# High quality reverb plugin - suggestions?



## tmm

I've only started looking into this. For the longest time, since I was only recording live rock-oriented bands (drums / guitar / bass), I never got into plugins, and all the reverbs I used were hardware.

Now that I'm working with almost entirely virtual instruments, I'd prefer to keep as much in the virtual realm as possible (for portability / space / ease reasons), and I'm finding myself at a loss as to what to even look for in a plugin reverb (features, specs, etc).

Any suggestions for a really good, really high quality reverb? Algorithmic or convolution, whichever you happen to like better. #1 use will be to create 'realistic' spaces for sampled real instruments (orchestral mostly), though I wouldn't mind if whatever you suggest was also capable of the occasional crazy effects.

I currently have Valhalla Room and Audio Damage EOS. Both sound pretty good, but there's something I don't like about the way either of them handles higher frequencies, so I tend to just roll those off, but I'd prefer not to have to.

MIR seems really interesting to me, since (from what I read) it's intended to be used on multiple instruments at once with different settings, and takes into account each instrument's tone. The only other higher quality reverb I'm aware of is QL Spaces, but I haven't heard much one way or another on that.

Budget: I'm willing to pay for quality, to a degree. Ideally I'd like to keep it under $500, though less is, of course, better, provided it still sounds great.

Thanks in advance for any tips!


----------



## gsilbers

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


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos

There are currently two sides:

1) Algorithmic - because it can add subtle modulations and non-linear stuff

2) Convolution - of real spaces (tricky to create) and reverb boxes, but without any modulation stuff, because convolution cannot capture any non-linear effect.

As an IR developer I cannot you advice to chose between 1) or 2). 

But as composer/producer, should I have the money, I would at least buy a Bricasti M7. 

But I also think you can get very close to the sound of expensive units at a fraction of their costs with IRs.

It's a complicated issue, involving variables like Ears, Money and Creativity (in the mixing stage).


----------



## studioj

Love me some 2c audio B2. Hands down the best software verb I've used. Stands up well to the Bricasti I think. Lexicon PCM native bundle and VSL Vienna Suite Hybrid Reverb are great also.


----------



## tmm

I will check out B2! I've heard about it before, now that you mention it, I'd just forgotten.



Peter Emanuel Roos @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> There are currently two sides:
> 
> 1) Algorithmic - because it can add subtle modulations and non-linear stuff
> 
> 2) Convolution - of real spaces (tricky to create) and reverb boxes, but without any modulation stuff, because convolution cannot capture any non-linear effect.
> 
> As an IR developer I cannot you advice to chose between 1) or 2).
> 
> But as composer/producer, should I have the money, I would at least buy a Bricasti M7.
> 
> But I also think you can get very close to the sound of expensive units at a fraction of their costs with IRs.
> 
> It's a complicated issue, involving variables like Ears, Money and Creativity (in the mixing stage).



Thanks Peter! I didn't note that I actually also have (your?) free Samplicity M7 IR library. Truth be told, though, I'm not sure how to properly use it. I've used stereo IRs before, but I haven't run into a situation where there were separate L / R IRs before. How should those be properly implemented?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

Algorhythmic- the best are on the UAD platform IMHO. emT Plate 140 and Lexicon 224.

Convolution - QL Spaces.


----------



## wst3

As Peter points out, there is a difference between algorithmic and convolution reverb - two approaches, and to my ears, they sound different.

But it is much more to it than even that.

There are mechanical reverbs - springs and plates, there are chambers, their are rooms (both of which are more-or-less self explanatory), and their are purely synthetic reverbs. All of these have different characteristics... meaning they sound different<G>!

And in digital terms the algorithmic reverbs can be based on delay lines or all pass filters (basically two sides of the same coin)... and depending on the designer, these too can sound different.

Prices are all over the map, and there is a correlation between price and quality, but it is often violated<G>!

My personal favorites, for the moment, include three from UA: EMT 140 Plate, Lexicon 224, OWS, and the Valhalla Vintage. I also use a Lexicon PCM-90 hardware reverb a lot.

I still use Voxengo Pristine Space, a convolution reverb, but it tends to load my poor system down, so I render those tracks, defeating, I suppose, the whole idea of convolution reverb.

And if I can ever get the license straightened out I would use Wizzoverb - but alas this is one of those products that suffered from copy protection being over-the-top.


----------



## tmm

Just to make sure I'm not mistaken - for all the UA stuff, I'd need to have a UA interface / card, right?


----------



## EastWest Lurker

tmm @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> Just to make sure I'm not mistaken - for all the UA stuff, I'd need to have a UA interface / card, right?



Yes.


----------



## tmm

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> tmm @ Tue Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to make sure I'm not mistaken - for all the UA stuff, I'd need to have a UA interface / card, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
Click to expand...


Thanks! I had actually been looking at an Apollo a while ago, but it sort of defeats the whole 'all virtual' thing. Which isn't necessarily an issue, provided the payoff is worthwhile.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos

wst3 @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> As Peter points out, there is a difference between algorithmic and convolution reverb - two approaches, and to my ears, they sound different.
> 
> But it is much more to it than even that.
> 
> There are mechanical reverbs - springs and plates, there are chambers, their are rooms (both of which are more-or-less self explanatory), and their are purely synthetic reverbs. All of these have different characteristics... meaning they sound different<G>!
> 
> And in digital terms the algorithmic reverbs can be based on delay lines or all pass filters (basically two sides of the same coin)... and depending on the designer, these too can sound different.
> 
> Prices are all over the map, and there is a correlation between price and quality, but it is often violated<G>!
> 
> My personal favorites, for the moment, include three from UA: EMT 140 Plate, Lexicon 224, OWS, and the Valhalla Vintage. I also use a Lexicon PCM-90 hardware reverb a lot.
> 
> I still use Voxengo Pristine Space, a convolution reverb, but it tends to load my poor system down, so I render those tracks, defeating, I suppose, the whole idea of convolution reverb.
> 
> And if I can ever get the license straightened out I would use Wizzoverb - but alas this is one of those products that suffered from copy protection being over-the-top.



Delay lines, all-pass filters, this is where convolution gets interesting, especially with real spaces: every early reflection is not just a spike (= echo), but a short peak-and-valley pattern. Aka: a digital filter, describing how the original sound has been EQ-ed by materials, comb-filtering due to very close reflections, etc.

Algo reverbs may take shortcuts here and create unrealistic early reflections.

This is something where (good) IRs of real spaces can be a lot better than algo reverbs. But, to create them, you need a very good emitter AND microphones, that also will or may add coloring...

But back to the other side:

People like Griesinger (Lexicon) have done a LOT of research to synthetically create "quasi" realistic reverbs by tricking the ears and brain, for instance by playing with the level between early and late reflections, which we tend to perceive as "realistic", although it is not from a physical point of view.

Interesting field, psycho-acoustics! (I have a major in psycho-physics - never did anything with it until I started Samplicity).


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos

tmm @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> I will check out B2! I've heard about it before, now that you mention it, I'd just forgotten.
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Emanuel Roos @ Tue Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are currently two sides:
> 
> 1) Algorithmic - because it can add subtle modulations and non-linear stuff
> 
> 2) Convolution - of real spaces (tricky to create) and reverb boxes, but without any modulation stuff, because convolution cannot capture any non-linear effect.
> 
> As an IR developer I cannot you advice to chose between 1) or 2).
> 
> But as composer/producer, should I have the money, I would at least buy a Bricasti M7.
> 
> But I also think you can get very close to the sound of expensive units at a fraction of their costs with IRs.
> 
> It's a complicated issue, involving variables like Ears, Money and Creativity (in the mixing stage).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Peter! I didn't note that I actually also have (your?) free Samplicity M7 IR library. Truth be told, though, I'm not sure how to properly use it. I've used stereo IRs before, but I haven't run into a situation where there were separate L / R IRs before. How should those be properly implemented?
Click to expand...


RTFM, lol!

The True Stereo setup is explained in the PDF, but maybe it is not clear enough.

It requires special routing, that is supported by Pristine Space (preset True Stereo Insert, or the Send). In REVernce, Reverberate and Waves IR-1 you can load the Quad channel files.

You need to load two stereo files, one that contains the stereo information from sounds from the left side, and another one for sounds for the right side. Thus: four mono IRs are needed for True Stereo, either contained contained in two stereo files or in one Quad channel file.

