# Out now: Altiverb 7.2 for Windows !



## Gerd Kaeding (Apr 10, 2014)

Finally Audioease released a Windows version for Altiverb 7 ( ... version 7.2 ).


http://www.audioease.com/index.php


The full installer that includes the IR's has a size of some 4.4 GB .
Altiverb7 needs an iLok2 key.


Best

Gerd


----------



## mathis (Apr 10, 2014)

unbelievable! How long did we wait... ?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Apr 10, 2014)

mathis @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> unbelievable! How long did we wait... ?



Still waiting for SpeakerPhone 2...


----------



## Daryl (Apr 10, 2014)

Too little too late. I've moved on. I don't trust Audioease any more.

D


----------



## devastat (Apr 10, 2014)

Been using the beta for weeks. Its rock solid and very CPU efficient. I think Audio Ease did a great job in the end, even tho it took very long.


----------



## G.E. (Apr 12, 2014)

Is it even worth it anymore now that we have MIR ? As Daryl so perfectly said it: Too little,too late. :D


----------



## Notes (Apr 12, 2014)

G.E. @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> Is it even worth it anymore now that we have MIR ?



Well , different IR's , different approach , workflow , etc. ... . I think like with all Reverbs it is a matter of taste and preferred workflow. 

( If you have/record a ViennaInstruments-Samples-only-setup choosing MIR over Altiverb might be the better decision. )

I've used Altiverb for quite a long time ( alongside with other Reverbs , of course ) and have stored so many user presets that I don't want to miss this excellent tool.


----------



## jamwerks (Apr 12, 2014)

A little too late, and a little too expensive.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 12, 2014)

Some of you will say, "of course, Jay works for EW so he says this" but I swear to you by all that is holy, once I swapped out my Altiverb instances for QL Spaces, my mixes got less muddy.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Apr 12, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu Apr 10 said:


> Too little too late. I've moved on. I don't trust Audioease any more.
> 
> D



+1


----------



## Hannes_F (Apr 12, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> Some of you will say, "of course, Jay works for EW so he says this" but I swear to you by all that is holy, once I swapped out my Altiverb instances for QL Spaces, my mixes got less muddy.



I don't work for EW but QL Spaces has extraordinarily clean IRs . . . true and much appreciated. It comes with the price of much being much less editable than Altiverb but once one has found an IR that fits to the desired style it is very very good.

That being said ... we could chime into any thread about a specific reverb with remarks about a different one, and the same with EQs, dynamics, libraries . . .

Regarding Altiverb I think I'll wait for a sale for the upgrade in case there is any, and if that does not come I will use the 32 bit version once in a while. It simply took too long in order to still feel reliable.


----------



## rayinstirling (Apr 12, 2014)

I'm disappointed to report, having reloaded Altiverb 6.3 and jBridged to Cubase 7.5 x64
Todd sounds better than I've been remembering it.
Damn these AudioEase folks.


----------



## Hannes_F (Apr 12, 2014)

Yes, damn . . . just tried the trusty old halls again. Where it's good there it's good. :mrgreen:


----------



## Daryl (Apr 12, 2014)

rayinstirling @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> I'm disappointed to report, having reloaded Altiverb 6.3 and jBridged to Cubase 7.5 x64
> Todd sounds better than I've been remembering it.
> Damn these AudioEase folks.


Just re-sample the Altverb IRs then, and use them in another product. :wink: 

D


----------



## The Darris (Apr 12, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> Some of you will say, "of course, Jay works for EW so he says this" but I swear to you by all that is holy, once I swapped out my Altiverb instances for QL Spaces, my mixes got less muddy.



+1.


----------



## rayinstirling (Apr 13, 2014)

Daryl @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> rayinstirling @ Sat Apr 12 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm disappointed to report, having reloaded Altiverb 6.3 and jBridged to Cubase 7.5 x64
> ...


Actually, I don't think I need to do anything now, including not upgrading to 7.
The last time I tried using 6.3 bridged to x64 it was hopelessly unstable but that was going back to earlier hardware e.g. previous motherboard, processor, ram, and pre RME audio interface. Now it seems to work just dandy.


