by a well written, well crafted composition first, and a great performance second. And all the rest third...


----------



## KMuzzey (Feb 4, 2012)

These convos always seem to turn into a feud about "should sample libraries even exist" or "what's better, real or sampled" -- and they always feel like I'm looking at one of those forums back in the early 2000's when people were saying "photoshop will destroy photography, period." 

It's a V-I forum, guys! And the tech just keeps getting better. And the big Hollywood guys will still be contracting their orchestras and their favorite players, and those of us working in TV or in the indie world will continue to be able to provide better and better music with samples when budget doesn't allow for the use of real players. 

I'm always surprised to see some people constantly raining on the parade of sample owners, users and developers. This place is called "Virtual Instruments Composers Forum" -- call me crazy, but I would think we're all here to talk about the awesomeness of samples and how we can make them even more awesome. If you're a thumbs-down on the topic in general, why not make a "Virtual Instruments Suck" website? You'd never know from page 4 that this topic started off as "you guys, the Lexicon we all crave is just as awesome as you think it'd be" because the topic always descends into something nitpicky and unfriendly.

This is a fun place to be & there's a gold mine filled with talent and knowledge in this forum. PRETTY PLEASE do not let it turn into a nasty place. Just like Photoshop didn't ruin photography, sample technology isn't going to ruin music. If you think it will or already has, then perhaps the "Virtual Instruments Composers Forum" isn't the best place for you to seek knowledge or like-minded souls. Just sayin'.

Kerry


----------



## David Story (Feb 4, 2012)

1 live player can make a 50% change in the sound, expression, and overall impact of a hybrid track. The A list people I know use live in demos.
$75 is better than $0. You can be the change.

Yes, samples are awesome. So's a cello. We can work with both. On all but the smallest projects. Eg a spec iphone game. And those can be fun too.

The issue is working together, I don't see it as VIs vs the world. Or plugins vs hardware. Engineers have both. They also "worldize", and that only happens in a physical room  

I'd love to see settings for using the lex native on say, LASS. Or CineBrass. Or on CB + live trumpet. I love the hybrid sound.


----------



## RiffWraith (Feb 4, 2012)

David Story @ Sun Feb 05 said:


> 1 live player can make a 50% change in the sound, expression, and overall impact of a hybrid track.



That depends immensly on the recording process, and the player used. Trust me when I tell you, you are far better off using samples, as opposed to hiring a sub-par violinist, and recording him/her in your bedroom with crappy acoustics using an sm57 and Behringer mic pre.

The A list people you know use (at bare minimun) good players and a good recording process. If not better than good. Now, if you can do that, then absolutely your tracks will benifit. Otherwise, you can actually do more harm to your track than good.

Cheers.


----------



## Ed (Feb 4, 2012)

Im sorry Re-peat but it still sounds like you're still utterly concerned with what is "real" and that this is the only thing that matters, completely missing everything I said in my last post. I guess we just see things so differently you arent even able to have any hope of understanding what Im saying. Ah well.


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 4, 2012)

I love a good lecture in the morning. After all, I only created work for 3 o4r 400 NYC musicians..._when the work for them existed_.


----------



## jleckie (Feb 4, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Sat Feb 04 said:


> David Story @ Sun Feb 05 said:
> 
> 
> > 1 live player can make a 50% change in the sound, expression, and overall impact of a hybrid track.
> ...


I dont know - really. Good live players are not reserved ONLY for A-List. Plenty of other guys use them. Its not so hard to find pretty darned good players for a decent price.

Its YOUR music really. Up to you. Do IT a favor and go for some live players.


----------



## re-peat (Feb 4, 2012)

Ed @ Sun Feb 05 said:


> (...) but it still sounds like you're still utterly concerned with what is "real" and that this is the only thing that matters (...)


Based on what exactly, Ed? Which sentence of mine, I wonder, indicates to you that I’m “utterly concerned with what’s real”? Show me, please. Because it seems to me that I’ve made it more than clear by now that I forsake any link with “realness” the moment I load up a sample library. That has in fact been a big part of the foundation I built my entire argument on, right from the start.
The only ‘real’ I’m interested in, is … the quality of the music. The musical ideas, the naked composition. That’s the only thing that matters to me. All the rest is circumstantial messing about with imperfection, pathetic make-believe, flimsy trickery and endlessly frustrating not-quite-there-ness.

As for not understanding you: I do, you know. It's not that difficult. (I'm actually much less convinced that communication has occured equally successfully the other way round, as a matter of fact.) And a lot of what you’re saying is entirely valid too and even makes perfect sense to me. But unfortunately … most of it is completely beside the point. 

Bear with me, please. I’ll explain.

Of course a violin sounds better when recorded in a nice hall than when recorded in a bathroom. But that’s not the point. Of course samples are recordings and will benefit from quality processing just like any other recording. But that’s not the point. Of course a quality reverb adds ‘a nice sheen’. But that’s not the point. Of course a high-end reverb can bring more to the table than a cheap metallic one. But again and again and again: that is not the point.
The point is that none of these observations matter much in light of all that is fundamentally wrong with your virtual performance (and the resulting audio) from the moment that samples are ordered to pretend to be something else. So much of tremendous importance (sonically, technically and musically) is sacrificed the moment you make that decision, that adding a ‘nice sheen’ to it, is simply … well, … a waste of sheen.

Samples are one thing. Samples pretending to be a bassoon, Ed, that’s an entirely different thing. Because then you not only have your samples to worry about (already difficult enough as it is), but — even much, much, much more difficult — you also have that fake-and-completely-unconvincing 'bassoon-like presence' to attend to. Not to mention the fact that your fake-and-completely-unconvincing 'bassoon-like presence' finds itself hopping about amidst dozens and dozens of other fake-and-completely-unconvincing 'instrument-like presences'. 
It’s these dozens and dozens cases of ‘assumed identity’ (and the fact that all these cases, except for the percussion perhaps, are a mission impossible from the word ‘go’) which makes everything else the mix near irrelevant.

Flaws dominate a production (a mix) much more than qualities. That’s really the core of all that I’ve been saying here. One flaw, even a tiny one, is enough to completely ruin a production that’s otherwise filled with qualities. The opposite is unfortunately not true: one quality (say, a good reverb) can’t save a production that’s filled with flaws.

But again (and I hope for the final time): I'm not questioning the usefulness of a good reverb. Absolutely not. I have several in my toolbox and I'd hate to loose any of them. It's just that I don't believe that a good reverb, even the best, can do anything to improve the believabilty of a virtual orchestra. It may make the mix sound marginally better, sure, but it certainly won't make your virtual orchestra sound any more 'real'.

_


----------



## Erik (Feb 5, 2012)

KMuzzey @ Sat 04 Feb said:


> These convos always seem to turn into a feud about "should sample libraries even exist" or "what's better, real or sampled" -- and they always feel like I'm looking at one of those forums back in the early 2000's when people were saying "photoshop will destroy photography, period."
> 
> It's a V-I forum, guys! And the tech just keeps getting better. And the big Hollywood guys will still be contracting their orchestras and their favorite players, and those of us working in TV or in the indie world will continue to be able to provide better and better music with samples when budget doesn't allow for the use of real players.
> 
> ...



+1, how sensible is your post KMuzzey


----------



## noiseboyuk (Feb 5, 2012)

I totally get and understand Piet's view that high quality reverb is a relatively small link in the chain, that other concerns are far more significant (especially since perfectly good reverb is pretty cheap). What I don't agree with is that you can't think of a virtual bassoon as sounding like a bassoon... I think that's a Piet thing, though I know some others here share that perspective. Will it sounds as good? No. Will it sound close? Yeah, hopefully. It certainly won't sound like a new hybrid instrument (if it's any good at all) - it will sound LIKE a bassoon. So I too have the same lack of vision as Larry!


----------



## nickhmusic (Feb 5, 2012)

I'm relatively new to virtual orchestration, but my entire reason for setting out my template in Cubase as I do, setting levels, eq, compression, early reflections and reverb - is that I want my compositions to sound as realistic as possible.

I have a reference audio track - running through a spare output on my audio card - so I can switch to recordings of soundtracks made with real instruments - and compare, tweak, compare etc.

I'll try anything - stereo width enhancement, emulations of classic EQ, tape saturation - anything that can help me try to reach that goal. I know it is a long shot - but I like the fact that I can come very close.

For me, reverb is massively important in this goal - and a great reverb can do wonders to a great sample - VSL for example with their woodwinds. Beautifully sampled and playable legatos. I trialled the PCM Native and was blown away by the quality of the reverb, the depth of the tail - the lack of metal, ringing, aliasing and other crap that most reverbs throw at you. 

I was particularly impressed with what it did for the sampled instrument.

I for one am saving up for the Lexicon, it's a must IMHO for orchestral work. It's pricey though >8o


----------



## rayinstirling (Feb 5, 2012)

Nobody but nobody in this forum or anywhere else will convince me that the use of virtual instruments and, the fx processing of them, serves any purpose other than the attempt to create something "MUSICAL". Yes we can strive for realism (if producing an end product) but that is a side issue. Someone said, raising the quality of vsti's for TV work is the driving force for realism. Not in half the TV underscores and ads I'm watching and listening to. Musicality comes from the user not the sample. Let's just admit. Buying new vst's is habit forming and if we can afford them we'll buy them.
Now where's my card? :D


----------



## doubleattack (Feb 5, 2012)

re-peat @ Sun 05 Feb said:


> Ed @ Sun Feb 05 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) but it still sounds like you're still utterly concerned with what is "real" and that this is the only thing that matters (...)
> ...



I think, a recorded sample of a bassoon i s (in most librarys a well sounding bassoon) - b u t didn't played in a special context. And that's the b i g problem. Not to mention that even a recording of a "real" performance (sound connected with a piece of music) is giving us a imagine of a happened music only (included a subjectiv listening through the ears of the sound engineer). 
The lost of unity of time and room for the art of music isn't the theme since sample-technology but since record technology, did going on with multitracking until samples. 
How could a poor effect device change this lost game? 

btw - nice thread for lot's of thinking! I find talking about the problems of our art (puzzling with samples) isn't destructiv in anyway. It's extending the awereness.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 7, 2012)

re-peat @ 4th February 2012 said:


> So, at the end of the day, the art and craft of creating a more or less realistic-sounding virtual orchestra, is something I have to take pretty seriously, even if, strictly musically speaking, it has very little meaning and offers hardly any satisfaction to me.



Piet, once again you make many fair points. 

But since one is trapped sometimes doing mockups, I would humbly submit that, to my ears, a nice reverb, used in the right way, makes a big, even decisive difference. So, while I don't have the Lexicon, I am a fellow traveler in SvK's camp.

As noiseboy pointed out, the sample version is not always the last word. 

Some may need to clear the hurdle of convincing a producer that one's ersatz orchestral piece is good enough to finally hire an orchestra to play it. In other words, some or all of the orchestral samples will be replaced or, at least, supplemented by live players. In this circumstance, I personally feel that a good reverb is helpful.

I freely admit that my support of a "nice" reverb may be an example of confirmation bias -- which is when, as in my case, one has spent a lot of dough on a reverb so one convinces oneself that it sounds better than another one.

Even leaving aside the example above, in which samples will be replaced, I do believe a good reverb makes the samples sound more musical and natural, and sometimes is instrumental (ha) in giving me "permission" to move ahead instead of cringing and endlessly fiddling about trying to coax a better sound out of the fresh-but-frozen ingredients we use.


----------



## Ed (Feb 7, 2012)

re-peat @ Sun Feb 05 said:


> Based on what exactly, Ed? Which sentence of mine, I wonder, indicates to you that I’m “utterly concerned with what’s real”? Show me, please.



I hope this doesn't sound combative because its not meant to be, but you seem to be fundamentally contradicting yourself as far as I can see. 

One moment you tell me things like this...