If you only load one stereo IR file, you will get nasty reverb effects for off-center signals.

I am now working on a new IR library, a very big one, from the Teldex Studio in Berlin and promise not to sell it unless I have written VERY detailed instructions!


----------



## tmm

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> tmm @ Tue Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will check out B2! I've heard about it before, now that you mention it, I'd just forgotten.
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Emanuel Roos @ Tue Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are currently two sides:
> 
> 1) Algorithmic - because it can add subtle modulations and non-linear stuff
> 
> 2) Convolution - of real spaces (tricky to create) and reverb boxes, but without any modulation stuff, because convolution cannot capture any non-linear effect.
> 
> As an IR developer I cannot you advice to chose between 1) or 2).
> 
> But as composer/producer, should I have the money, I would at least buy a Bricasti M7.
> 
> But I also think you can get very close to the sound of expensive units at a fraction of their costs with IRs.
> 
> It's a complicated issue, involving variables like Ears, Money and Creativity (in the mixing stage).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Peter! I didn't note that I actually also have (your?) free Samplicity M7 IR library. Truth be told, though, I'm not sure how to properly use it. I've used stereo IRs before, but I haven't run into a situation where there were separate L / R IRs before. How should those be properly implemented?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RTFM, lol!
> 
> The True Stereo setup is explained in the PDF, but maybe it is not clear enough.
> 
> It requires special routing, that is supported by Pristine Space (preset True Stereo Insert, or the Send). In REVernce, Reverberate and Waves IR-1 you can load the Quad channel files.
> 
> You need to load two stereo files, one that contains the stereo information from sounds from the left side, and another one for sounds for the right side. Thus: four mono IRs are needed for True Stereo, either contained contained in two stereo files or in one Quad channel file.
> 
> If you only load one stereo IR file, you will get nasty reverb effects for off-center signals.
> 
> I am now working on a new IR library, a very big one, from the Teldex Studio in Berlin and promise not to sell it unless I have written VERY detailed instructions!
Click to expand...


Touche. Truth be told, I picked up the library when I was in a 'gather free / low cost plugins' frenzy, and I don't think I noticed there was a manual  That said, though, now that I'm looking at the site, I don't see one. Was it in the original zip? If so, I seem to have lost that file.

Anyway, thanks for the instructions! I'll test it out later today (hopefully).


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

If I could only have one plug-in to produce reverb, it would have to be a convolution processor. But convolution processors sound like what you put in, which is why Peter does what he does. Good impulses in, good sound out. Garbage...say no more.

In other words, the answer to:



> there's something I don't like about the way either of them handles higher frequencies, so I tend to just roll those off, but I'd prefer not to have to.



is Good impulses.

As far as actual processors, well, MIR is unbeatable at what it does, which overlaps but doesn't replace reverb. For reverbs that aren't convolution processors, I also keep shouting about how great the Hybrid Reverb in VSL's Vienna Suite is. It uses a combination of sampled (convolution) heads with algorithmic tails, and the programs are just outstanding.


----------



## mark812

Valhalla Vintage Verb ($50) for Lexicon-ish reverb. Amazing plugin.

2caudio B2 ($249) is awesome as well, but it's a CPU killer.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos

> Touche. Truth be told, I picked up the library when I was in a 'gather free / low cost plugins' frenzy, and I don't think I noticed there was a manual  That said, though, now that I'm looking at the site, I don't see one. Was it in the original zip? If so, I seem to have lost that file.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the instructions! I'll test it out later today (hopefully).



I believe I have to apologize.

The Zip files indeed do not include a PDF file... doh.... (after several years).

Anyway, the site will be completely redone in the coming months and I will add more online documentation and explanations.

Sorry!


----------



## gsilbers

gsilbers @ Tue Jun 25 said:


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



reposting... 

relab's 480xl 

sounded pretty close to the real unit 

i have it and its great.


----------



## ghostnote

gsilbers @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> relab's 480xl [...] its great.



yes, but unfortunately not in 64bit



tmm @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> I currently have Valhalla Room and Audio Damage EOS. Both sound pretty good, but there's something I don't like about the way either of them handles higher frequencies, so I tend to just roll those off, but I'd prefer not to have to.



If you're looking for realism then go with spaces, you won't need to roll off the highs (I normally do, but only at about 10k). B2 on the other hand is one of the best Algos out there but also a CPU hog.


----------



## gsilbers

Michael Chrostek @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> gsilbers @ Tue Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> relab's 480xl [...] its great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yes, but unfortunately not in 64bit
> 
> 
> 
> tmm @ Tue Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I currently have Valhalla Room and Audio Damage EOS. Both sound pretty good, but there's something I don't like about the way either of them handles higher frequencies, so I tend to just roll those off, but I'd prefer not to have to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're looking for realism then go with spaces, you won't need to roll off the highs (I normally do, but only to about 10k). B2 on the other hand is one of the best Algos out there but also a CPU hog.
Click to expand...


relab complete is 64 bit. 
relab random hall is 32 bit.


----------



## ghostnote

gsilbers @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> relab complete is 64 bit.
> relab random hall is 32 bit.



ah thanks! didn't know that.


----------



## guydoingmusic

studioj @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> Stands up well to the Bricasti I think..



I'm sorry, but I genuinely laughed out loud on that one! 

The UAD verbs are awesome. The B2 sounds good from everything I've heard it on (I don't own it). Spaces, Altiverb are great as well. 

If you have ProTools, don't forget about D-verb as well. A lot of hit records have been made with that plugin in the "chain" somewhere.


----------



## woodsdenis

Softubes Tsar reverb is currently half price, worth a look.


----------



## Dietz

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> [...] As far as actual processors, well, MIR is unbeatable at what it does, which overlaps but doesn't replace reverb. For reverbs that aren't convolution processors, I also keep shouting about how great the Hybrid Reverb in VSL's Vienna Suite is. It uses a combination of sampled (convolution) heads with algorithmic tails, and the programs are just outstanding.



Thanks for the shout-out, Nick. 

For the sake of completeness: MIR Pro comes with its dedicated algorithmic reverb add-on, called MIRacle (slightly tonge-in-cheek ). In fact this processor is a further development of Vienna Suite's Hybrid Reverb. Its main task is to add the artificially modulated reverb tails we got used to during the last few decades to the pure, natural impulse responses of MIR Pro.

In other words: MIR Pro can be used like a hybrid reverb on steroids (if this is what you're after). 8) 

All the best,

/Dietz




.


----------



## tmm

woodsdenis @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> Softubes Tsar reverb is currently half price, worth a look.



Looks really interesting, actually. Anyone know if the whole iLok debacle has been cleared yet? Otherwise, I can't demo TSAR or LX480 without endangering some more critical licenses.

Also, re: the Softubes sale - do you know how long that's lasting? I didn't see mention of it on their site.

Re: previous notes - I downloaded the 2CA B2 reverb demo, and have been playing around with it. It has a really cool tone to it, a littler richer / more dense than EOS or Valhalla Room. Funny thing is, playing with the settings on B2 gave me ideas for ways to alter my Room settings, and now I think I'm liking Room a lot more (and better than B2, so far). B2 definitely ate my CPU. I had upped my buffer settings, and Friedlander was running fine for me, but Freidlander + B2 at the same time in a large mix was glitchville. Removing one or the other brought it back to smooth operation.


----------



## Psycaudio

has everybody ruled out 2C-Audio Aether? To me, it seem like a virtuoso reverb. I simply cannot recreate such pristine quality with anything else. 
If anybody can tell me what's wrong with Aether (besides it's unbelievable CPU usage), please speak up.


----------



## woodsdenis

tmm @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> woodsdenis @ Tue Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Softubes Tsar reverb is currently half price, worth a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks really interesting, actually. Anyone know if the whole iLok debacle has been cleared yet? Otherwise, I can't demo TSAR or LX480 without endangering some more critical licenses.
> 
> Also, re: the Softubes sale - do you know how long that's lasting? I didn't see mention of it on their site.
> 
> Re: previous notes - I downloaded the 2CA B2 reverb demo, and have been playing around with it. It has a really cool tone to it, a littler richer / more dense than EOS or Valhalla Room. Funny thing is, playing with the settings on B2 gave me ideas for ways to alter my Room settings, and now I think I'm liking Room a lot more (and better than B2, so far). B2 definitely ate my CPU. I had upped my buffer settings, and Friedlander was running fine for me, but Freidlander + B2 at the same time in a large mix was glitchville. Removing one or the other brought it back to smooth operation.
> 
> Just for reference... far from a finished composition / mix / etc, but this is what my current Room settings sound like (after the aforementioned update):
> 
> [flash width=450 height=110 loop=false]http://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.soundcloud.com%2Ftracks%2F98429765&secret_url=false[/flash]
> 
> I very obviously haven't taken the time to map out the vowels / words for Elements / Storm Choir yet  Also, note that it sounds like it has gaps, b/c I cut the other, band-oriented instruments out of the mix for this example (drum kit / guitar / bass).
Click to expand...