----------



## Ron Snijders (Apr 13, 2014)

A while ago, I actually was interested in Altiverb, but any company that makes people wait for an update for 2.5 years goes straight to my little list of 'companies not to buy software from'.
But, great news for those who do want to use it


----------



## re-peat (Apr 13, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Apr 12 said:


> Some of you will say, "of course, Jay works for EW so he says this" but I swear to you by all that is holy, once I swapped out my Altiverb instances for QL Spaces, my mixes got less muddy.


Jay, I don’t distrust your opinions because you’re on the EastWest payroll, I distrust them because they’re yours. You know that, don’t you?
Just saying, if you end with muddy mixes using Altiverb, you have either fed Altiverb muddy material to begin with, or you’ve chosen the wrong IR, or you’ve never learned how to use Altiverb to the best of its abilities. Simple, really.

Anyway. Not important.

It is true, among the vast collection of IR’s for Altiverb, there are a number of fairly mediocre ones, even poor ones, but those which are good — and their number is significantly larger than that of the unsatisfactory ones —, are very, very good indeed. 

It is obviously a great shame, and perhaps proof of somewhat questionnable support and service, that AudioEase took so long in catering for their Windows-userbase, and it’s perfectly understandable that many of those users have started looking elsewhere, and with entirely satisfying results, certainly, but from there to now suggest, imply or spread the word that Altiverb is in any way lacking or inferior, is just silly and stupid. Altiverb is a phenomenally good, amazingly versatile, top-of-the-line convolution reverb. (Not just for musical purposes, but also for post-production, a field where, I believe, it still reigns unchallenged.)

Certainly not trying to convince anyone to go with Altiverb or anything — in my view, there is absolutely no need for it in order to do decent mock-ups (just as there is no real need for the equally fantastic QL Spaces or the mighty MIR or whatever) —, I simply felt that an opinion less convoluted by disappointment, incompetence or ignorant disdain, was not entirely out of place in this thread.

Altiverb, in short, is very good software. If you have it, you have an excellent and very powerful tool.

_


----------



## rayinstirling (Apr 13, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> Altiverb, in short, is very good software. If you have it, you have an excellent and very powerful tool.
> 
> _



Piet,
Thanks for confirming my immediate conclusion on my present trial.
Apart from 64bit is there any other reason to upgrade or is that reason enough?

Ray


----------



## Gerd Kaeding (Apr 13, 2014)

Please don't forget that Audioease also releases new IR's every now and then !! ( For free .)

So its pool of IR's is constantly growing. Some of them quite extraordinary ones from real spaces/places , nowhere else to find .
Even if 90% of the IR's would be useless ( - _which they are not_ - ) the user will find a good amount of high quality IR's in the library that justify the price.

Also , Audioease seems to be a small company , sometimes it appears to me that there is Aram and one or two other programmers. (Maybe I'm completely wrong here . )

Of course with a small team everything takes much longer. For some users , who are frequently upgrading their OS / DAW / etc. to new versions this might be a problem,
because this particular developer needs much more time to keep up with that speed.

Nevertheless , I think Altiverb with its IR's still is an outstanding tool for both musicproduction as well as Postproduction.


----------



## re-peat (Apr 13, 2014)

rayinstirling @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> (...) Apart from 64bit is there any other reason to upgrade (...)


Altiverb 7 is, in every respect, a very nice step upwards, Ray. Much easier and faster to work with than before I find, offering even more tweakability than it already did and adding a few new features that really do make musical sense. (And I am still running a 32-bit DAW here, so the 64-bit compatibility was never even a tempter for me.)

But again, you’ll never hear me say that it is a must-have. Altiverb is just very, very good at what it’s supposed to do, 7 even more so than 6. Not much else to say really. If you have 6 and are pleased with what it contributes to your tracks, and if the upgrade price doesn’t seem too unreasonable — which, I imagine, might be something not everyone will agree on — moving on to 7 makes complete sense.

And like Gerd says, the already very impressive IR-collection just keeps growing and growing, month after month after month. (You can even make suggestions of your own, if you like. Some time ago I submitted a suggestion for IR’s of a circus-tent — something thusfar not available with any convolution reverb, as far as I know — and they responded very enthusiastically.) 