> Whenever I do mock-ups, I never go for 'real', I go for 'meaningful, effective referencing' at most. In other words: the best I hope for is that my choice of sounds will point the listener's imagination in the direction I want it to turn. That's all.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



So real isnt important, got it. 

But then you say things like this...




> The point is that none of these observations matter much in light of all that is fundamentally wrong with your virtual performance (and the resulting audio) from the moment that samples are ordered to pretend to be something else. So much of tremendous importance (sonically, technically and musically) is sacrificed the moment you make that decision, that adding a ‘nice sheen’ to it, is simply … well, … a waste of sheen.
> 
> Samples are one thing. Samples pretending to be a bassoon, Ed, that’s an entirely different thing. Because then you not only have your samples to worry about (already difficult enough as it is), but — even much, much, much more difficult — you also have that fake-and-completely-unconvincing 'bassoon-like presence' to attend to. Not to mention the fact that your fake-and-completely-unconvincing 'bassoon-like presence' finds itself hopping about amidst dozens and dozens of other fake-and-completely-unconvincing 'instrument-like presences'.
> 
> Flaws dominate a production (a mix) much more than qualities. That’s really the core of all that I’ve been saying here. One flaw, even a tiny one, is enough to completely ruin a production that’s otherwise filled with qualities. The opposite is unfortunately not true: one quality (say, a good reverb) can’t save a production that’s filled with flaws.



The reason why I said, again, that you only really seem concerned with what is "real" is that you replied to my previous post talking entirely about how real the sampled work is and how reverb affects this. Im not quite sure how much more clear I can make this, but clearly what is real is extremely important to you or else you wouldnt keep bringing it into this discussion. I want to use a nice reverb because I think it makes sounds, *sound *better. No matter what that sound is; live or sampled, synth or drums. Doesn't matter. My post did not deal with what was real, yet you said that none of that gets your point. The point being that its not real. 

If you really did want to talk about realism then I would say that good production in terms of reverb can definitely potentially affect the perceived realism for many people. We first have to point out that most people are well acquainted with hearing sampled music, they dont know why something sounds better or worse they just know it does. Its also important to note that live isnt always better, because "live" says nothing about the players abilities or where it was recorded. So getting back to reverb, if you take VSL as an example, it will sound more perceivably "real" to people if it has been well produced with a good reverb, than if it has if it has just had a cheap reverb slapped across it. Why is that? Because people are used to hearing orchestral instruments in a certain way, in a good hall or recorded on stage with high quality reverb units. So to hear a very dry recording (such as VSL) that has been mixed with a cheap cold metallic sounding room makes it sound bad and is more likely to raise a flag to a listener and they will interpret that as being "synthy". Something sounding "synthy/fake" and something sounding "real" are not polarised opposites, there are many factors that are taken into account that affect how people perceive the sound. Just ONE of which is the space the instruments or sound has been recorded, or placed artificially. If you record a real instrument badly, even that can sound "synthy"! 

But all that is irrelevant to my point, this isnt about realism to me outside that one factor. I dont like to use dry orchestral instruments anyway. It is *always* about using good reverb because it just makes eveyrthing sound better, no matter if its live or sampled. You have been arguing that it doesnt make much difference but the only reason you've given is that using high quality reverb wont make it sound more real and therefore you imply you might as well use a cheap reverb because your sampled music is already fatally flawed. I am saying that argument shows you are totally concerned with realism, I simply do not care. I want to use good reverb because it makes everything sound better.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Feb 7, 2012)

Ed, if you are making the point that "good" sampled work sounds better than "bad" live, well, of course, that is just common sense. But in the professional world there is more "bad" sample -based work than "bad" live work because to make a living as a professional instrumentalist, you have to be pretty darned good as the competition is high where with samples, sadly, sometimes you only need a personal connection and the willingness to work cheaply.


----------



## JohnG (Feb 7, 2012)

Cold, but true, Jay.


----------



## Ed (Feb 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Feb 07 said:


> Ed, if you are making the point that "good" sampled work sounds better than "bad" live, well, of course, that is just common sense. But in the professional world there is more "bad" sample -based work than "bad" live work because to make a living as a professional instrumentalist, you have to be pretty darned good as the competition is high where with samples, sadly, sometimes you only need a personal connection and the willingness to work cheaply.



I dont get what is up with you, you managed to take one single line out of my post and invent my "point" and then argue against it. Maybe try and read for context, Jay. My "point" has nothing to do with realism, or the abilities of professional instrumentalists I was simply pointing out the fact that live is not always preferable under every circumstance, because Piet has been talking about samples as if the very act of using samples means your final production will be immediately fatally flawed (see his Bassoon example) and so worrying about quality reverb is "missing the point". His point it seems is that the very fact that its a sample and not real means that is enough to completely destroy it so using a quality reverb won't really make any difference. Thats why he says, "_ One flaw, even a tiny one, is enough to completely ruin a production that’s otherwise filled with qualities."_ and that flaw, if you read his posts, is the fact that its a sample. I dont really care about what is real, I care about what sounds good. Realism can be *one aspect *of what makes something sound good, most of the time with professional recordings its a huge aspect no doubt, but it is not always the most important thing. I want to use good reverb because it makes everything sound better, whether its real or not


----------



## choc0thrax (Feb 7, 2012)

Arguments about reverb are way better with this on an endless loop as you read:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcAzR2QyPCI

*Would like to thank inexpensive cranberry flavoured mid-day vodka and youtube for making all of my posts possible.*


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Feb 7, 2012)

Ed @ Tue Feb 07 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Feb 07 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed, if you are making the point that "good" sampled work sounds better than "bad" live, well, of course, that is just common sense. But in the professional world there is more "bad" sample -based work than "bad" live work because to make a living as a professional instrumentalist, you have to be pretty darned good as the competition is high where with samples, sadly, sometimes you only need a personal connection and the willingness to work cheaply.
> ...



But Ed, you are creating a straw man argument.

Nobody but nobody with any musicality says to himself, "Hmmm, I am pretty good with samples and I have some good libraries, but instead I could hire some really not so hot musicians and do it live instead. I think I'll go for that."

To my understanding, Piet is saying that even the best samples are essentially lifeless, therefore flawed, and that trying to breathe life into them has a low ceiling as to how successful it can be both in terms of sound quality and "realism".

And he is right IMHO, and David Story's opinion, and Mike Verta's opinion, and a whole lot of others who have worked extensively with good players. For us, sample libraries, even the best ones, are a giant compromise and always will be for "orchestral & band" style music composition.

For electronica and hybrid composition, of course, it is a different story. as the V.I.s and samples can be made to do things real instruments cannot.

But where I disagree with Piet is in that I do think good samples, good reverb given a skilled user, elevates the level of the sound, if not the "realism."


----------



## Mike Connelly (Feb 7, 2012)

re-peat @ Sat Feb 04 said:


> If you (or anyone else who happens to read this) know of a mock-up in which the quality of the reverb plays an essential role in that mock-up being considered a success, I’d love to hear it.



http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24767

Great performance and great VI, but just listen to how it sounds dry.

I'd argue it also makes a huge difference for anything done with Vienna or other similarly dry libraries. Not that it has to be an expensive reverb, but it has to be extremely carefully chosen and mixed to sound right.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Feb 07 said:


> Nobody but nobody with any musicality says to himself, "Hmmm, I am pretty good with samples and I have some good libraries, but instead I could hire some really not so hot musicians and do it live instead. I think I'll go for that."
> 
> To my understanding, Piet is saying that even the best samples are essentially lifeless, therefore flawed, and that trying to breathe life into them has a low ceiling as to how successful it can be both in terms of sound quality and "realism".
> 
> ...



+1

BTW: So we need more Samplemodeling instruments, to come much closer to the real thing... . o/~


----------



## Ed (Feb 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Feb 07 said:


> But Ed, you are creating a straw man argument.
> 
> Nobody but nobody with any musicality says to himself, "Hmmm, I am pretty good with samples and I have some good libraries, but instead I could hire some really not so hot musicians and do it live instead. I think I'll go for that."



Not sure you really know what a strawman is because you seem to insist on arguing against things I never say or imply. What does that above have to do with anything I wrote? Where is the "strawman" you think I am arguing against?



> To my understanding, Piet is saying that even the best samples are essentially lifeless, therefore flawed, and that trying to breathe life into them has a low ceiling as to how successful it can be both in terms of sound quality and "realism".



What he said is that regardless of recording quality or how it is mixed or how detailed the sample, the very fact of using any sample at all (Piet gave me the example of a bassoon)means your production is already fatally flawed and so using good reverb wont any difference. What I'm saying is that "realism" is only one aspect of the sound and I don't care about any of that. The question to me is not "is this a live recording?", but "does it sound good?" and "how can I make this sound the best it can?". But Piet has already said that the moment you use samples you've effectively ruined your production and you have to approach it in a totally different way.Thats why he talks about samples being the "_One flaw, even a tiny one, is enough to completely ruin a production_". What I dont see is why he gets from there to saying that using good reverb is pointless. Yes its not going to suddenly make it sound like a real bassoon or string section, but it sure can make it sound nicer, and if it is a really dry sample it can also help make the space sound more realistic.



> But where I disagree with Piet is in that I do think good samples, good reverb given a skilled user, elevates the level of the sound, if not the "realism."



Well that sounds like you're arguing the same thing I am, except that I am certain we arent since you seem to be so insistent that you disagree with me.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Feb 7, 2012)

Ed @ Tue Feb 07 said:


> Well that sounds like you're arguing the same thing I am, except that I am certain we arent since you seem to be so insistent that you disagree with me.



It is not that black and white. We have areas of agreement and areas of agreement.

To summarize:

1. Sample-based composition for pieces trying to replicate orchestral and band music are inherently flawed due to the lifelessness of them and due to the fact that 1 talented guy is trying to replace a bunch of talented guys. There is a low ceiling as to how artistically successful they can be compared to good players.

2. The above is not necessarily true for some other kinds of scores, like electronica or even hybrid.

3. IMHO, while good reverb does nothing for realism and cannot mask _all_ the inherent flaws in sample-based orchestral reproduction, it can mask _some_ of them and therefore make it sound "better" if not great.


----------



## Ed (Feb 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Feb 07 said:


> 1. Sample-based composition for pieces trying to replicate orchestral and band music are inherently flawed due to the lifelessness of them and due to the fact that 1 talented guy is trying to replace a bunch of talented guys. There is a low ceiling as to how artistically successful they can be compared to good players.
> 
> 2. The above is not necessarily true for some other kinds of scores, like electronica or even hybrid.



Both these points are irrelevant as I have already explained. They have nothing to do with wanting to use a good reverb, unless somehow someone thinks that using a really nice reverb will make VSL suddenly sound super real and Im not sure anyone has even suggested that but Piet still wanted to point that out.



> 3. IMHO, while good reverb does nothing for realism and cannot mask _all_ the inherent flaws in sample-based orchestral reproduction, it can mask _some_ of them and therefore make it sound "better" if not great.



It certainly is not true that it does "nothing" for * perceived *realism and you even give us an example of how it can help. The other is, as I said, by putting the sample in a really nice, realistic, professional space it can increase the perceived realism. When you're talking about dry libraries, it can be a very big difference. If you took two dry recordings, one of which was live, the live would end up sounding weird and possibly even fake if you used a crappy cheap reverb on it so why do that to a sampled recording? It will only make it worse. Somehow I think you're still going to misunderstand the difference between realism and perceived realism, but I'm tired of having to simply everything to the extreme.


----------



## David Story (Feb 7, 2012)

Mike Connelly @ Tue Feb 07 said:


> re-peat @ Sat Feb 04 said:
> 
> 
> > If you (or anyone else who happens to read this) know of a mock-up in which the quality of the reverb plays an essential role in that mock-up being considered a success, I’d love to hear it.
> ...



Mike, I respect your compositional and performing skill. If you gave lessons, I'd sign up.