Softube sale is only for June (correction mid July), go to Audiodeluxe for best deal.
I have just upgraded iLok with no issues


----------



## Jack Weaver

tmm,

regarding cpu usage of B2, Andrew Souter recommended to me that if you click on the Info tab and look to the right where the Quality & Efficiency settings are you will see two Oversampling buttons that have a down arrow. If you set those both to '1x-off' you will be able to make B2 be more efficient. 

I believe the Softube sale lasts until the middle of July. You might want to wait a while for the last dregs of the Great iLok Debacle of 2013 to subside a bit. 

HTH

.


----------



## Jack Weaver

tmm,

regarding cpu usage of B2, Andrew Souter recommended to me that if you click on the Info tab and look to the right where the Quality & Efficiency settings are you will see two Oversampling buttons that have a down arrow. If you set those both to '1x-off' you will be able to make B2 be more efficient. 

I believe the Softube sale lasts until the middle of July. You might want to wait a while for the last dregs of the Great iLok Debacle of 2013 to subside a bit. 

HTH

.


----------



## Wes Antczak

The Softube sale is until July 16th per their email. I don't know if that's inclusive of July 16th so best think the 15th just to be safe.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> If you have ProTools, don't forget about D-verb as well. A lot of hit records have been made with that plugin in the "chain" somewhere



And on a Commodore 128.


----------



## Dan Mott

Does anyone here have TSAR-1? if so, what do you think?


----------



## Den

Dan-Jay @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> Does anyone here have TSAR-1? if so, what do you think?



I had the demo, and I can say on the first look it sounds nice. But after more researching and putting it in the mix I found it that don't have enough diffusion in the tail. It works like a sustain of the source. 
So it is very hard to recognize it like reverb in the mix with lots of channels I mean more complex music arrangements. I think it works for the acoustic simple arrangements well. I used hardware for more than 20 years, so I have more demands from the reverb. Quality vs CPU load is the main compromise here.

Anyway I found B2 the most sophisticated reverb now. It is very complex and huge amount of possibilities sonically. Perfect field and tail (latest beta version), and this version that is available is not the final one.
It is still beta. I think very soon will be available the final version.
I cannot say anything more for now.


----------



## tmm

Thanks for all the great info & suggestions everyone! I can't believe how many great responses I got. Still getting used to how helpful this community is after having posted on a number of other music forums for years.

So, a lot of people seem to be recommending B2. As I noted above, I only played with it a short while yesterday, and ended up moving back to Valhalla. But, there are so many parameters in B2, I'm sure there's a lot I'm missing.

Any suggestions for a good starting point in B2? There are just so many presets to choose from, and they're not all titled something obvious.


----------



## Den

tmm @ Wed Jun 26 said:


> Thanks for all the great info & suggestions everyone! I can't believe how many great responses I got. Still getting used to how helpful this community is after having posted on a number of other music forums for years.
> 
> So, a lot of people seem to be recommending B2. As I noted above, I only played with it a short while yesterday, and ended up moving back to Valhalla. But, there are so many parameters in B2, I'm sure there's a lot I'm missing.
> 
> Any suggestions for a good starting point in B2? There are just so many presets to choose from, and they're not all titled something obvious.



I was involved in to designing from the first beta of B2, and almost all single engine presets has mine signature.

The most of the dual engine presets are FX style and there is some of them I cannot even hear on my 8 core Mac Pro (Too CPU heavy).

You can start from the single engine presets with mark "S".
And you can import my latest dual engine presets and folders that I attached today on the next thread, from the import menu. Now it is easy to import all those folders.

Just adjust on the info page Oversampling "Per Preset".
My all presets don't use oversampling at all. I rather go with "Extreme" diffusion mode dual engine and on that way I have stunning field and smoothness together.
There is so many different sounds you can dial in. "Lo" diffusion for some retro sound or other Nano mode.

Very flexible and complex.


----------



## tmm

Ah, yep, I see your name in the 'info' tab of B2. Thanks for the additional info! I'll check out your presets pack.

Played around with B2 some more today, and I found I really liked the dual engine Scoring Stage 1 Close setting. Once I tweaked that a little, then A/B'd back with Valhalla, I liked B2 much more. I was also in-general impressed with the audible difference between Scoring Stage 1 Close / Mid / Deep, very well done.


----------



## guydoingmusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> If you have ProTools, don't forget about D-verb as well. A lot of hit records have been made with that plugin in the "chain" somewhere
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And on a Commodore 128.
Click to expand...


No one ever seems to catch that!


----------



## Consona

studioj @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> Love me some 2c audio B2. Hands down the best software verb I've used.


I use this reverb exclusively. And even as a effect module. Sounds really great and is really tweakable.


----------



## tmm

Another quick Q - QL Spaces operates as a regular plugin, right? Meaning, I can use it with more than just PLAY instruments?

Also - is there some magic trick to getting the 10-day demo to work? When you go through the checkout process, it stops you at the end, saying the $ amount has to be more than $0... not for a free demo it doesn't!


----------



## Den

tmm @ Wed Jun 26 said:


> Ah, yep, I see your name in the 'info' tab of B2. Thanks for the additional info! I'll check out your presets pack.
> 
> Played around with B2 some more today, and I found I really liked the dual engine Scoring Stage 1 Close setting. Once I tweaked that a little, then A/B'd back with Valhalla, I liked B2 much more. I was also in-general impressed with the audible difference between Scoring Stage 1 Close / Mid / Deep, very well done.



Latest beta sounds even better that current official version.
I am glad that you found something for your needs.

Cheers


----------



## EastWest Lurker

tmm @ Wed Jun 26 said:


> Another quick Q - QL Spaces operates as a regular plugin, right? Meaning, I can use it with more than just PLAY instruments?
> 
> Also - is there some magic trick to getting the 10-day demo to work? When you go through the checkout process, it stops you at the end, saying the $ amount has to be more than $0... not for a free demo it doesn't!



Yes.

And let me get you an answer to the latter.


----------



## tmm

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 26 said:


> Yes.
> 
> And let me get you an answer to the latter.



Thanks Jay!


----------



## tmm

Den - sorry if I've missed this somewhere, but how do I go about installing your presets? I read that you said you can just import them, but I'm not seeing where to do that.


----------



## germancomponist

Don't forget the Cubase convo reverb!


----------



## tmm

germancomponist @ Thu Jun 27 said:


> Don't forget the Cubase convo reverb!



Do you need Cubase to use REVerance? I can't seem to find it for separate purchase anywhere on their site.


----------



## germancomponist

So far as I know yes, only included in Cubase.


----------



## tmm

germancomponist @ Thu Jun 27 said:


> So far as I know yes, only included in Cubase.



Ah, okay... so not an option for me at the moment. I may very likely upgrade from Reaper to Cubase at some point, but I'm so deeply rooted in Reaper right now, and have other more fundamental things to take care of first (reverb, better strings, etc).


----------



## woodsdenis

Spurned on by this thread I demoed a few new reverbs yesterday.
I use 
Altiverb ( usually Bricasti convos)
Valhalla Room
Valhalla Vintage

I demoed Softube Tsar and 2C Audio Breeze and Aether.

All are fine reverbs but none surpassed the Valhalla stuff apart from Aether which was really crazy CPU wise.

I am not claiming Valhalla are the best reverbs ever made but maybe you should try them.


----------



## tmm

woodsdenis @ Thu Jun 27 said:


> I am not claiming Valhalla are the best reverbs ever made but maybe you should try them.