_


----------



## rayinstirling (Apr 13, 2014)

Thanks Piet,
Not being vat registered, the 21% markup is annoying but hey! It's only money.
From recollection, one of my favourites was the Mechanics Hall. I must check it out again.
Cheers
Ray


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 13, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Sat Apr 12 said:
> 
> 
> > Some of you will say, "of course, Jay works for EW so he says this" but I swear to you by all that is holy, once I swapped out my Altiverb instances for QL Spaces, my mixes got less muddy.
> ...



I do indeed know that and while I must concede that it is theoretically at least _possible_ that there is something that could matter less to me, I can't for the life of me imagine what it could be, :lol:


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Apr 13, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun Apr 13 said:


> It is true, among the vast collection of IR’s for Altiverb, there are a number of fairly mediocre ones, even poor ones, but those which are good — and their number is significantly larger than that of the unsatisfactory ones —, are very, very good indeed.



Hi Piet,

Would you mind providing an example of what you would consider a good (or very good) Altiverb IR?

I am also be interested in an example of a poor quality one.

I would like to A/B both as an ear-training exercise to try and hear the differences.

Thank you in advance,
Marc

PS - This is for orchestral music

PPS - I know this is a bit off-topic. If this comment starts to get traction, I will spin up a new thread... I promise :-D


----------



## Scrianinoff (Apr 14, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun 13 Apr said:


> [...]Just saying, if you end with muddy mixes using Altiverb, you have either fed Altiverb muddy material to begin with, or you’ve chosen the wrong IR, or you’ve never learned how to use Altiverb to the best of its abilities. Simple, really.
> 
> Anyway. Not important.
> 
> ...


At last, a voice of reason. Thanks Piet. I'm glad you're here.


----------



## Scrianinoff (Apr 14, 2014)

marclawsonmusic @ Sun 13 Apr said:


> Would you mind providing an example of what you would consider a good (or very good) Altiverb IR?


I am not Piet, but I consider the Concertgebouw IR and Todd-AO to be two of the best IRs in Altiverb 6. 

The Concertgebouw IR set contains IRs at three different distances. It actually contains 6 IRs, 3 recorded using cardiod microphones, and 3 using omnis. (And they're all full stereo, that is, a stereo out for left in, and a stereo out for right in, so technically that's 2x2x6=24 IRs).

If you bus them in a surround setup it is as if you're there. And I know, because I went to concerts hundreds of times in the real Concertgebouw. Sometimes I only use the ERs, buy shortening the reverb time.

As a side note: On the Mac Altiverb has a tool to (re-)sample your own IRs. That's how some people found a practical solution to shorten also IRs of other Reverbs that cannot be tuned by the software provided. Some people find that the splendid SoCal Hall of QL Spaces can be a bit long for some purposes. This is how I heard they solve that.

Furthermore, QL Spaces has very bright IRs. I learned that if you give other IRs a bit more high using EQ, you gain much of the same effect. Even further, some of the QL Spaces IRs were recorded by 'ceiling firing' speaker setups, which means you get a lot less prominent ERs. Both the less prominent ERs and the more prominent high frequencies give some people less muddy mixes that they are not able to correct using other IRs, for which the IRs than get the blame assigned.


----------



## ThomasL (Apr 14, 2014)

Just wanted to chime in and say that I've been using Altiverb 7 since the first day it appeared for Mac and have used it every day since.

Good IRs? Samplicity is second to none. Buy them.

Also, the Great Pyramid of Giza IR is really nice, there is something special about it...


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Apr 14, 2014)

Scrianinoff @ Mon Apr 14 said:


> marclawsonmusic @ Sun 13 Apr said:
> 
> 
> > Would you mind providing an example of what you would consider a good (or very good) Altiverb IR?
> ...



Fair enough, but with well recorded libraries feeding the right IRs, there is very little EQ needing to be done. I used Altiverb for years and was always having to compensate for the muddiness e.g. 6 instances would add. It is not that I cannot, it is that I would prefer not to have to. I di the whole "2 instances, one for ERs one for tails" dance etc. and IMHO too much work for too little sonic reward. Now I use Spaces for each section and a little UAD Plate 140 for overall and my composer friends at first asked me, "Wow, that sounds great, what hardware are you using for reverb?"

But hey ,we like what we like, right?


----------