But that Samplemodeling trumpet sounds like a wet fake with the reverb. Yes, it's a nice tone, definitely better production. But the shrill, mechanical sound feels wrong. It's a trumpet substitute that, with a big reverb, implies the epic horizons of real brass. 
It's big and echoy and shiny, like something important. But not real.

The big difference from other samples, to my ears, is it sounds more like a performance. The phrase has more shape. Yet so far from the organic expression of live.

I would say any good hall preset could have about the same effect on the mockup. But maybe I don't get what makes mockups successful. It'd be easy to try it with another reverb. Say the one in OP


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Feb 7, 2012)

Ed @ Tue Feb 07 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Feb 07 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Sample-based composition for pieces trying to replicate orchestral and band music are inherently flawed due to the lifelessness of them and due to the fact that 1 talented guy is trying to replace a bunch of talented guys. There is a low ceiling as to how artistically successful they can be compared to good players.
> ...



They are relevant to Piet's points if not yours Ed. You are not the only participant in the discussion.

Despite your assertion that it "certainly is not true" , IMHO, it increases neither the _realism_ or the _perceived realism_ except to listeners who do not know what _real_ sounds like.

OK, I am done.


----------



## Ed (Feb 7, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Feb 07 said:


> They are relevant to Piet's points if not yours Ed. You are not the only participant in the discussion.



Show me a single person those points apply to then. Piet argues that "Vienna Appassionata Strings" cannot be turned "into a believable string section" with expensive professional reverb, but who has ever suggested anything like that? Therefore it *is* irrelevant, unless you want to argue that Piet or you is allowed to argue against a strawman, his "point" and those you posted doesn't appear to make any difference to what anyone is saying. That is what irrelevant means. 



> Despite your assertion that it "certainly is not true" , IMHO, it increases neither the _realism_ or the _perceived realism_ except to listeners who does not know what _real_ sounds like.



I have given numerous examples, so just your insistence that Im wrong is not worth anything. You take a live recording of a violin section that has been recorded in a very dry environment and use a cheap crappy reverb on it and it will sound like a weird string section, maybe even perceived as synthy, so why would I want to put a sampled orchestra though a cheap crappy reverb which would only amplify the weirdness? Because you already have the problem of it being samples, which affects sound negatively, but then you decide to put the sample in a bad space which adds even more negative aspects to the sound. We have known for a while now that that orchestral samples recorded in a hall sound better than samples recorded in a dry close environment, which also shows you that the space you put samples into does have some effect on realism. If anyone still disagrees that reverb can affect the perceived realism you will notice they will never address these kinds of examples and neither will you. Silly wordgames and your personal insistence doesnt make an argument.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Feb 7, 2012)

David Story @ Tue Feb 07 said:


> Mike, I respect your compositional and performing skill.



For the record, not my mockup, I just thought it was a good example and a pretty stark contrast between the dry and verged version.


----------



## re-peat (Feb 7, 2012)

John,
Ed,

Forgive me for not having read everything-that-has-been-added-to-this-thread-today with all the care and attention it more than deserves (will definitely do so at a later hour), and there's a good chance that I might have overlooked a few important points, but just a quick reply to some of things which I actually did read (cause I’m in a bit of hurry at the moment).

I don’t think I ever suggested during this entire thread that a good reverb doesn’t have its uses. (And making a virtual orchestra a bit, or a lot, more digestible to listen to is certainly one of them, no doubt about it.) In fact, I more than once said that a great reverb will definitely increase the quality of the production. No one, I think, questions that. What it won’t DE-crease though, let alone bridge, is the grand canyon between virtual and real. And what I also repeatedly said, is that an expensive, high-end reverb is no more able to narrow that gap than an average reverb is (and, Ed, please: by ‘average’ I don’t mean ‘crappy metallic’ like you seem to like to do, because that’s making a useless caricature of the whole thing, no, by ‘average’ I mean: an affordable, very decent reverb like most everybody has one these days).

Of course the Vienna instruments will sound a lot better with a sympathetic and good reverb poured over them. No need pointing that out. But … (and here we go _again_): they won’t sound more real. Sorry, but they won’t. Not one bit. Sampled strings won’t sound any closer to a real stringssection after they’re allowed to bathe in the most gorgeous reverb imagineable. LASS, HS, SISS, whatever, … they all may (and probably will) sound a lot more enchanting in combination with the right reverb, absolutely, but ... not more real.

The space in which those sounds happen becomes more believable with a good reverb, yes, the environment in which the whole charade occurs becomes more agreeable (if you have some knowledge of how to add the right kind of reverb, that is), sure, BUT the sounds and articulations themselves remain as dead and artificial as they were when saved onto the library’s DVD’s. (This is certainly not meant as a stab at any of these fine libraries, because I rate them all very highly.)
You can throw a whole battalion of the most desirable reverbs (and other high-end processors, if you like) at a sampled stringssection, that won’t make the artificiality of the articulations any less problematic. And it won’t change the fact that phrases-built-with-samples don’t have any organic dynamics whasoever. Nor won’t it help with the _heartbreaking_ (Ned! Ne-ed!!!! Nè-è-è-èd!!!!! I did it!! Look, I used it! Nèèèèèèèèèd!!!!) poverty of the relationship 'velocity>timbre'. And most dramatic of all: it won’t create a performance where there was none before (which is one of the main characteristics of almost every single mock-up I have ever heard: complete lack of performance).

Reverbs don’t breathe life into dead things, they merely create space for dead things. 

Oh, and one more thing: it might appear from everything I said before, that I somehow dislike samples and that I think they’re invariably inferior to ‘the real thing’, but I want to strongly deny both points. Very strongly. Very, very strongly. I love samples. Would be completely lost without them. And I’m on an eternal quest to make the best and most idiomatic possible use of them in my music. But what I don’t expect from samples — never have, never will — is _realism_. And I don’t expect it from my reverbs either.

_


----------



## Ed (Feb 7, 2012)

re-peat @ Tue Feb 07 said:


> In fact, I more than once said that a great reverb will definitely increase the quality of the production. No one, I think, questions that. What it won’t DE-crease though, let alone bridge, is the grand canyon between virtual and real.



Then as far as I can see you've been arguing against an argument I don't think anyone was making this entire time. 

/thread


----------



## FriFlo (Feb 7, 2012)

Anyone cares to answer, how the UAD Lexicon Plugin compares to Lexicon PCM?


----------



## alligatorlizard (Feb 7, 2012)

Good lord, only on this forum could you find several pages of people trying to argue that good reverb doesn't actually make a difference... it's like some bizarre philosophical exercise!

I wonder if there's a liguists forum out there somewhere where a discussion regarding the semantics of the word "real" is becoming de-railed by an argument over how to correctly voice a 2nd inversion dominant chord?


----------



## JohnG (Feb 7, 2012)

re-peat @ 7th February 2012 said:


> What it won’t DE-crease though, let alone bridge, is the grand canyon between virtual and real. And what I also repeatedly said, is that an expensive, high-end reverb is no more able to narrow that gap than an average reverb....
> 
> And I’m on an eternal quest to make the best and most idiomatic possible use of them in my music. But what I don’t expect from samples — never have, never will — is _realism_. And I don’t expect it from my reverbs either.



Ok -- gotcha. I don't think there's much to disagree about. Except my confirmation bias.

Or that second inversion thing...


----------



## tripit (Feb 7, 2012)

re-peat @ Tue Feb 07 said:


> And I don’t expect it from my reverbs either.
> 
> _



I agree. Reverbs are to room sounds as samples are to real players. Simulation tools. 

But as an effect or tool, a good reverb is just as important as a good compressor or eq because it does matter how it sounds and each tool leaves it's mark on the sound. 

And I'll pay good money for good tools, otherwise I might as well just be recording on a crappy old Fostex 1/4 inch 8 track and if you've been around long enough to know what those sound like...


----------



## devastat (Feb 7, 2012)

P.S Apparently the 64bit versions of Lexicon reverb plugins came out for windows: http://www.lexiconpro.com/product.php?id=163#downloads


----------



## nickhmusic (Feb 8, 2012)

What a shame that this incessant need to make a point is so prevelant in an otherwise excellent forum. This thread was about one person's high praise of an excellent reverb plugin. :roll:


----------



## jlb (Feb 8, 2012)

It's an irrelevant point anyway, I don't have the London Symphony Orchestra in my garage, I just want the reverb that makes what I do have (samples) sound the best. But it's not worth $1500 not to me.

Jlb


----------



## whinecellar (Feb 8, 2012)

jlb @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> I just want the reverb that makes what I do have (samples) sound the best.



And that, I believe, was the original point of the thread - and aptly sums up the whole thing. Couldn't have said it better!


----------



## rayinstirling (Feb 8, 2012)

jlb @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> But it's not worth $1500 not to me.
> 
> Jlb



and not to me


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Feb 8, 2012)

I have the UAD Lexi 224 and it sounds pretty much how I remember the hardware sounding. I love it for vocals, drums, anything I want that Lexi sheen on but for orchestral samples, I am still preferring my QL Spaces for sections and UAD EMT Plate 140 for overall tandem.


----------



## wst3 (Feb 8, 2012)

Jay - I'm a tad jealous, haven't sprung for the Lexi 224 plug yet. But I will!

In the meantime, your comment about the plate in combination with QL spaces is good, but I'm curious about your use.

I don't have QL, so that may be the issue, but I find that adding the EMT Plate in parallel with any of my other reverbs takes the whole mix to a new level... even if I've used the plate separately on individual tracks. (Imagine being able to do that 25 years ago<G>!).

I've tried them in tandem, with the plate before and after another reverb, and I've just never liked the result. I end up losing too much detail.

My primary algo/convo reverb - at least until I make the leap to Win7, is Wizzo, followed closely by Voxengo Pristine Space.

So... what's the trick to using them in tandem, and what's the benefit?

Thanks!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Feb 8, 2012)

wst3 @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> Jay - I'm a tad jealous, haven't sprung for the Lexi 224 plug yet. But I will!
> 
> In the meantime, your comment about the plate in combination with QL spaces is good, but I'm curious about your use.
> 
> ...



Well, first of all, I know you will take me at my word when I say that I use QL Spaces because I really like it, not because I work for EW. It doesn't create mud that I have to EQ out the way Altiverb did for me.

I send the strings to 1 instance, brass to another, winds usually to the same one as the strings, and percussion to a separate instance and it sounds good to my ears.

BUT... as good as it is, Spaces is a convolution reverb and an algorithmic reverb breathes in a way they do not, so sending the stems to the Plate 140 just gives it that something extra. 

I don't mind losing some detail with samples honestly because with all the libraries, as great as they now are, sometimes too much detail highlights the fact they they are samples and not real. It's like a not so pretty girl looks prettier in a bar after a couple of drinks than in the daytime, outdoors in natural lighting


----------



## wst3 (Feb 8, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> Well, first of all, I know you will take me at my word when I say that I use QL Spaces because I really like it, not because I work for EW. It doesn't create mud that I have to EQ out the way Altiverb did for me.



I do take you at your word, but in fact that's really not the important part. You use certain tools because you like them. That might, or might not lead me to give them a spin, but certainly I will end up using the tools that I like. I can understand your comment though... I didn't really think about the implication of asking you about QL Spaces<G>!



EastWest Lurker said:


> I send the strings to 1 instance, brass to another, winds usually to the same one as the strings, and percussion to a separate instance and it sounds good to my ears.


I still wrestle with one reverb vs many... one has the potential, I think, to sound more natural (I love some of the things Quincy Jones and Bruce Sweiden do with multiple, and very diverse reverbs - but it ain't natural - nor was that their goal!), but usually I find that I use:
strings and winds - fairly large and/or lush, relatively short reflection time
brass and percussion - smaller, less dense, and a longer reflection time to give the instruments room to breath

In both cases I'll try running the outputs of both reverbs into a single plate, or sometimes something artificial, and it just never works. But if I take the same stems (strings, brass, winds, percussion) and feed them into one or more instances of a plate and then mix that with the space reverb I get what I'm looking for.