:lol: 



tmm @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> I currently have Valhalla Room and Audio Damage EOS. Both sound pretty good, but there's something I don't like about the way either of them handles higher frequencies, so I tend to just roll those off, but I'd prefer not to have to.





tmm @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> Re: previous notes - I downloaded the 2CA B2 reverb demo, and have been playing around with it. It has a really cool tone to it, a littler richer / more dense than EOS or Valhalla Room. Funny thing is, playing with the settings on B2 gave me ideas for ways to alter my Room settings, and now I think I'm liking Room a lot more (and better than B2, so far). B2 definitely ate my CPU. I had upped my buffer settings, and Friedlander was running fine for me, but Freidlander + B2 at the same time in a large mix was glitchville. Removing one or the other brought it back to smooth operation.





tmm @ Wed Jun 26 said:


> Played around with B2 some more today, and I found I really liked the dual engine Scoring Stage 1 Close setting. Once I tweaked that a little, then A/B'd back with Valhalla, I liked B2 much more. I was also in-general impressed with the audible difference between Scoring Stage 1 Close / Mid / Deep, very well done.



I definitely like my Valhalla Room. I demo'd Valhalla Vintage a little while ago, too, and liked it, just never played with it as much as Room.

If you haven't tried it before, you should check out Audio Damage EOS, too. It works really well for some things, not as well for others, but what it works well for, it works really well for. It's a bit more crisp / transparent / less saturated than Valhalla. I love how the EOS Super Hall sounds on things like pianos and glocks.

Why did you try 2CA products, and not demo B2? B2 is pretty awesome. I haven't tried fitting it into the non-orchestral side of my mixes yet, where I'm still using mostly Valhalla, but for the orchestral side, B2's dual engine Scoring Stage presets are pretty incredible.

I was reading a great suggestion from Beat in another thread (creating spaces), and tried using 3 instances of B2 to create a little more dimension in the orchestra, using the dual engine Scoring Stage Close, Mid, and Deep settings. I got everything routed, set up the 3 instances of B2, hit play, and... my CPU made a big sad face, chewed up everything going through the Deep channel and spit it out a little mangled, and completely ignored the Mid / Close channels. Too much B2 for my system, I think. I switched back to 1 instance of B2 for the orchestra. It's too bad, I'll bet that would have sounded amazing.


----------



## Rv5

EastWest Lurker @ Tue Jun 25 said:


> Algorhythmic- the best are on the UAD platform IMHO. emT Plate 140 and Lexicon 224.
> 
> Convolution - QL Spaces.



+1 - The UAD Lexicon 224 is amazing, yet to demo the plate. Spaces is an amazing sounding convolution reverb.


----------



## Dan Mott

I just tried TSAR-1. Really, really good. I like it better than all the algos I have used, including the LX-480. Cheaper too. Serves the purpose well. I'm sold.

Also, just a shout out to QL Spaces.... it's fandamntastic.


----------



## Waywyn

Get Valhalla, Room and Vintage stuff - all you need!


----------



## Den

tmm @ Thu Jun 27 said:


> Den - sorry if I've missed this somewhere, but how do I go about installing your presets? I read that you said you can just import them, but I'm not seeing where to do that.



At the load preset menu is import package, import folders to user, on the right side popup menu. You can try whatever you want. Or you can put them manually.
Download user manual, there is path for PC and Mac for the presets place on your OS.


----------



## tmm

Just got QL Spaces up and running... wow. That's all I can say about this one. I haven't found a preset I didn't like yet. I could see all of them being useful for one thing or another.

A lot of the presets have a FR and a RR version - is this intended to be set up with 2 channels, routing front instruments to FR and rear instruments to RR?


----------



## tmm

(Warning: this is a bit of a novel here)

So, I haven't actually purchased any of the reverbs I was looking at yet... combination of not being sure which to go with, and price (compared with other things I want, like Zebra2, etc... I do have working, decent reverbs, so it makes it tough to spend my limited resources on another reverb, no matter how much better).

Anyway, I was finally able to get TSAR-1 up-and-running (I hate iLoks), and I really love it! The ER control really makes placing instruments in the mix very quick and easy.

Much like Spaces (I know, I'm comparing algo to IR, but afaic, they're all serving the same end goal), TSAR-1 seems to be most useful for creating natural sounding spaces (meaning, not making something sound like it's on the moon / in a South American sinkhole... though I guess those are 'natural').

Something I've started doing to demo reverbs is to see how they respond to my AudioThing PingPong Glock (PPG). It has such a tight, staccato attack, that it's positively brutal on reverbs in terms of exposing any shortcomings of their tail quality.

Both Valhalla & EOS, while they sound awesome on anything that sustains for more than a fraction of a second, have noticeably grainy sounding tails when you introduce something very short and tight like the PPG. It certainly doesn't mean they aren't useful, just something to consider when you're deciding which reverb to use for a given task.

That said, to help me decide whether or not to purchase B2 or TSAR-1 (I already own EOS and Valhalla), I put EOS, Valhalla, B2, and TSAR-1 head-to-head-to-head-to-head in a 4-part test (I didn't include Spaces, b/c although I really liked it for strictly orchestral stuff, it wasn't tweakable enough for me to want to use it elsewhere). To aid in the test, I used a newly purchased set of Sennheiser 'phones, which I'm liking better than the old Audio-Technica ATH-M40fs's I'd been using for the last ~10 years or so.

On to the tests:
(1) PingPong Glock (solo)
(2) Friedlander Violin (solo)
(3) Choirs (mix of Elements, Storm Choir, and VoR)
(4) Full mix

Please keep in mind all these assessments are written in relative terms, meaning, compared with the other 'verbs. In a vaccuum, all 4 'verbs would be entirely adequate for all 4 tests.

Another note - for tests 1-3, for all 4 'verbs, I A/B'd between just close / up-front reverb setting and a deeper / further back setting. For test 4, I used a combination of the two settings (set differently for each instrument) to attempt to place the instruments appropriately in relation to each other (except for B2, since the demo version limits you to one instance).

Both EOS and Valhalla do something really special for the choirs, but I think it's because they both excel at the slightly unnatural, ethereal style of 'verb, which (IMO) almost always works nicely on vocals, even if you're only mixing in a little of it. EOS is a little more transparent / less dense than Valhalla... this isn't a better / worse comparison, just a note.

As noted above, both EOS and Valhalla don't do well in the PPG test (the most gruelling of all the tests); they both get a little grainy when the signal they're reverberating is very short. B2 really excels here - it's the only 'verb I've tried that does. And really, the only preset I've found in B2 that does this is the Scoring Stage 1 group (close / mid / far) - I haven't been able to figure out what 'magical' setting is being invoked on those that isn't elsewhere (and I've wanted to find it, to see if I could apply the same logic to the other plugs), but it really, really works for short signals, be it PPG, drums, etc. By comparison, in the PPG test, TSAR-1 still sounds very natural, but almost too a fault; IMO, B2 doesn't excel here b/c it's portraying the PPG signal in the most natural way, but the most musical. B2 (in the Scoring Stage presets) shows next to none of the original attack (the dry signal takes care of this), and just adds a perfect sounding decay. TSAR-1 sounds very natural - tweaked appropriately, to my ears (TME), it actually sounds like someone playing a glock (with ping pong balls) in a small room with me. To try and describe the difference, to me, the B2 preset sounds like I'm playing the glock (right in front of me), and I'm hearing it reverberate around the room. TSAR-1 sounds like someone else is playing it next to me, and I'm hearing it in the room, if that makes sense.

As for the other 2 tests - the Friedlander (again, TME) is a little rough on reverbs in it's own way, due to (what I perceive as) it's slightly boxy, slightly harsh nature (not a bad thing... I sort of feel the same way about 'real' violins). For the Friedlander, I feel like it needs a more dense / thick sounding 'verb to fill it out a little and balance out some of the harshness, which (for me) ruled out EOS at first insert. EOS only emphasized the boxy-ness / harshness. Valhalla was adequate in this test; it filled out the Friedlander in the way I wanted it to, and created some nice depth. B2 did the same, in a slightly more transparent, but more natural way. TSAR-1 added an awesome richness / sheen that the other 3 'verbs did not, putting it head and shoulders ahead of the others for this competition.

The final test, the full mix, was the closest for me. All 4 sounded good in their own way, and if this was the only test I'd done, I'd have a hard time picking a favorite. One note I made was that, with Valhalla, the near vs far settings seemed to mesh together more, where with the 3 other verbs, I had an easier time perceiving something as closer or further away in the mix. B2 edged-out TSAR-1 for being the best at maintaining instrument separation. The other side of that coin is that, TME, TSAR-1 was a hair ahead of B2 in giving that nice 'glue' effect, bringing the mix together into a cohesive whole, and did so while adding a unique sparkle / richness to the top end that I really liked. EOS was just adequate here... it worked, but I feel EOS is more tailored to working on signals that are already fairly rich sounding, like pianos / pads / woodwinds. It's so transparent that, for better or worse, it won't really add anything to the signal that isn't already there.



Final score? (/TL;DR)

If I was only scoring on test (1), B2 would be the clear winner for me. The tails are absolutely perfect, better than I've heard from any 'verb I've tried, not just these 4.

If I was only scoring on (2), I'd give the prize to TSAR-1. It really brings out the good points of the Friedlander, and helps to balance out the things I don't like about it. After a few more tangential tests I did with just TSAR-1 & B2 (on a CineBrass trombone, Embertone Ivory Wind, and a few grand pianos), I came to the conclusion that TSAR-1 really shines for solo instruments, and I can see where a lot of people would want to use it for lead vocal applications, as is noted on their site. Conversely, I think B2 really shines in complex, multi-instrument settings, because of how well it maintains instrument separation.

If (3) was the only test I'd done, I'd stick with Valhalla, with an honorable mention given to B2. Both EOS and Valhalla are great for adding a slightly ethereal / supernatural quality to sounds, which I really like on choirs, and Valhalla sounds a little richer. For the same reason, I like EOS better for pianos / zithers / etc, where I don't want any extra heft added to the signal. B2 receives the honorable mention for the choirs, because although it didn't add the ethereal quality, the level of stereo separation it maintains (/creates?) sounds incredible on samples with multiple sound sources. I could really hear the different voices across the 'stage' with amazing clarity.

As noted above, I couldn't really pick a favorite for (4) the full mix. It wouldn't have been EOS, but it was too close between the remaining 3.



So, what did I learn here? That what a lot of people here on VIC have said is actually true (though I didn't believe it at first) - there is no one perfect reverb. I was hoping to come away from this, confident that I'd found "the 'verb for me", but what I came away with was the knowledge that such a thing doesn't exist, and that I just need to find what works for me on a task-by-task basis. I'm currently experimenting on the song I'm writing with using a combination of TSAR-1's ERs with B2's tails, and really liking that. I'm using TSAR-1 exclusively for the solo instruments in the mix, and also sending the choirs through a bit of Valhalla. My CPU loves this, of course.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading! Let me know what you think, and if you've had similar experiences.


----------



## drasticmeasures

2C Audio's Aether, but with Den's moded custom presets (can be found on the forums), is as good an Algorithmic verb plug-in as I've heard. I can't really tell the difference between the good Aether presets and say....the PCM bundle, etc.

B2 is also supposed to be great. (I haven't gotten around to that one).

IMO, Altiverb and convolution verbs are great too, but more limited to ER oriented material....I feel they work well with the "I need to put this instrument in that studio". But once you start getting into the church and grand hall convo's, I'm personally getting more satisfaction in turning to Algos for that.

As a sort of off-shoot, if you want to be on the bleeding edge, Nebula 3 is very interesting. It's not exclusively reverb - it samples gear. The difference though is the technology hurdles past the "snapshot in time" problem that convo and sampling has, and re-creates gear pretty damn well. I find it actually does what people THINK summing mixers do.
Warning though, it's an epic PITA to use, especially on a mac, and is CPU intense. With that said, it's definitely the future.


----------



## ceemusic

Exponential Audio:
http://www.exponentialaudio.biz/PhoenixVerb/PhoenixVerb.php (http://www.exponentialaudio.biz/Phoenix ... ixVerb.php)

Created by one of the designers behind some of Lexicon's classics.

Best algorithmic software reverb I've heard, imo better than Lexicon's own PCM bundle...


----------



## khollister

For orchestral/acoustic, EWQL Spaces if you are cost sensitive, VSL MIRPro if you are not. MIR is an amazing tool that goes way beyond "reverb" - it is unbelievably good at creating a believable space with precisely located instruments.

Valahalla Room and VintageVerb are quite cheap and very, very good for "traditional" algo reverbs. 

For electronic/pop/whatever else, there is a bunch of great stuff ...

UAD EMT 140
UAD EMT 250
Aether
Phoenix
ReLab 480L
UAD Lex 224
Valhalla Room & VintageVerb


----------



## germancomponist

ceemusic @ Fri Aug 02 said:


> Exponential Audio:
> http://www.exponentialaudio.biz/PhoenixVerb/PhoenixVerb.php (http://www.exponentialaudio.biz/Phoenix ... ixVerb.php)
> 
> Created by one of the designers behind some of Lexicon's classics.
> 
> Best algorithmic software reverb I've heard, imo better than Lexicon's own PCM bundle...



+1


----------



## tmm

Haha, of course someone mentions PhoenixVerb after I've already spent my reverb funds on TSAR-1! (Which I'm loving more the more I use it, BTW)

Anyone tried both (TSAR-1 and Phoenix) that can compare the two? Maybe if you make a strong enough case, I'll cut into my instrument money to get (yet) another reverb.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos

One argument pro convolution: it is the only way to "recreate" a real space 

I posted some early demos of my Teldex IRs here:

http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=33193

No release plans, I am still investigating the option of developing a dedicated plugin for stuff like this.

Some IRs from this collection will be included in two upcoming sample libraries by a great company - I cannot spoil any beans yet


----------



## re-peat

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Sat Aug 10 said:


> One argument pro convolution: it is the only way to "recreate" a real space (...)


That’s not true of course.
In order to experience a real space, you have to _be in a real space_ ― fully embraced by its sound, so to speak ― and NOT work with a sampled, two-dimensional, stereophonic reduction of it, re-generated in a DAW and monitored through speakers or headphones. That’s just silly.
Secondly, a ‘real space’ ― it’s only for convenience that I’ll be using that name here ― that is used for spatializing virtual instruments, stops being real anyway, as the interaction between live sound and live space, a key characteristic of a space's reality (and perceived quality), is virtually non-existent. (And again: if it occurs, it only occurs in two artificial dimensions. Hardly 'real', I would think.)
Thirdly, the reality or realism of a space, no matter how accurately and richly recreated, shrivels to complete nothingness in a mix where everything else is fake and artificial. ‘Real’ has absolute no meaning or weight in mock-up land, none whatsoever.

The reality of spaces (and the ridiculous quest for it) is one of the most over-rated things in the field of mock-ups, I find. If you do mock-ups, you don’t need real spaces, you need _functional_ spaces, spaces which sympathize completely with your source sounds (not something which IR’s are famous for), spaces which respond enhancingly to the demands of your sound(s), your music and your mix. You need versatily and fexibility, as well as the ability to match and adjust all characteristics of the reverberation to make it fit like a glove around your mix. Algorithmic reverbs (the good ones, I mean) are much better equipped for this than convolution-based tools.

And again: the SampleModeling trumpet (or the Efimov guitar, or the LASS celli, or whatever) doesn't sound more 'real' by running it through a convolution reverb. It remains every bit the fake instrument it always was and always will be. Whichever reverb you use. So, the 'realism'-argument makes absolutely no sense when working with virtual instruments.

Worst of all, Impulse Responses ― or, to be more precise, the inspiring aura of the venues which is supposed to be present in these soundfiles ― mess with people’s mind. Many an idiot thinks his or her music will somehow gain in realism and impact by running it through ToddAO, or Teldex, or the Mozartsaal, or the Concertgebouw or whatever, only because these places have been home to musicmaking of legendary status. Utter foolishness, of course, as many a convolution-based mix proves.

All good reasons, I am of the opinion, to opt for a good algorithmic device as your prime reverb, especially if your main sources of sound are sampled or modeled. I’m certainly not suggesting to throw all convolution devices out of the window (I still have occasional use for Altiverb, Spaces and even SpaceDesigner and for post-production work, convolution reverbs are invaluable), but in 99,99% of the mixes I do, a good algorithmic reverb gets me much closer, much faster to where the music needs to be.

_


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos

Of course algo reverbs can sound better and be more usable than convo stuff. That was not my point. I was merely trying to say that currently sweeping and deconvoluting is the ONLY way to get close to the sound of a specific room.

But I do wonder if you have first listened to my demos before posting... 

I BET you have not Piet!!! Be honest and reply to this question.