The biggest problem is that this is insanely time consuming, I need to tweak so many settings in the reverb plugs, and any change there means a change to relative levels... ARGH!

It just seems to me that I ought to be able to simplify it - and doing things serially seems like it would be the answer, or should be the answer?

Right now if I am mixing something 'orchestral' my final feed to the 2-mix includes:
unprocessed stems - strings, winds, brass, percussion, maybe piano
compressed stems - the stems above run through various compressors (sometimes I compress individual tracks, but that is for effect usually.)
stems in spaces (the convo reverb treatment)
stems through the plate

so that's 16 stems... which even I agree is a bit nuts. But it is flexible!!



EastWest Lurker said:


> BUT... as good as it is, Spaces is a convolution reverb and an algorithmic reverb breathes in a way they do not, so sending the stems to the Plate 140 just gives it that something extra.



I get that. Convolution is still quite time constrained... heck, the definition of an impulse response is 'time invariant' - which says it all. Algorithmic reverberation, on the other hand, can be very animated. Which sorta goes back to an earlier thread where we were discussing the subtle 'movement' in the old random hall algorithms.



EastWest Lurker said:


> I don't mind losing some detail with samples honestly because with all the libraries, as great as they now are, sometimes too much detail highlights the fact they they are samples and not real. It's like a not so pretty girl looks prettier in a bar after a couple of drinks than in the daytime, outdoors in natural lighting



This is a fascinating observation! It might be the root of much of my frustration. I have to really give this some thought, but my instinctive reaction is "eureka!"

Take care!

Bill


----------



## rayinstirling (Feb 8, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> It's like a not so pretty girl looks prettier in a bar after a couple of drinks than in the daytime, outdoors in natural lighting



Yeah! that morning after feeling (who she?). God that takes me back a bit.


----------



## FriFlo (Feb 8, 2012)

Thanks for the answer. I haven't QL Spaces. I use mostly MIR on dry sounds and for the ones with a lot of room on the recording I prefer a algorythmic reverb. I have the EMT 250 and like that a lot. But I was curious about that "moving program" or how it was called. I wonder if the UAD Lexicon has something like that, too.


----------



## alligatorlizard (Feb 8, 2012)

This is probably going slightly off-topic, but seeing as it was mentioned, *a quick question for Jay about Spaces *- I've always presumed the "classic digital" & "digital hollywood hall" presets were modelled on some of the more popular hardware units, eg Lexicon, Bricasti etc. - do you know if this is this the case, and if so, can you reveal which ones are which? Just curious really. Feel free to divert me elsewhere if this has already been discussed!


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 8, 2012)

In contemplating this thread, I'm probably the wrong person to even be commenting. I do use The EMT Plate from UAD, Cubase's Reverence and a nice IK Multimedia 'verb (Classik, I think it's called) but over the past few years, my productions have actually gotten substantially drier. I want a more visceral, in-room sound for my songwriting work especially, but also in my instrumental work. As a result, the reverbs matter less to me. 
Productions drowned in verb sound sort of 80's to me these days.

Anyway , I generally prefer to use an amount as large as $1500 for new sample collections.


----------



## José Herring (Feb 8, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Wed Feb 08 said:


> .... but over the past few years, my productions have actually gotten substantially drier. I want a more visceral, in-room sound for my songwriting work especially, but also in my instrumental work. As a result, the reverbs matter less to me.



Yeah me too. As a result, recording quality and sense of space in the recordings has become all the more important. That being said though, if reverb can help with that then its worth any amount of money.


----------



## devastat (Feb 10, 2012)

Apparently Lexicon will start selling its reverb plugins separately this month http://mixonline.com/mixline/harmanlexicon_plugins_pcmnative_0702/ (http://mixonline.com/mixline/harmanlexi ... tive_0702/)


----------



## jlb (Feb 10, 2012)

This means I can just buy the Random Hall?!!!! :? 

jlb


----------



## synthetic (Feb 10, 2012)

jlb @ Fri Feb 10 said:


> This means I can just buy the Random Hall?!!!! :?
> 
> jlb



You'd be missing out. I like the "Hall" algorithm for my orchestral stuff. A great blend of real with a little Lexicon spice if you want it. I have the PCM96S usually running two stereo sends. One does a medium Hall for general ambience on my orchestral tracks. The second machine is running a somewhat bigger RHall that I use for piano, choir, sometimes violin, anything else that I want to be dreamier. Hall is closer to 960 or Bricasti (though unique to PCM96 and the Native plugs), RHall is the classic 480L program. 

Of course there are also Room, Chamber, Plate, the PCM80 chorus, much more. 

I have the plug-ins too, but I like the PCM96 slightly better and it reduces CPU anyway. Valhalla Room is also VERY CLOSE if you don't have the scratch for Lexicon Native.


----------



## jleckie (Feb 10, 2012)

alligatorlizard @ Tue Feb 07 said:


> Good lord, only on this forum could you find several pages of people trying to argue that good reverb doesn't actually make a difference... it's like some bizarre philosophical exercise!



Or perhaps only in this forum would there be those who interpret the thread as reverb not making a difference? I think the gist of those your referring to is really not that reverb does not make a difference but a) there are more important things to concern oneself with than applying ANY reverb and b) a reverb is never going to make a sampled instrument sound real.


----------



## SvK (Feb 10, 2012)

devastat @ Fri Feb 10 said:


> Apparently Lexicon will start selling its reverb plugins separately this month http://mixonline.com/mixline/harmanlexicon_plugins_pcmnative_0702/ (http://mixonline.com/mixline/harmanlexi ... tive_0702/)



FUCK!!


----------



## NYC Composer (Feb 10, 2012)

anybody see any pricing info on these individual presets?


----------



## jlb (Feb 11, 2012)

SvK @ Sat Feb 11 said:


> devastat @ Fri Feb 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently Lexicon will start selling its reverb plugins separately this month http://mixonline.com/mixline/harmanlexicon_plugins_pcmnative_0702/ (http://mixonline.com/mixline/harmanlexi ... tive_0702/)
> ...



Look before you leap, especially with $1500

Jlb


----------



## jlb (Feb 16, 2012)

jlb @ Sat Feb 11 said:


> SvK @ Sat Feb 11 said:
> 
> 
> > devastat @ Fri Feb 10 said:
> ...



Has anyone heard any more about this!?

Jlb


----------



## John Rodd (Feb 18, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Sat Feb 04 said:


> re-peat @ Sun Feb 05 said:
> 
> 
> > If you (or anyone else who happens to read this) know of a mock-up in which the quality of the reverb plays an essential role in that mock-up being considered a success, I’d love to hear it.
> ...



I just stumbled upon this very long, passionate and interesting thread. :shock: :wink: 

I can chime in a few thoughts.... just for fun 8) 

- I work on a very wide variety of projects - recording, mixing and mastering - all live, all virtual, and also hybrid..... of many different levels of budget.

- reverb is very, very important to me.... for all my projects

- I own a bunch of different plugin reverbs (including all the Lexicon ones, Altiverb 7, TL Space, etc, etc) and I own a bunch of hardware reverbs - including THREE x TC Electronic System 6000, a TC 4000, a Bricasti M7, a Quantec Yardstick, a Rumour, and some amazing & rare spring reverbs (Zerotronics Mini-LEs)
They all have their own unique sounds... and to me they are just different colors of 'paint' for me to use.

- someone mentioned earlier that they wish that Bricasti would make a plugin version of the M7 reverb..... well that currently isn't possible (quite literally) as there are SIX x dual core chips in a Bricasti M7 that are all dedicated to just processing the reverb..... plus a 7th chip for display etc. >8o 

- someone mentioned that you'd need some D->A and A->D converters to use an outboard hardware reverb... this is usually not the case. Most outboard hardware reverbs will have both analog and digital I/O and can simply be interfaced digitally from their DAW (any software, any OS, any studio)

- I have been told by various people that I trust.... who should know the truth ... that the algorithms in the Lexicon plugins are NOT the same (classic, much loved) algorithms as the 480L & 960L. I can not know if this is true or not... and I have not done side by side comparisons between the plugs and a 480L (or a 960L) but I will admit I was a wee little bit underwhelmed, generally speaking, by the Lexicon plugins, FWIIW. Keep in mind that I have always leaned towards the natural sound of the System 6000 & Bricasti M7 more than anything else... so I have a bias. 

Having said that - Lexicon Random Hall can sound really great sometimes. 

Keep in mind that the 480L was analog in and out (only), and the converters & analog stages in it certainly contributed to the sound of it. A plugin can NEVER sound exactly the same, as it isn't going thru the same converters & analog stages. 

- I tend to agree with the whole concept that hardware reverb is a better long term investment, and over 20 years will cost less than keeping up with plugin updates (and replacing them when manufacturers stop supporting them)

- a used TC 4000 is about $1,200, and is a really great sounding reverb.

- I know many composers like to have many, many instances of reverbs in a mix..... and sweat over stage positioning, etc..... but frankly, in my opinion, if you can't make it sound good with one good reverb (such as a TC 4000) then it comes down to mixing skill (or lack therof) rather than a lack of enough instantiations of reverb plugins. :wink: 

I do own a Bricasti M7 and yes.... it really is "all that and a bag of chips" as they say in the UK. No matter the project it can help to make the mix sound better. It is, however, a bunch of $$$$$, and I would not suggest that the average composer go out and buy one. In my opinion, the $3,700 (& tax) might be better spent on a few more sample libraries and maybe some books on orchestration. For so many projects.... budgets are (sadly) low and having a wide variety of sample libraries is an important tool for the average composer. :( 

Well now I have thrown some gasoline onto the fire I had better find my 'flame' suit and brace myself. :wink: 

cheers

John


----------



## Jack Weaver (Feb 19, 2012)

No flame here.... largely concur. 

Just for the record, the Lex software has same algorithms as the PCM 96.

.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 19, 2012)

Jack Weaver @ Sun Feb 19 said:


> No flame here.... largely concur.
> 
> Just for the record, the Lex software has same algorithms as the PCM 96.
> 
> .



But not the more expensice PCM`s. An Gearslutz the programmer wrote that he used nearly tha same code as were used in the original big Lexicon`s.... . You can read it there.... .


----------



## Jack Weaver (Feb 19, 2012)

My apologies Gunther, but I don't understand what you mean by 'the more expensive PCM' and 'the original big Lexicon'. I'd like to comment but I'm lost in the translation here. However I am quite pleased by how well you and all the other non-English speakers in this forum handle the difficulties in all the technical jargon day-to-day!

My understanding from the Lex programmer in Gearslutz and his personal emails to me was that the underlying algorithms of the PCM 96 and the first Lex software (pardon me if I forget what that software package was specifically named) were identical - except that the first software did not have the delay algos - just the reverb algos. 

There was a second Lex software product released and I don't know which algos they used.

.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 19, 2012)

Hi Jack,

yeah, it is often not easy for me to find the right words and to handle the difficulties in all the technical jargon day-to-day.... . 

I meant that PCM bundle what first came out. At gearslutz I read an article about the programming, I if I remember right, the programmer said that nearly the same code was used as in the older HW reverbs. (480/960...?) Maybe I am wrong?


----------



## Jack Weaver (Feb 19, 2012)

Greetings Gunther, 

What NS said was that the orignal PCM 96 hardware algorithms were to a degree modeled after the 960, not so much the 480 per se. And that the first software package reverb algos were the same as the hardware PCM 96.

I have no idea what the deal is with newer, less expensive Lex software. 

However regarding the overall usage of reverb, it changes here with every project. I wish that it was just so simple that I could use this or that program for specific purposes all the time. But it never seems to work out that way. The only thing that remains constant here is using MIR for Omnisphere. 

So many things come with baked-in reverb these days. Recently I've started to appreciate instruments that a little drier in order to craft the sonic environment that works best. 

I could probably go on for days about reverbs but I won't. 

.