----------



## re-peat

Actually, I did listen to them, Peter. Several times, in fact, ever since you posted them.
And I say this with 100% Flemish honesty.

And continuing in that same honest vein: I was more puzzled by that distorted trumpet, than enchanted by whatever spatial qualities we're supposed to pick up on here. See, if you're so picky and critical about sound quality as you claim to be, I can't understand how you can settle for a clumsily recorded, distorted trumpet to demonstrate your "high-end" IR recordings with. Somehow, that makes me question your entire shop, I'm afraid. So sorry.

(Ernest Cholakis did a similar thing not too long ago ― demo some of his IR's with substandard audio and the results were, predictably, likewise ― and it turned me completely off of the poor man and his business. I mean, if you pretend to be serious about audio and claim to know and care about sound, the very least you can do, it seems to me, is use pro-quality audio to do your presentations with. No? Or am I being too difficult again?)

Anyway, enough of that.

Maintaining the honesty with which I started to the very last exclamation mark (which is about to appear): personally, I am not in the least bit interested in these IR's, but that doesn't stop me from sincerely wishing you nothing but the greatest artistic and commercial success with them!

_


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos

Denon Anechoic recordings. Used by many researchers in the auralization business.

Send me some dry recordings or stems of yours, I would be very happy to run them through my IRs.

I don't care so much about the quality of these sources, I actually use them to show that the most dry stuff can benefit from good IRs. First previews.

But demos with more realistic mockup stems would indeed be better support these IRs.


----------



## Dan Mott

*QL Spaces* - Expensive convo sound in various room and halls

*Valhalla Room* - Great sounding algo verb for various rooms

*Valhalla Vintage verb* - Great all rounder. Good plates too. Sometimes this verb may suit a sound better than room verb

*Valhalla Shimmer* - Great for big unreal spaces

*Audio Damage Eos* - Great for unreal spaces (sounds better on some sounds than Shimmer)

I really do not think you could go wrong or need anymore verbs than that.

My opinion has changed towards Valahlla. It competes with some of the best verbs for much, much more money.


----------



## tmm

Dan-Jay @ Sun Aug 11 said:


> *QL Spaces* - Expensive convo sound in various room and halls
> 
> *Valhalla Room* - Great sounding algo verb for various rooms
> 
> *Valhalla Vintage verb* - Great all rounder. Good plates too. Sometimes this verb may suit a sound better than room verb
> 
> *Valhalla Shimmer* - Great for big unreal spaces
> 
> *Audio Damage Eos* - Great for unreal spaces (sounds better on some sounds than Shimmer)
> 
> I really do not think you could go wrong or need anymore verbs than that.
> 
> My opinion has changed towards Valahlla. It competes with some of the best verbs for much, much more money.



Haha, including demo versions, I have all those right now . Agreed, that Valhalla Room stands up well against much higher $ 'verbs. I didn't click with Vintage Verb as much.

IMO, as of this moment, there's nothing I like as much as TSAR-1 for close 'verbs / ER generation. It's definitely not my fav for deeper / longer / unreal 'verbs, though.

I was doing some fine-tuning of a current mix Fri, and noticed some noise. Digging in a bit, it turned out to be generated by EOS (simply by having it engaged, not just while the music was playing). Once I swapped that out for Room, I was back to absolute silence in quiet parts. Have you noticed that?


----------



## Dan Mott

Hello

I have not noticed any noise with EOS. That's quite odd. Hmm. I'd have to double check.

Also, IMO.. if you have all those verbs that I mentioned above, then don't worry about the R2 or Phoenix verb. You have a great set of verbs already. I demoed the R2 and I just kept using Valhalla or Spaces instead because I felt they have more glue to sounds than the R2 and Phoenix.

Why don't you click with Vintage Verb?

Also, TSAR-1 is pretty nice


----------



## dgburns

@repeat
i agree with alot of your points,as I have been uneasy with convo verbs ever since day one.Especially since everyone seemed to preach that "they got you there" better then algo verbs.
but....for ealry reflections,i find convo quite useful to go from stereo to 5.1 better then algo,if,and I guess it's a big if,the convo imprint is fairly benign in how it filters the original sound.I find some ir's have uneven freg effects on the dry sound,such as bass bumps in some places etc.If you don't mind dialing down the low end,you can get something ...ok
algo verbs do glue the tails well,and I can tell by what you wrote that you know from a practical place.

to all the great composer here,though,maybe someone could step up and provide some great dry mockups for Peter to demo his ir's...? this is vi control after all guys o-[][]-o


----------



## Dietz

re-peat @ Sat Aug 10 said:


> Peter Emanuel Roos @ Sat Aug 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One argument pro convolution: it is the only way to "recreate" a real space (...)
> 
> 
> 
> That’s not true of course. [...] That’s just silly. [...]
> The reality of spaces (and the ridiculous quest for it) [...] It remains every bit the fake instrument it always was and always will be. [...] Many an idiot thinks [...] Utter foolishness, of course, [...]
Click to expand...


You have strong opinions, and you use harsh words to express them, Sir.



re-peat @ Sat Aug 10 said:


> a good algorithmic reverb gets *me* much closer, much faster to where the music needs to be.



That seems to be the real point of: It's _you_ who doesn't like to work with convolution based reverb. This doesn't mean that it has to be true for everybody else, and in fact there are at least as many people who would decline your statements as there are in accord with them.

Best,


/Dietz



.


----------



## rayinstirling

Seems to me, the more I play with all my effects processing possibilities and I have many, the more I realise how insignificant they are in comparison to the quality of the source being processed. If that's crap then no amount of reverb can save it.


----------



## re-peat

Sorry, Dietz, but I happen to find the search for so-called ‘realistic’ spaces (in the context of mock-ups, that is) not just ridiculous, but in fact arse-widening moronic, pathetically preposterous and indicative of serious malfunctions in the brain department. Yes, Sir, I do, Sir. And anyone who believes that an IR from an acclaimed venue has the power to increase the realism of his or her mock-ups, is indeed a completely delusional idiot. Very much so, Sir.

The reason, Dietz, I feel so strong about this, is because all this blasé quack-quack nonsense about realism, faithfull recreation of space(s) and whatnot, is (a) totally irrelevant and meaningless in a mock-up (for reasons mentioned above) and (b) it often tends to make things actually worse rather than improve them, especialy in the hands of the poor sods who are not completely on top of the spatialization game (which, if the endless number of reverb-related threads here on V.I. is anything to go by, are the majority of the members here).
People who have their heads filled with IR’s, ER’s, famous places and the assumed realism of convolution reverbs, and the bedazzling claims of certain spatialization software, etc. … tend to focus on all the wrong things: they overlook to choose their sounds wisely, they forget to program their instruments well, they fail to balance them well, they ignore to listen to the things that really matter, and they expect salvation will come from the “realism of convolution”.

And that’s what annoys me in all these “real spaces” discussions. First of all, it shows a complete lack of understanding and accepting what a mock-up really is (and what it isn’t), and secondly, it offers nothing but wrong, unhelpful and terribly misleading answers.
Ì can point you to hundreds of mock-ups to illustrate my points, if you like.

Honestly: I truly believe most people would be much better off with a simple but good algoritmic device. Not only because such a reverb more than provides all the production ingredients that reverberation needs to provide (for a mock-up), but also because it will help/nudge/force people to listen to (and work on) _the real issues_ that determine whether a mock-up will succeed or not.
Reverb doesn’t bring realism to a mock-up, reverb simply provides a space for whatever realism that might be there, to exist in. And if there’s no realism to begin with (as, I’m afraid, is the situation in most mock-ups), reverb is and remains completely powerless to do anything about it. At best, it can make things slightly less unpleasant to listen to. And at worst, it just multiplies the existing artificial mess.

Hence my dislike for all the so-called expert advice that says you need to have convolution-this and you need to have convolution-that in order to achieve true realism with a mock-up. Utter bull, that is.
Mind you, I don’t dislike those tools as such, not at all, quite the contrary even, but I do dislike (and would advice anyone to seriously distrust) all the stupid, irrelevant and sometimes dishonest claims and promises with which some are trying to force these tools onto our computers.

_


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos

I think this kind of language, regardless content and topic, is not appropriate at VI-Control.

Reported and will be discussed.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Oh Piet, too bad you're such a boar (the animal).


----------



## Arbee

As someone who has become accustomed to re-peat's manner on this forum, I confess I tend to read through the words to hear the actual content. On this occasion, again, I believe there is valuable content to be heard. Without wishing to put words in anyone's mouth, I believe the comments were aimed as much, if not more, at people's faith in tools (no matter how high quality the tools) to turn mutton into lamb. No?

.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos

I do also get Piet's point, but stuff like "not just ridiculous, but in fact arse-widening moronic, pathetically preposterous and indicative of serious malfunctions in the brain department" IS insulting!

This is not constructive language, it is sheer arrogance on Piet's part. Mister Knows It All is the message, not: In my opinion...


----------



## Rob

Piet, once again, it's not the content of yous posts that's debatable but the way you express it...


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Well, I don't care how wise a member is, there's just no good reason to accept that they can get away with calling most of us sods (contemptible, disreputable).


----------



## Arbee

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Mon Aug 12 said:


> I do also get Piet's point, but stuff like "not just ridiculous, but in fact arse-widening moronic, pathetically preposterous and indicative of serious malfunctions in the brain department" IS insulting!


Sure, it can be - I get that. But in all honesty, re-peat's "word play" on this forum puts a very respectful but wry smile on my face. Must be something wrong with my brain too :shock:  

.


----------



## Rob

I find it weird that to incite such a reaction from Piet was a very respectful post like Dietz'...


----------



## dgburns

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Mon Aug 12 said:


> I think this kind of language, regardless content and topic, is not appropriate at VI-Control.
> 
> Reported and will be discussed.



must be a full moon :mrgreen: 

but seriously,it sounds more of a put down to the user base rather than the technology itself(if you read thru it)And the essay is in fact contradictory(which means someone is in dire need of getting laid,imho of course)

...and my next purchase is likely MIR...there you go


----------



## bbunker

Sorry, Piet, but what you're saying is a little bit meaningless, because you could replace 'convolution reverb' with just about anything: "If I just used a better (Convo Reverb/Algo Reverb/Compressor/Equalizer/Tape Simulator/Analog Summing Unit/Sandwiches/Mixed Pickle) then my mixes would sound more professional..."

I would think that the great many discussions about different Impulses, the ways to generate them and the rooms that they are recorded in just lays claim to just how valuable they can be: after all, if composers can immediately tell the difference between an impulse taken at Teldex and one taken at Todd AO, doesn't that mean that they are working at least somewhat as advertised, and therefore a valuable tool?

But I don't think you are really commenting on the value of these tools, but on the way that they 'encourage' people to replace other, better ways of writing music with the snake oil brought by these IR shysters. Which sounds ludicrous. Who is doing this? Point me to a shoddily constructed mockup, written by a good composer and orchestrator who is being deluded in this way. I'm sure you can point to a number of mock-ups that are less than perfect, and some will use convolution reverbs. And you dare to claim that the reverb they use is what is keeping these composers down? Hardly.

Ultimately, any number of sins can be forgiven when the message is one that needs to be heard. Here, though, your musings sound less like harsh realities being shared with those who need to be heard, and more like the rants and ravings of someone who dislikes a new technology and those behind it.

Consider this, finally: doesn't MirX free these fledgling composers to concentrate solely on their craft, from sound selection to orchestration, since the difficult decisions of IR, placement and spatialization are already done?


----------



## tmm

@re-peat - your argument re: using IRs for mockups, while it contains some meaning, buried deep within the generous helpings of disrespect and ignorance, sits upon the false pretense that everyone using IRs is using them for mockups. I could be mistaken, but I believe a fair number of people use them in conjunction with sample libraries to create their final product, whether it be a trailer, television soundtrack, VGM, etc. I daresay, you're lucky this forum attributes it's stars to tenure rather than a measure of respect / earned reputation.



rayinstirling @ Mon Aug 12 said:


> Seems to me, the more I play with all my effects processing possibilities and I have many, the more I realise how insignificant they are in comparison to the quality of the source being processed. If that's crap then no amount of reverb can save it.



True, but I'd argue a well-implemented, quality reverb is a close second (or third, if you're including mix) behind the source quality. A sub-par / poorly implemented reverb can instantly kill even the most perfect of tones, and a well-implemented, great reverb can certainly elevate an otherwise mediocre tone.


----------



## rayinstirling

tmm @ Mon Aug 12 said:


> rayinstirling @ Mon Aug 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me, the more I play with all my effects processing possibilities and I have many, the more I realise how insignificant they are in comparison to the quality of the source being processed. If that's crap then no amount of reverb can save it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but I'd argue a well-implemented, quality reverb is a close second (or third, if you're including mix) behind the source quality. A sub-par / poorly implemented reverb can instantly kill even the most perfect of tones, and a well-implemented, great reverb can certainly elevate an otherwise mediocre tone.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that is what has happened to your "most recent clip"?


----------



## tmm

rayinstirling @ Mon Aug 12 said:


> tmm @ Mon Aug 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rayinstirling @ Mon Aug 12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me, the more I play with all my effects processing possibilities and I have many, the more I realise how insignificant they are in comparison to the quality of the source being processed. If that's crap then no amount of reverb can save it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but I'd argue a well-implemented, quality reverb is a close second (or third, if you're including mix) behind the source quality. A sub-par / poorly implemented reverb can instantly kill even the most perfect of tones, and a well-implemented, great reverb can certainly elevate an otherwise mediocre tone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting that is what has happened to your "most recent clip"?
Click to expand...


My clip is a POS, simply put. Poor reverb on a sub-optimal mix. Just testing things out & getting accustomed to the whole sample library composition concept. I've been working with 'real' instruments up until recently, and in entirely different genres. I appreciate the feedback, though.


----------



## re-peat

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Mon Aug 12 said:


> I do also get Piet's point, but stuff like "not just ridiculous, but in fact arse-widening moronic, pathetically preposterous and indicative of serious malfunctions in the brain department" IS insulting!
> 
> This is not constructive language, it is sheer arrogance on Piet's part. Mister Knows It All is the message, not: In my opinion...


Peter,

I am sorry. A slight misunderstanding occured here. I would have thought that my choice of words was this time sooooooo over-the-top, sooooooo out-of-all-proportion (even for my doing), soooooo hilariously unacceptable, that it would be immediately clear to anyone that I was sort of mocking myself by running with Dietz's "harsh words" theme and take it as far as I could (without things becoming truly vulgar and offensive, of course.) But I failed miserably, it seems.

(I quite like the word "arse-widening" though, you know. Very funny expression, I find. Picked it up, along with the way it can be used most entertainingly ― when expressing extreme disapproval in a caricaturesque manner ― from Stephen Fry, not exactly the first name that comes to mind when thinking of rude, tactless, boorish communicators, is he?)

Anyway, despite the apparently distasteful dressing of my language and the misplaced usage of frivolity, I firmly stand, and will confidently remain so, fully behind its content.

_


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

Good god, man, move on! Many of us idiots and sods just don't like your way of getting your points across.

You
are
offensive


----------



## muk

You know, Piet, you could have said that without being insulting, and of the lowest sort at that. I'm relieved to see that moderators are aware of this and taking steps against. This is way below any sort of discussion, or even a heated argument. And at least to me, such conduct is devoid of any sort of humour.


----------



## Hannes_F

The undeniable result of Piet's language is that it pulled the attention towards itself rather than on the opinion that it were intended to express. I wonder whether this is practical.


----------



## Dietz

Hannes_F @ Mon Aug 12 said:


> The undeniable result of Piet's language is that it pulled the attention towards itself rather than on the *opinion* that it were intended to express. I wonder whether this is practical.



... an _opinion_, presented as an undeniable fact.


----------



## muk

One may or may not like Piets compositions, but his voice leading is horrible. So much so, that I often can't stand listening to them.


----------



## re-peat

Hannes_F @ Mon Aug 12 said:


> The undeniable result of Piet's language is that it pulled the attention towards itself rather than on the opinion that it were intended to express. I wonder whether this is practical.


That's very true, Hannes. Not practical at all. And a complete waste of forum space, really. Isn't it? And of time. There I was, merrily trying to make light of the epitheton ornans which is often tagged to my name (usually by the morally superior and behaviourly infallible elite of this congregation) by blowing it up to absurd, outlandish proportions, and the result is a spectacular disaster. Slightly injudicious move perhaps.
But particularly unfortunate here today, cause it makes it seem, according to some of the reactions anyway, as if my respect and sincere admiration for Dietz are in any way lacking, which is of course not so, and it's certainly not an impression I ever intended to send into the world. We both simply see a couple of things ― all to do with spatialization ― differently. To convolute or not to convolute, that remains the question.