----------



## germancomponist (Feb 20, 2012)

Jack Weaver @ Mon Feb 20 said:


> Greetings Gunther,
> 
> What NS said was that the orignal PCM 96 hardware algorithms were to a degree modeled after the 960, not so much the 480 per se. And that the first software package reverb algos were the same as the hardware PCM 96.
> 
> ...



Hi Jack,

do you turn off the release samples when you use a reverb plug? 

This makes a big different..., but I am sure you know this.


----------



## Sid Francis (Feb 20, 2012)

Jack: since Omni is my main synth: would you be able and willing to give us a short soundclip of an Omni patch sent through MIR? I would love to hear such and this would make my decision easier to start to dream and save money or not..


----------



## jlb (Feb 21, 2012)

The individual plugins are now listed, eg http://lexiconpro.com/product.php?id=180#specs but how do you buy one?! Does anyone know?

Jlb


----------



## jlb (Feb 21, 2012)

Prices now up. If you could only buy one which would it be? I think I am getting the Random Hall.

http://store.lexiconpro.com/browse.aspx?catname=reverb+plugins (http://store.lexiconpro.com/browse.aspx ... rb+plugins)

Jlb


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 26, 2012)

Sorry, but those prices are just so silly, IMHO.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 26, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> Sorry, but those prices are just so silly, IMHO.


And yet we, as composers, hate it when someone tells us that about our fees. :lol: 

D


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 26, 2012)

Actually, our fees have gone down significantly in the past 5-7 years, so I would expect our tools to be less expensive as well, or at least give us more bang for the buck (most devs do).


----------



## JJP (Jun 26, 2012)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> Actually, our fees have gone down significantly in the past 5-7 years, so I would expect our tools to be less expensive as well...


I don't even know where to begin with the logical errors of this statement. Sadly this opinion has become quite pervasive. :(


----------



## wst3 (Jun 26, 2012)

surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with Ned, or at least understanding his perspective. I'm just not sure how to label cause and effect<G>!

I can do things today with computers that simply could not be done 10 years ago at any price point. We are clearly getting much more value for our dollar than ever before.

Think back to the release of Garritan Orchestral Strings. It was a pretty big deal. It was a pretty big library - I think it came on seven CDs? And it did things that had never been possible before - oddly the thing that impressed me the most was the realistic change of bow direction. That had always been missing for me.

Anyway, it was, I think, around $1K when it was released, and that too was new ground.

I happen to think that the samples still stand up well, but finding an player to use them is a problem.

Fast Forward to now - there are several libraries that sound as good, and provide even more features and articulations, and they all cost less than GOS did. That's the opposite of the cost of living - at least where I live.

One example, I can come up with others if you like<G>. But I think I can demonstrate that our tools have gotten better, and prices have stayed the same, or in many (most) cases, dropped.

In the meantime the number of nascent composers has increased, exponentially it seems. And with the supply increasing, and the demand remaining the same (or increasing, but not as much, or even decreasing, depending on which metric you choose) the fees paid to composers have gone down.

Some may argue that this is all part of the same set of market forces that is driving the costs of the tools down.

Some may argue that the customers, whether it is a movie house or a movie viewer, no longer care much about the music. Some may argue that the proliferation of piracy is to blame.

I'm not sure it matters a whole lot why - although it would be nice to know. I think it matters that the fees paid to composers are no where near what they were 10 years ago.

That means that fewer folks will be able to support themselves and their families by being full time composers. And that means that the overall quality of custom music will decline.

There are some who argue that the whole democratization of media production will benefit us all. I think that's unlikely, but let's say for the same of argument that it is true, and we're just stuck in the "it'll get worse before it gets better" phase.

So we can expect, one day soon, that all the folks who don't actually have the talent necessary to create a movie or a song or a score or a painting or whatever will give up. And then the folks who have something to say, and the skills to say it will rise to the top.

Sorry, I don't believe that's true - I think that really talented folks will find other ways to support themselves and their families. And they'll still create art, but it'll be a part time sideline. And there won't be as much of it... no matter how much the consumers demand more.

All of this applies to every aspect of our beloved pastime. ALL OF IT.

Developers can't charge as much, and therefore they must find other ways to keep their doors open. That applies to library developers, platform developers, hardware developers, everyone.

People complain, LOUDLY, when asked to pony up $60 - $100 bucks for an annual upgrade. Part of the complaint is valid - these updates have focused less on fixing known bugs and more on adding new features that will attract the next generation of users. But still - for not a lot of money I can buy a software tool that will record, manipulate, and playback audio and MIDI, locked to video. And for $100/year and I can stay current. That's the deal of a lifetime - or rather it would have been in 2002.

How many folks still earn a living designing recording facilities?

How many recording facilities are still open in your region? I'm not just asking about full service facilities, add production rooms and mix rooms and mastering suites to the list. How many?

Do we all (studio owners, studio designers, equipment designers, software developers, library developers, and composers and arrangers) shoot ourselves in the foot when we take a job that pays less than the last one?

Probably.

Do we have a choice?

I'm not sure.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jun 26, 2012)

JJP @ 26/6/2012 said:


> Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue Jun 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, our fees have gone down significantly in the past 5-7 years, so I would expect our tools to be less expensive as well...
> ...



Honestly, I'd like to hear your take.


----------



## synthetic (Jun 26, 2012)

Jack Weaver @ Sun Feb 19 said:


> What NS said was that the orignal PCM 96 hardware algorithms were to a degree modeled after the 960, not so much the 480 per se. And that the first software package reverb algos were the same as the hardware PCM 96.



Jack, if I remember right you had a PCM96, right? There are several reverb algorithms in the PCM96 (opposed to one or two on the Bricasti). 

The "Hall" algorithm is apparently an improved version of what's in the 960. To me it sounds very realistic. I use this one with a ~1.5s decay for my scoring stage emulation. 

The "Random Hall" algorithm is the one from the 480L. You can add swirl and spin and all that for a more chorused sound. I use this one for pianos, choir, and anything that wants to sound larger than life, usually with a longer decay than the standard Hall send. 

There is also Chamber, Room, Concert Hall (224 emulation), a really nice Plate, Pitch Shifting, PCM80 Chorus, etc. 

I have the PCM96 Surround, which can run as two independent stereo processors or one surround. I usually have it running with one Hall and one RHall as I mentioned above. 

I could have bought a Bricasti for the price of the PCM96S, but I like having two stereo machines instead of one. I don't think the sound of the Bricasti is remarkably better than the Lexicon. I do think that my PCM96S sounds better than the Lex Native plug-ins of the same name. Even though they're supposed to be the same the hardware sounds deeper to me, the plug-ins are more "2D." I actually prefer Valhalla Room to Lex Native, but like the PCM96 better than either. 

You can get a PCM92 very cheap, that might be worth looking into for some of you.


----------



## John Rodd (Jun 26, 2012)

For *realism*... in my opinion the Bricasti M7 is better, overall, than ANY other hardware stereo digital reverb in existence. 

Period.



but the TC 6000 would be 2nd. (and it does surround reverb... a big plus.)

anything Lexicon is 3rd

Just my 2c.

8)


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 26, 2012)

John Rodd @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> For *realism*... in my opinion the Bricasti M7 is better, overall, than ANY other hardware stereo digital reverb in existence.
> 
> Period.
> 
> ...



Fair enough but people don't look to Lexis for "realism". They turn to them for a certain sheen that they do very well.


----------



## John Rodd (Jun 26, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> Fair enough but people don't look to Lexis for "realism". They turn to them for a certain sheen that they do very well.



Of course.... yes. 

Keep in mind that the latest software (Vsn2) for the Bricasti M7 does a lot of various NOT realistic reverbs.... non-linear things, and 'sheen' reverbs. The best of both worlds. :wink: 

Plus on a lesser scale - the Altiverb 7 plugin has some of these 'sheen' options too now. Nicely implemented.

:mrgreen:


----------



## synthetic (Jun 26, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> Fair enough but people don't look to Lexis for "realism". They turn to them for a certain sheen that they do very well.



If you look at the algorithms they've written since 1983, they do have more realistic options.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 26, 2012)

synthetic @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough but people don't look to Lexis for "realism". They turn to them for a certain sheen that they do very well.
> ...



But when engineers describe Lexis, surely the words that come up most are "sheen" and "gloss", no?


----------



## John Rodd (Jun 26, 2012)

synthetic @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough but people don't look to Lexis for "realism". They turn to them for a certain sheen that they do very well.
> ...



I myself have used many Lexicon reverbs a ton over the years - including the 480L and the 960L.... and I own the PCM plugins.

I still say that Bricasti M7 does realism much, much better than Lexicon ever has. :wink:


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 26, 2012)

Hi Synthetic,

Yes, I do have a PCM96 Surround. Additionally, I have a Bricasti (only one at the moment, I sold one and now find myself printing some reverb tracks with the remaining unit) and more recently a TC M6000. The basic food groups of reverb. Stopped myself from getting a Quantec a while back. It was more of a dessert wine than a basic food group anyway. 

How would I rate these in terms of both sound and acoustic variability? Like John said...

1. Bricasti
2. M6000
3. PCM96 Surround
(I think if you don't ever consider surround in your future you might want to take a look at Lexicon's new offering of the individual software packages from their PCM96 algorithm set - the PCM plugins - for example they want about $400 for the Random Hall algo. That's the main one people tend to use for orchestral reverb. So in effect, you can get the good Lex sound for relatively cheap.) 

But in overall usability I now prefer the M6000. I love the touch screen remote. It's 4 DSP engines can be used separately or cascaded. I miss that now in the Bricasti. Bricasti has left themselves open to large area of improvement: Multiple engines/Surround. 

Software reverbs: I have to agree with Nick Batzdorf, 

1. VSL's Hybrid Reverb. 

It does so much and can be used for so many different sources. 
Caveat - I don't have TSAR-1 or Valhalla Hall. But I do have a good deal of the other commonly found softwares, Altiverb, Spaces, etc. 

In spatialization software I have both MIR Pro and SPAT. I much prefer MIR - greater variability of sound possibilities. Plus its MIRacle reverb plugin offers a lot more reverb for the money than the SPAT reverb. I don't always like that it's hosted within VE Pro - makes bussing a bit of a creative conundrum at times. SPAT is fortunately a regular plugin architecture. However Dietz recently let the cat out the bag that MIR is indeed coming out with a plugin format. That will most likely be a purchase here. Oh yeah, VSL tech support has been killer since day one. They constantly upgrade and keep the customer in the loop.

Even though I'm blessed with a good supply of kit I don't always go to hardware first. What I like is having tools with wide arrays of options. Sound should be as creative as composition. 
And 'realism'? It's mixing - nothing is real. Real would not be acceptable. 

HTH

.


----------



## Udo (Jun 26, 2012)

Jack Weaver @ Wed Jun 27 said:


> .... In spatialization software I have both MIR Pro and SPAT. I much prefer MIR - much more variability of sound possibilities .... .


Could that be, at least in part, because you're more familiar with MIR? If I remember correctly, when announcing the Spat $599 deal, you mentioned you only got it very recently. Also, could it be that MIR is more intuitive?

I'm certainly no Spat expert, but I had some experience with the old Max Spat version and in the brief period I used it, I was constantly surprised about the things I could achieve with it (I just bought the current version, but wont have much time to really get into it in the short term, unfortunately :( ).

Having said all that, I'm not knocking MIR - how could I, haven't even used it. It sounds good and I'm actually looking forward to the release of the plug-in version.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 26, 2012)

Hi Udo,

I carefully avoided saying one is better than the other. I used the phrase, 'I prefer...'. They are such different tools. MIR is convolution and SPAT is algorithmic. MIR is based upon specific rooms, stages and halls and SPAT is a careful scientific definition of the variability of space/room dimensions and its effect upon sound generation - coupled with some reverb after the spatial processing. 

Having used both quite a bit recently, I personally more enjoy the musicality I can get out of MIR. Despite others' protestations I find the Flux reverb to be mechanically connected to the spatialization front end of SPAT and the resultant sound to be a bit disconnected from the spatialization process. Plus, I can't seem to find a keen appreciation for the sound of the reverb itself. If I'm in a hurry I'll use the SPAT reverb. If I have more time I'll search out a different option. 

If I need a little space around something SPAT works fine, for me. If I want a particular sculpted acoustic tableau for an instrument - say Omnisphere, then MIR is my 'go to'. Unlike SPAT, MIR doesn't have 'reverb' per se. It has hundred of convos of a particular room sound (more rooms and halls can be purchased separately) which can be shortened or of course, be mixed with a wet/dry level. Now they have the optional 2nd mic position it only gives more options for acoustic possibilities. If you still feel the need for reverb then MIRacle is an algorithmic add-on to the MIR signal - somewhat like SPAT does with its reverb. 

They are different tools for different jobs. SPAT works just fine. MIR is more creatively fun. 

Does this help explain my original comments?

.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 27, 2012)

Jack Weaver @ Wed Jun 27 said:


> SPAT works just fine. MIR is more creatively fun.


I'm sorry, Jack, but I'm struggling a bit with that comparison. MIR would have to be one hell of bottomlessly deep package for it to surpass the creative options that SPAT has to offer. 
Here's (a section of) what I wrote a few days ago in a PM to a fellow member:



> But there’s a lot more to SPAT than simply pushing back sounds in a mix of course. For example, I discovered, not too long ago as it happens, that by unlinking stereo sources and treating one side of the stereo signal to a different set of ‘source settings’, and maybe even sending it to a different reverb (you can do all that in a single instance of SPAT), we’re presented with at a sheer endless amount of possibilities for defining position, presence, stereo-width and depth. Techniques that go far beyond mere ‘pushing back’. It really is perplexing, all the things this software is capable of. And I feel I’m still only looking at the tip of the iceberg, even after working with SPAT for as long as I have.
> 
> The most illuminating way to explore SPAT’s powers, in my experience, is by working with a drumkit. A simple drumloop that has a bit of everything in it — top end, low end, dynamics and transients — is enough. This is how I learned how all those cryptic parameters exactly work. To give just one example: the ‘Pitch’-parameter (a parameter which I never even looked at during my first months with SPAT, assuming it didn’t do anything particularly useful for my kind of work) is a great tool to control the very high frequency content of the spatialization: try it with hi-hats (or a tambourine, triangle or glockenspiel or something) and then tweak the ‘Pitch’-parameter: notice the roll-off when changing ‘Pitch’. And it’s not a roll-off created by EQ, it’s a roll-off generated by distance. Remarkable. And that’s just the Pitch-parameter. Discussing all the other parameters would quickly result in a text fifty times as long as this one now is.
> 
> ...


_


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 27, 2012)

Who coulda thought it? People actually disagreeing on VI-Control?

Algorithmic control of specific parameters, as evidenced by your hi-hat example, is a wonderful thing. SPAT is a fine tool. 

I'm glad that both of us have found tools that we enjoy. 

.


----------



## synthetic (Jun 27, 2012)

I never liked the TC sound. To each his own.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 27, 2012)

Synthetic scribed:


> The "Hall" algorithm is apparently an improved version of what's in the 960. To me it sounds very realistic. I use this one with a ~1.5s decay for my scoring stage emulation.
> 
> The "Random Hall" algorithm is the one from the 480L. You can add swirl and spin and all that for a more chorused sound. I use this one for pianos, choir, and anything that wants to sound larger than life, usually with a longer decay than the standard Hall send.
> 
> There is also Chamber, Room, Concert Hall (224 emulation), a really nice Plate, Pitch Shifting, PCM80 Chorus, etc.



Hey Synthetic,

Thanks for the info on these. Pretty interesting how they decided to come with the programs for the PCM96.

.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 27, 2012)

> But there’s a lot more to SPAT than simply pushing back sounds in a mix of course.



Absolutely! But for many composers it is an excellent starting point solving a big problem in a short amount of time. 

That said, your ongoing explorations including sharing how you learn, continue to demonstrate the depth and power of the program. 

Your insights show not only how to use the program, but also the thinking behind it, which in many cases is half the battle of training someone. 

Thank you again for sharing these insights.


----------



## P.T. (Jun 27, 2012)

Most people, including most musicians are half deaf and are incapable of listening.

Well done midi/sample orchestra is not grating on the average persons perceptions.


----------



## synthetic (Jun 27, 2012)

The PCM96 Hall also has WAY more programmability than Bricasti, maybe 10 or 20 times the parameters. 

For me the question was, even if the Bricasti is 5-10% better, wouldn't it be nice to have two machines? As well as all of the other types of effects, ethernet control, Firewire plug-in hosting, surround...


----------



## Daryl (Jun 28, 2012)

synthetic @ Thu Jun 28 said:


> The PCM96 Hall also has WAY more programmability than Bricasti, maybe 10 or 20 times the parameters.
> 
> For me the question was, even if the Bricasti is 5-10% better, wouldn't it be nice to have two machines? As well as all of the other types of effects, ethernet control, Firewire plug-in hosting, surround...


I had both units in the studio for a while, and for the sort of music I use the Lex was great on drums and using the small rooms sounded fantastic, but for everything else I preferred the Bricasti, particularly on Stings. Therefore I bought one Bricasti and got the Lex plugs, and have not needed to look for anything else.

As I have to produce everything in stems these days (grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......) I had to make a choice as to what was the most economical way to go, and between all my reverb plugs I don't miss anything by only using the Bricasti on Strings.

D


----------



## devastat (Dec 9, 2012)

There's currently a massive price drop on the Lexicon reverb bundle. The whole bundle is now $599 (and even cheaper on places like Audiodeluxe and Plugindiscounts).


----------



## Dan Mott (Dec 9, 2012)

I recommend you guys trying the LX480 Complete Beta.


----------



## hotsizzlemusic (Dec 9, 2012)

389 for the bundle...craziness http://plugindiscounts.com/LEXICONBUYNOW

I think I have to pick this up just because...although I wonder if they'll ever be an upgrade to AAX for PT11


----------



## devastat (Dec 9, 2012)

Yeah those prices are crazy, and it really hurts thinking that I bought these full price less than year ago.. :roll:


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 9, 2012)

I think it was the initial price that was crazy.


----------



## devastat (Dec 9, 2012)

Yeah, I agree. 

There is also two new reverbs coming from the developer with his new company http://www.exponentialaudio.com/


----------



## Dan Mott (Dec 9, 2012)

IMO, the sale price is what it should have been close to when it was first released. 

The PCM bundle is definitely not worth 1,500, no Effing way


----------



## devastat (Dec 9, 2012)

Well, if it is the same algorithm than the hardware. :roll:

In any case, it is an amazing reverb.


----------



## Dan Mott (Dec 9, 2012)

devastat @ Mon Dec 10 said:


> Well, if it is the same algorithm than the hardware. :roll:



I just don't think it sounds THAT good.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 9, 2012)

Is it still 64bit non compatible?


----------



## devastat (Dec 9, 2012)

It is 64bit on PC. Not sure about the Mac version.


----------



## Hal (Dec 9, 2012)

somthing to try difinetly,am happy tho with my QL spaces..am i stupid :D


----------



## Cruciform (Dec 9, 2012)

Hal @ Mon Dec 10 said:


> somthing to try difinetly,am happy tho with my QL spaces..am i stupid :D



+1 

I saw these prices on KVR yesterday, thought "Holy crap!" and went looking for demos. To me, all the reverbs I heard were bland and uninspiring. By contrast, Spaces makes me want to go write something.

I also read through this thread yesterday and thought, "Nup, not going to resurrect it in case the bickering takes off again". :mrgreen:


----------



## Diffusor (Dec 9, 2012)

Cruciform @ Mon Dec 10 said:


> Hal @ Mon Dec 10 said:
> 
> 
> > somthing to try difinetly,am happy tho with my QL spaces..am i stupid :D
> ...



Spaces makes me wanna go kill something.


----------



## Hal (Dec 10, 2012)

It was about 350 now its on sale for what 200 am not sure anyway not 1500 $ !! i would buy all the libraries am missing with that !


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 10, 2012)

$200?
Where?


----------



## Ed (Dec 10, 2012)

Hal @ Mon Dec 10 said:


> It was about 350 now its on sale for what 200 am not sure anyway not 1500 $ !! i would buy all the libraries am missing with that !



I think you're talking about a different plugin


----------



## Gerd Kaeding (Dec 10, 2012)

hotsizzlemusic @ Sun Dec 09 said:


> 389 for the bundle...craziness http://plugindiscounts.com/LEXICONBUYNOW



Thanks for sharing this link .

Is PLUGINDISCOUNTS a trustworthy trader ?
I mean , this bundle sells at some 1500.-$ on Lexicons Webstore and maybe a little less on others.

But 389.-$ makes me think if this is real ...


----------



## Ed (Dec 10, 2012)

I call bullshit on this being real  If not this is deal of the century.

From the "about" section:



> You will notice that you have to email us to get pricing for most of the manufacturers that we represent. That is because our selling price is too low to advertise on the internet. Our discounts are up to 40% OFF in some cases, so take advantage of the special pricing and get up and running ASAP!
> 
> Just drop us an email if you don't see a price or need something not listed on the site.
> 
> --Tony Belmont



He seems a bit slim shady.


----------



## mark812 (Dec 10, 2012)

Good deal, but there are better and cheaper options nowadays..


----------



## Cruciform (Dec 10, 2012)

There is a second vendor on KVR with deeply discounted prices too. http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=367598&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 (http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... sc&amp;start=0)


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 10, 2012)

FWIW, I think Tony Belmont is very legit.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 10, 2012)

I am glad I have the Lexicon 224 on my UAD card.


----------



## Ed (Dec 10, 2012)

Can anyone explain how they can legitimately offer such a discounted rate for their plugins and still make a profit?... because thats a ridiculous price for the Lexicon so I'd love to take a look at their other plugins. Also if you can get it this cheap, why on earth would you ever pay full price anywhere else? 

There must be some kind of catch, right?


----------



## Rednas (Dec 10, 2012)

mark812 @ Mon Dec 10 said:


> Good deal, but there are better and cheaper options nowadays..



Like? Cause I'm about to buy the Lexicon bundle.


----------



## mark812 (Dec 10, 2012)

2CAudio B2.


----------



## Ed (Dec 10, 2012)

Lexicon is also very CPU light, thats also something to be considered.

Anyway i really hope regardless of Lexicon someone can confirm that these plugin traders offers really are as good as they sound.


----------



## Theseus (Dec 10, 2012)

To Ed, and others to whom it might be of concern : 

Tony Belmont/Plugindiscounts as well as Audiodeluxe are perfectly legit distributors. How do they get those low prices ? Simple, 2 steps : volume and no MSP advertised. It's like those "private" sales for clothes and others that you see all over the web and that your girlfriend/wife/etc. love. Except that when it comes to plugins, there's no "out of fashion" IMO 

Seriously, I bought pretty much all my audio plugins (and man, do I have a LOT) from both of them. Excellent customer care and service all the way.

Tony Belmont is also one of the moderators of Gearslutz. If the guy didn't deliver, there would be LOT of bad mouthing about him all over the place. And Audiodeluxe is on eBay as well : read the ridiculously positive comments (99,9% positive I recall).

This deal about Lexicon would have had me jump the gun IF Michael Carnes (the principal engineer of Lexicon till no) didn't just create his own audio company Exponential Audio (already mentionned by Devastat) and announced two reverb plugins for january, one adressing the neutral needs and the other the "vibes" need of reverb afficionados. Now, I'm just waiting for those...


----------



## Gerd Kaeding (Dec 10, 2012)

Ed @ Mon Dec 10 said:


> Lexicon is also very CPU light, thats also something to be considered.
> .



Exactly !
I have just two Lexicon PCM Reverbs , but they are ridiculous low on CPU ( _on Mac_ ).
64bit. Work flawless inside VEPRO + Logic.
And you can tweak all parameters easily and effectively if you want it.


----------



## Gerd Kaeding (Dec 10, 2012)

Theseus @ Mon Dec 10 said:


> To Ed, and other to whom it might be of concern :
> 
> Tony Belmont/Plugindiscounts as well as Audiodeluxe are perfectly legit distributors. How do they get those low prices ? Simple, 2 steps : volume and no MSP advertised. It's like those "private" sales for clothes and others that you see all over the web and that your girlfriend/wife/etc. love. Except that when it comes to plugins, there's no "out of fashion" IMO
> 
> ...



Thanks for this info !
Much appreciated


----------



## Ed (Dec 10, 2012)

Thats good to know!! Never buying plugins from anywhere else then! :D WOW


----------



## devastat (Dec 10, 2012)

Theseus @ Mon Dec 10 said:


> This deal about Lexicon would have had me jump the gun IF Michael Carnes (the principal engineer of Lexicon till no) didn't just create his own audio company Exponential Audio



And this is most likely the exact reason why Lexicon has suddenly lowered the price of the reverb bundle so substantially.

I love Ql Spaces, B2 and Lexicon all of them are excellent in their own right. I think B2 can come very close to the sound of Lexicon at times. The amazing thing in Lexicon like others mentioned, (besides that sound) it doens't matter how many instances of the reverb you use in a project it never seems to hit CPU much, it is VERY efficient. I find B2 quite demanding on the CPU.

Now if Bricasti would release their reverb in a plugin form one day. Probably won't happen for a while


----------



## ceemusic (Dec 10, 2012)

Tony is legit & one of the best plugin dealers around.
P.S. you can use PayPal too.

_@Theseus_
Same here, looking forward to these
http://www.exponentialaudio.com/PhoenixVerb.html


----------



## Jack Weaver (Dec 10, 2012)

Reverb is a very picky thing to deal with. It's not always the most expensive or famous that can get you the best results. Having a few is a good idea - your need for reverb might well be predicated on differing production requirements. 

I don't have the Lex PCM software package but I do have the hardware - and to the best of my investigation they are quite similar. For orchestral I like the Random Hall-type settings for pushing WW's and Perc into the background. (Of course the recent baked-in ambience libraries obviate the need for this - in the main. Sometimes their Close Mic positions can be effective with reverb.) I like the short rooms for all sorts of Pop production.

Given that Michael Carnes has moved on to his own company, Exponential Audio - I definitely will be looking forward to seeing what he comes up with. 

But yeah, $389 for the Lex reverb package is both reasonable and competitive. 

B2 is killer but so far I haven't used it in the places I would use the LEX. However... I have heard that their short rooms are good but have't tried them out yet. If I didn't have a good software algorithmic reverb today, I would still start with B2.

Oh yeah, and I would hold my breath and wait for Eventide to run another sale on H3000 Factory. 

B2 and H3000 Factory would get you miles ahead of what you get with any DAW. 

.


----------



## synthetic (Dec 10, 2012)

I like the Lexicon "Random Hall" program for pianos and choir and the "Hall" algorithm for more realistic scoring stage ambience. I have the RHall set a bit longer and swirlier.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 10, 2012)

I think it is worth it to experiment with only one reverb plug what someone has in his battery. Especially with the parameters *pre-delay, wet-dry, diffusion, er-tail, e.t.c. .*

Using a reverb is sometimes very tricky. Mostly you need different settings for different tempi, for example. An inserted eq and chorus also can make wonders. It is no secret that many reverbs, especially the Lexicons, have a long reverb time in the low frequencies range. But this is not always a good setting. Experiment, spend some days or weeks to learn to know how you can control your reverb plugin to get the results you are after. And don't forget to experiment with delays too. 

Ah yes, the Lexicons sound great to my ears.


----------



## Hal (Dec 10, 2012)

Patrick de Caumette @ Mon Dec 10 said:


> $200?
> Where?



http://www.soundsonline.com/Spaces

here  150 even

i dont think it should be missed !


----------



## kgdrum (Dec 10, 2012)

A few questions:

Has anyone seen confirmation that the new prices on the Lexicon plugs are lowered prices and not Holiday sale prices?
I'd rather not buy now if I know Lexicon has lowered the msrp and purchase at a later date after I recover from all of the Holiday sales.
If I go for it now I'd probably go for the LXP package.
I wonder if this bundle has enough variety and edibility to make this a good choice.
Does anyone here that has these Lexicon plugs also have UAD's 224(which I intend to get at a later date) or Vahalla Room which I already have and love.
I keep hearing that UA's 224 is the best of these so I'm curious how the Lexicon soft reverbs compare.
I know it's very subjective but I'm curious about actual user comments.
I'm also curious how resource demanding the Lexicon plugs are in general compared to Vahalla Room?

Thanks.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 10, 2012)

kgdrum @ Mon Dec 10 said:


> A few questions:
> 
> Has anyone seen confirmation that the new prices on the Lexicon plugs are lowered prices and not Holiday sale prices?
> I'd rather not buy now if I know Lexicon has lowered the msrp and purchase at a later date after I recover from all of the Holiday sales.
> ...



Well IMHO, the hardware 224 sounded better, or at least more the "classic" Lexi sound, than the PCM series. So I suspect that with faithful recreations, that still holds true,


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 10, 2012)

The UAD Lex 224 is fantastic, but i wouldn't use it as my go-to orchestral reverb...


----------



## Jack Weaver (Dec 10, 2012)

You guys might want to check out this thread on GS regarding Exponential Audio - since Michael Carnes wrote every program in the Lexicon bundle:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-prod ... ugins.html

Towards the end of the thread he explains the difference in his 2 new, upcoming plugins. 

The Lex bundle may or not be EOL but they are End of an Era. 

.


----------



## kgdrum (Dec 10, 2012)

Thanks Jack,great info,this explains the reason for the prices being lowered by Lexicon.
Good Stuff,now I'm going to wait......


----------



## clonewar (Dec 10, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Mon Dec 10 said:


> I am glad I have the Lexicon 224 on my UAD card.



It's too bad UA won't officially be supporting Logic (or any other DAW's besides PT and Cubase) anymore.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 10, 2012)

clonewar @ Mon Dec 10 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Mon Dec 10 said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad I have the Lexicon 224 on my UAD card.
> ...



You are misunderstanding what they meant in that quote. They do indeed support Logic.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 10, 2012)

Patrick de Caumette @ Mon Dec 10 said:


> The UAD Lex 224 is fantastic, but i wouldn't use it as my go-to orchestral reverb...



Agreed, but I wouldn't use any Lexi primarily for that. I use it on rhythm section and vocals.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Dec 11, 2012)

Uhhh.... the Lexicon 480L and 960L have been used on orchestral recordings and films for years and years. 

The PCM96 is in many ways the successor to these and includes many of their algorithms. The Lex software uses the exact same algos according to the guy who was in the main responsible for these 4 products. 

Many people on this forum use the PCM96 and Lex software for orchestral sample production. 

.


----------



## jamwerks (Dec 11, 2012)

Jack Weaver @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> Uhhh.... the Lexicon 480L and 960L have been used on orchestral recordings and films for years and years..



It's one thing to use it on real orchestral recordings that already have lots of early and late delays, and another for samples...

Jack, have you gotten rid of your M7? I'm wondering if Bricasti's are even needed any more when using the Spitfire, CS, EW stuff?


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 11, 2012)

Agrred about the 480, but the 224 is a different animal...

I just went for the reverb bundle.
Hard to resist that price point!
And it's definitely worth it!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 11, 2012)

Jack Weaver @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> Uhhh.... the Lexicon 480L and 960L have been used on orchestral recordings and films for years and years.
> 
> The PCM96 is in many ways the successor to these and includes many of their algorithms. The Lex software uses the exact same algos according to the guy who was in the main responsible for these 4 products.
> 
> ...



Oops, my bad. yes indeed the 480L is quite good for that and I used to rent one for that purpose.. That said, I have yet to hear anything on the PCM series that sounds quite like it.I don't know what is different, but I have listened to the the 480 L and PCM70 side by side, and there is a distinct difference to my ears.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 11, 2012)

Well, the PCM70 is also quite different from a PCM90, 91 ...etc...
Not in the same league


----------



## Daryl (Dec 11, 2012)

Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> Well, the PCM70 is also quite different from a PCM90, 91 ...etc...
> Not in the same league


I agree. I gave my PCM70 away when I didn't need a doorstop any more. :lol: 

D


----------



## Dietz (Dec 11, 2012)

Daryl @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> I gave my PCM70 away when I didn't need a doorstop any more. :lol:
> 
> D


I hope you sold it for good money - PCM-70s are still sought-after in the pop/rock realm (just ask Andy Wallace  ...).


----------



## Saxer (Dec 11, 2012)

is the pcm lexicon stuff 64 bit (au on mac) meanwhile? can't find anything on the website...


----------



## Daryl (Dec 11, 2012)

Dietz @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Dec 11 said:
> 
> 
> > I gave my PCM70 away when I didn't need a doorstop any more. :lol:
> ...


Nah, I gave it away to a friend.

D


----------



## Ed (Dec 11, 2012)

I dont know how anyone puts up with hardware reverbs, isnt it a PITA to have to set it up each time? Horrible


----------



## kgdrum (Dec 11, 2012)

All of the compatibility info on the Lexicon site mentions, 10.6,Snow Leopard which is what I'm using,10.68
Do these Lexicon bundles work in Mountain Lion 10.8 in case I update my OS at some point?
I can't afford or justify the PCM bundle at this time,does anyone think I'd be making a bad choice going with the LPX bundle? It's only $130, how much of a limitation would this bundle pose in general?
Thanks,
KG


----------



## synthetic (Dec 11, 2012)

Lexicon 224 is Leslie Ann Jones' favorite scoring reverb. She told me it's the one that sounds the most like Skywalker Scoring Stage.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 11, 2012)

synthetic @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> Lexicon 224 is Leslie Ann Jones' favorite scoring reverb. She told me it's the one that sounds the most like Skywalker Scoring Stage.



Really? Interesting, Jeff, I have never thought of using it that way. I will have to try it.


----------



## germancomponist (Dec 11, 2012)

Ed @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> I dont know how anyone puts up with hardware reverbs, isnt it a PITA to have to set it up each time? Horrible



Hardware invites you more often to experiment and it is a nice feeling fiddling on the knobs... .


----------



## Jack Weaver (Dec 11, 2012)

per jamwerks


> Jack, have you gotten rid of your M7? I'm wondering if Bricasti's are even needed any more when using the Spitfire, CS, EW stuff?


Well, actually it's gotten a bit more crowded here. Got a second M7, TC M6000 and and most recently an Eventide H8000fw to add to the PCM96 Surround. Needed? Hmmm.... having a choices is a good thing, especially if you (1) don't want to be subservient to the room 'swim' you might get with the various baked-in reverb libraries. Using their closest mic option to best approximate the overall ambient field you're going for on any production and then applying the appropriate reverberance to it. (2) want to apply a more Pop style production quality to orchestral pieces. 

My first 'go-to' device tends to still be MIR. If I just want spatialization without color personally I tend to use SPAT without their reverb. I never use their reverb. Pretty tired of using SPAT in 32-bit Bridge mode. Not overly impressed with the company to date. Considering a second license for MIR to put on my main machine. 

Mr. Ed opined:


> I dont know how anyone puts up with hardware reverbs, isnt it a PITA to have to set it up each time? Horrible


That's a fair comment. If I could do it with a $59 plugin I'll go there first. I _LOVE_ VSL Hybrid and B2. However, both of them tend to pileup on Core 8 of my Mac inside of Logic. That's an even bigger PITA for me. Perhaps when B2 becomes 64-bit for Mac it might work better for me. 

I look forward to the 2 new Exponential Audio plugs. 

Mr. Jay Asher lamented:


> Oops, my bad. yes indeed the 480L is quite good for that and I used to rent one for that purpose.. That said, I have yet to hear anything on the PCM series that sounds quite like it.I don't know what is different, but I have listened to the the 480 L and PCM70 side by side, and there is a distinct difference to my ears.


Well, if you want to know what the PCM96 sounds like perhaps you could ask Synthetic nicely if you could come over and get a run-through on his Surround unit. :D 

Heck, you could bring your UAD dongle over and do a real comparison to share with us - at least anecdotally. 

.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 11, 2012)

Ed @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> I dont know how anyone puts up with hardware reverbs, isnt it a PITA to have to set it up each time? Horrible


Yeah, it's true. I have to turn it on.

However, it's much quicker that playing the Violin. That is a real PITA. Not only do I have to open the case, take it out, attach a shoulder rest and tighten the bow, but I have to tune it every time, and not only that, but I have to tune it multiple times during a session. Now that's a real waste of time. o/~ 

D


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 11, 2012)

Daryl @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Dec 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the PCM70 is also quite different from a PCM90, 91 ...etc...
> ...



Sucks for you. A few months ago, I sold my PCM-70 for $480.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 11, 2012)

Daryl @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> Ed @ Tue Dec 11 said:
> 
> 
> > I dont know how anyone puts up with hardware reverbs, isnt it a PITA to have to set it up each time? Horrible
> ...



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

This may be the funniest thing I have read here in over a year, Daryl. Thank you, I needed he laugh.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 11, 2012)

RiffWraith @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Dec 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Patrick de Caumette @ Tue Dec 11 said:
> ...


Not worth getting out of bed for that. :mrgreen: 


D


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 11, 2012)

Daryl @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> RiffWraith @ Tue Dec 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Wed Dec 12 said:
> ...



Maybe not - but it was worth the $480 to take a trip down ot the PO and mail it!


----------



## kgdrum (Dec 11, 2012)

@ Jack Weaver,thanks for the heads up about Exponential Audio & the thread over at GS,it's really fascinating! 
P.S. again thanks for the great deal on the MacPro I bought from you last year!
I still love it 

I spoke on the phone with a great tech support rep @ Lexicon earlier today


He confirmed these are permanent price reductions & 10.8 compatibility.

Funny enough when I tried to ask delicately if Michael Carnes new company was a reason for the price reduction,he didn't know about Mr.Carnes new venture but he got so excited,talking about this Guru of Reverbs! 
He mentioned emphatically a few times he needed to contact Michael who he referred to as a genius repeatedly,so he could get NFR copies of his new products.
I mentioned I was thinking about getting something like the LPX or PCM bundle and add Exponentials new R2 at some point and he emphatically stated the R2 sounded like it would be similar to the PCM and a possible game changer!
He sounded more stoked about this new product line than me! lol
I'm thinking I might get the LPX now and the R2 later........


----------



## synthetic (Dec 11, 2012)

Ed said:


> I dont know how anyone puts up with hardware reverbs, isnt it a PITA to have to set it up each time? Horrible



No, I have them already set up in my template project (Logic or Cubase). 



Jack Weaver said:


> Got a second M7, TC M6000 and and most recently an Eventide H8000fw to add to the PCM96 Surround.



Niiiiiiicccceeee.


----------



## kitekrazy (Dec 11, 2012)

Daryl @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> Ed @ Tue Dec 11 said:
> 
> 
> > I dont know how anyone puts up with hardware reverbs, isnt it a PITA to have to set it up each time? Horrible
> ...



I'm pretty bad at violin so I take it out, bow it a few times and put it back. I don't want to get arrested.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 11, 2012)

kitekrazy @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> Daryl @ Tue Dec 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Tue Dec 11 said:
> ...



I am such a bad violinist that I was encouraged to switch to viola in my senior year in high school-I did so, and promptly won the "most improved musician" award. True story.


----------



## kgdrum (Dec 11, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Tue 11 Dec said:


> kitekrazy @ Tue Dec 11 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Tue Dec 11 said:
> ...




True story or is this a viola joke?

I'm really asking ?


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Dec 11, 2012)

synthetic @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> Lexicon 224 is Leslie Ann Jones' favorite scoring reverb. She told me it's the one that sounds the most like Skywalker Scoring Stage.



cool!


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 11, 2012)

kgdrum @ Tue Dec 11 said:


> NYC Composer @ Tue 11 Dec said:
> 
> 
> > kitekrazy @ Tue Dec 11 said:
> ...



True story. It was a little gold colored medal with a blue ribbon. Only award I won in high school. I must have laughed for three days after


----------



## Daryl (Dec 11, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> I am such a bad violinist that I was encouraged to switch to viola in my senior year in high school-I did so, and promptly won the "most improved musician" award. True story.


There are so many idiosyncrasies with Viola playing (and Double Bass, for that matter) that many players can't agree amongst themselves what is good or bad. I've even heard excellent Viola players being dissed for "making it sound too much like a Violin". It turned out that they were talking about the ability to do vibrato properly. :roll: 

D


----------



## bryla (Dec 11, 2012)

regarding Lexicon: plugindiscounts.com sells the PCM bundle for 389$


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 12, 2012)

Daryl @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> NYC Composer @ Wed Dec 12 said:
> 
> 
> > I am such a bad violinist that I was encouraged to switch to viola in my senior year in high school-I did so, and promptly won the "most improved musician" award. True story.
> ...



Egalitarian that I am, I'm sure my vibrato was equally bad on violin and viola- however, I believe my conductor appreciated the less screeching quality of my sawing away in the lower register :wink: 

(otoh, he asked me to switch cause nobody wanted to play viola, hence, probably, my award!)


----------



## Audun Jemtland (Dec 12, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> Daryl @ Wed Dec 12 said:
> 
> 
> > NYC Composer @ Wed Dec 12 said:
> ...


Haha, he just wanted you to keep playing that and gave you a carrot for good behaviour ;D


For those who are waiting for the exponential audio reverb. What do you sense is their vision and sound? Is Michael Cairns some sort of "THE guy from lexicon"? That has alot of expertise etc.


----------



## Dan Stearn (Dec 17, 2012)

For those who have tried the lexicon, how does it compare to IR based reverbs? Are you generally using concert hall settings or something else? I'm torn between getting this, MIR and Spaces at the moment, quality being the main decision factor.


----------



## renegade (Dec 18, 2012)

This might be worth checking out:

http://forum.relab.dk/showthread.php?421-Release-of-LX480-Complete-VST-AU

Looks very interesting. The lite version sounded great, but I never used it that much because of 32 bit.


----------



## shakuman (Dec 19, 2012)

bryla @ Wed Dec 12 said:


> regarding Lexicon: plugindiscounts.com sells the PCM bundle for 389$



No brainer price! >8o


----------



## Dan Mott (Dec 19, 2012)

Relab LX480L has been released. Lower price and it sounds better than the PCM Bundle IMO.


----------



## shakuman (Dec 20, 2012)

Dan-Jay @ Thu Dec 20 said:


> Relab LX480L has been released. Lower price and it sounds better than the PCM Bundle IMO.



LX480 Complete has been released and the introductory price is 399$! while Lexicon PCM complete for 389$..I am puzzled! :roll:
http://forum.relab.dk/showthread.php?421-Release-of-LX480-Complete-VST-AU (http://forum.relab.dk/showthread.php?42 ... ete-VST-AU)


----------



## zvenx (Dec 21, 2012)

the LX480 was supposed to be at a higher price. actually this I think is just an intro price.
so Dan-Jay is not saying the Relab is cheaper than the PCM, but it is cheaper than what it was expected to be.
rsp


----------



## synthetic (Dec 21, 2012)

Check out the new Valhalla Vintage Verb as well. I've been using it for a week and it's really cool for that Lexicon sound. 

http://www.valhalladsp.com/valhallavintageverb


----------



## Jack Weaver (Dec 21, 2012)

OK... trying out both Relab and Valhalla Vintage and A/B-ing them. Here are some quick impressions of an hour with both. I'm sure a few months of doing real work with them could change my initial impressions. 

Two different animals - both in vintage Lexicon styles. 

The Relab is just what it says it is - a recreation of the 480L (minus some of the effects). Having the LARC remote simulation is very handy to get to all the parameters one would expect with a Lex. Overall it sounds a bit rounder and smoother than the Valhalla - and I don't think it's just the EQ. You can get a wider range of sounds with the presets as currently offered by Relab. I think it sounds very much like a real 480 - but I don't have one in-house to really access that. 

The Valhalla seems like it stands out more in the mix. Maybe you would want that and maybe you wouldn't. It's generally brighter. It really handles drums well, including kick. So far I've been able to get creative with it quite quickly. I didn't see a great number of presets on it. It might have been nice to get some well thought-out presets on which to do further experimentation. 

I'm sure I'll have more thoughts as I get to play more with them. Haven't had the opportunity to see how they sound next to my other reverbs. Would like to find the time to try them with Orchestral samples, vocals, keys and gtrs. 

Back to work now. 

.


----------



## kitekrazy (Dec 21, 2012)

Read this on the Ableton Forum.


_Hello World!
I bought Lexicon PCM Native Reverb Plug-in Bundle in february 2010, I paid 1199 € for it.
I was very surprised by what I read on their website a few days ago since they decided to dramatically decrease the price of their products. See by yourself: http://lexiconpro.com/en-US
Is it a joke? If it is, it doesn't make me laugh at all!
I sent a email to Lexicon's support yesterday in order to express my discontent, here is a copy of it:

Hello,
I am a Lexicon Pro customer, I bought your very good software "PCM Native Reverb Plug-in Bundle" in february 2010 and I am happy with it (please see a copy of my invoice from the french shop Music Audio Shop.fr).
I've seen this morning on your website lexiconpro.com that the prices of your plugins have dramatically decrease! PCM Native Reverb is now sold at the price of 524€ at Thomann.de and it was 1222 € before!
I must say that I am very surprised and very frustrated since I have the impression I have been stollen when I bought my Lexicon at that price! :-(
Today, if I want to resell it, it won't be a good deal for me because it will be a lot cheaper to buy it on the webmarket.
That is the reason why I would like you to offer me your complementary product "PCM Native Effect Plug-in Bundle", in order to compensate my investment.
All the best.
Guillaume DUPONT

And here is their answer...

Guillaume,
We appreciate your support of Lexicon Pro products!
The nature of hardware and software products, both, are that they are subject to change.
Sometimes the specifications are changed, features added or removed.
This happens from time to time.
Prices change as well. Sometimes they are increased and sometimes they are lowered.
Recently, Lexicon made the decision to lower the prices of their software reverb plug-ins.
This decision reflects a current marketplace that demands to have software priced at a more competitive level and to reflect the current pricing structure of the market.
Several plug-in manufacturers have recently done the same.
Price protection for customers and dealers has been limited to a maximum of 90 days before the price change.
This is a standard return/exchange type time frame.
Unfortunately, for this reason, we are not able to provide you with compensation.
We do, however, sincerely thank you for your patronage and hope you enjoy your Lexicon PCM Native Reverbs.
In my personal opinion, they are well worth the investment that you have made.
Regards,
Trevor Andersen
Lexicon Support_


----------



## TomMartin (Dec 21, 2012)

kitekrazy @ Fri Dec 21 said:


> Read this on the Ableton Forum.
> 
> 
> _Hello World!
> ...




I see no problem with this...


----------



## RiffWraith (Dec 21, 2012)

Wait a moment - this guy bought the sw bundle almost *3 years ago*, and wants to be compensated with a free product because of the recent price drop? Is that a joke? Or is he that naive to think that Lexicon is going to give him (and then everyone else) a freebie? 

I bought a TV last year for $999 - I just saw that same model retailing for $599. Do I go back to the manufacturer and ask for a freebie?


----------



## kitekrazy (Dec 22, 2012)

TomMartin @ Fri Dec 21 said:


> I see no problem with this...



Shame on you.


----------