_


----------



## tmm

... and the thread is now officially an entire page off-topic  I don't think the question (in this thread) was ever convo vs algo, just suggestions for hiqh quality 'reverbs', which encompasses both.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos

Thanks for this remark, I agree with it. If this was not about reverbs and convolution, I would certainly have intervened in my role as moderator.


----------



## tmm

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Mon Aug 12 said:


> Thanks for this remark, I agree with it. If this was not about reverbs and convolution, I would certainly have intervened in my role as moderator.



Yep, I (the OP) was just looking for suggestions on high quality 'verbs to test out, and have received quite a few great suggestions (thank you everyone!).

I don't yet have a clear preference of convo vs algo... to me, their end goal is the same, more or less, and as such, I don't really care about this debate. To me, the end result, and how well the 'sound in my head' was translated into (externally) audible audio, is all that matters. Well, that, and ease-of-use + resource usage, two more parameters for which I still don't care about convo vs algo.


----------



## germancomponist

I liked it to read the posts here in this thread. 

And I have to agree: Many many plugs are overrated, especially reverb plugs. And yes, it is no secret that I also ,as Piet, like more the algo verbs than convos.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Everyone knows Dietz is a total charlatan. MIR sounds like poo, and the whole idea that you can presume to put samples in a stunningly alive space is preposterous. Samples are not meant to have life in them.

Moreover, the mixing board is the only acceptable paradigm for mixing. People with new ideas who want to advance the state of the art should be sent to the corner with a dunce cap, especially if those ideas require many talented man-years of development.

Companies like VSL should be producing hip-hop loops and not annoying us with these advances.

Also, I hate convolution. It's been all downhill since the SPX-90.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos

Let's not forget that this stuff is all about psycho-physics, in this case psycho-acoustics: how external physical stimuli are translated by our senses and brains into perceptions, experiences. Which are subjective by nature.

So we will never ever agree on a "best" or most realistic result.

Griesinger from Lexicon was very well aware of this and exploited some knowledge from how our hearing works in the Lexicon reverbs. For instance by tweaking the levels of early and late reflections to get an enhanced sound (sound as in perceived sound).

This also applies to the use of adding subtle modulations, which again are not physically "correct" for emulating real spaces.

But these tricks work by tricking our brains.

So, use your ears and use what sounds best for you.

On the other hand, convolution stuff can be interesting from a scientific perspective, typically in the field of auralisation and room/hall design (it is also used a lot in speaker design).

A trap for creating impulse responses is that it needs emitting and recording devices, that will color the results.

Personally I (still) find convolution a very interesting field, because with mathematical tricks it is possible to capture a certain space quite realistically - and I say: with tricks, that not many people seem or do not want to understand.

Early reflections are digital filters that in combination with the "dry" signal lead to interesting comb-filtering effects that our brains can use to perceive a sound source at a specific location and distance in a room.

Algo reverbs use ER generators, often with feedback / delay loops and adding filtering on them.

But they are artificial attempts to "inform" our ears. Well recorded sine-sweeps and deconvoluted IRs are in theory much closer to real spaces.

But again, do NOT forget the subjective part in psycho-physics: what we finally perceive is entirely personal and private - we cannot perceive what someone else perceives, a basic lesson from psychology and philosophy.

There we have it: attempts at being "realistic" (but in the physical part of psycho-physics) OR trying to please the "ears" (brains) as much as possible (the psychological part of psycho-physics).

Is my color orange the same as yours? This is the realm of preferences (also a psychological "thing").


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Early reflections are digital filters that in combination with the "dry" signal lead to interesting comb-filtering effects that our brains can use to perceive a sound source at a specific location and distance in a room.



That's an interesting comment and I'll have to think about that. I know that the ear only perceives comb filtering when sounds are coming from the same angle, which is why I keep screaming at people who want to stick foam all over their side walls.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos

Perception is sooo much more complex than that Nick!


----------



## Hannes_F

re-peat @ Mon Aug 12 said:


> That's very true, Hannes. Not practical at all. And a complete waste of forum space, really. Isn't it? And of time. There I was, merrily trying to make light of epitheton ornans



If not anything else your posts make me fire up an online dictionary and learn some new vocabulatory - nearly always 

Back to the topic: I've found that placing single dry (more or less) recordings into a room can be quite convincing with convolution reverbs (of which I use Altiverb and Quantum Spaces and have tested MIR). However I regularly ran into these problems:

- Pushing back stems is something different than reverbing them. Yes I know, ERs and stuff, yada yada, but I really love to shove stems back and forth with SPAT, VSS and Proximity and _then _adding reverb.

- Most IRs are way too long for my taste. This is personal, but I want the reverb not to be perceiveable as an extra signal. Which happens for me with reverb times longer than 1.5 seconds or so. Too bad I can not compress the Quantum Spaces IRs to shorter times.

- My guess is that most IRs are too long because they are recorded in an empty hall that had been built for performing while full. End of argument.

- While convolution can be quite convincing for solo voices (I enjoyed my test run of MIR very much in that regard) I have problems for sections and ensembles. Either it gets quite muddy (for my ears) or it does not glue. (BTW this _glue_-ing feature of reverbs is very important for me and especially how they can do that without over-reverbing the whole thing. Underrated IMO).

All that been said for me the combination of SPAT, VSS, Proximity (all of which I use depending on the circumstances) plus B2 is my favorite combinaiton. Realistic? No idea. But I like it.

PS.: I've tested so many reverbs and IR's - but to be honest the results are quite similar in the end. That is because I trim and shape all of them to what I want to hear, and I have always the same ears and wishes.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Perception is sooo much more complex than that Nick!



Sure it is!

I'm just talking about that one sentence and how it corresponds to reality, not convolution. And I have no doubt that you're right, by the way - I know you've looked into this closely.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos

I have a masters in perception research and a masters in data-analysis. 

The most important lesson was always: most people think that the world is real. But it is just a construct, a model within our brains. And this applies to all things musical and audio as well.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa

But if the world is a construct, what existed before we gained consciousness, began to think about the world around us? Does the universe stop existing if we disappear as a species?
And what about the sasquatch?


----------



## dgburns

Ned Bouhalassa @ Mon Aug 12 said:


> But if the world is a construct, what existed before we gained consciousness, began to think about the world around us? Does the universe stop existing if we disappear as a species?
> And what about the sasquatch?



like I said,must be a full moon.

however,don't mess with the sasquatch! 8) or you'll get convo'd rather than algo'd


----------



## germancomponist

As a side note: I also use a hardware reverb "Ibanez SDR 1000+".

It is a Sony, and it sounds great, very great! I bought it in 1980' s.


----------



## re-peat

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Mon Aug 12 said:


> (...) The most important lesson was always: most people think that the world is real. But it is just a construct, a model within our brains (...).


So you're saying that, perception- or data-analysis-wise, all the instruments of the orchestra, and all other physical sound-generating objects, be they amps, oscillators, Wurlitzers, sousaphones or whatever, are _virtual_ too, all _models within our brains_? As is the Concertgebouw, Abbey Road, Teldex and the Disney Hall? Even the Telefunken U47?
Blimey. I never knew that.

But to get back to the OP's question: I happen to own an offensive number of algorithmic units (the Sonnox, the TSAR-1, the VSS3, all the UAD reverbs, the ReLab LX480 and my favourites: SPAT, and the Exponential-duo Phoenix and R2), plus Altiverb 7, QL Spaces and several software reverbs that are part of music software, such as Logic’s SpaceDesigner. And purely out of a fascination with, and a deep interest in all things having to do with spatialization of virtual instruments ― which is the only reason that I have amassed so many reverbs ―, I now have my eye also on the HOFA IQ, a hybrid unit. Don’t know whether I’ll buy it, but I just might.
For some reason, I never looked Vienna-wards for my instruments’ reverb needs. Nothing to do with the quality of their products, absolutely not, I simply never got tempted enough, I guess, to press the purchase button.

Anyway, they’re all good. They’re all excellent. They’re all wonderful. As are the ones which I don’t have. But if I were allowed to keep only one, it would be SPAT. The more reverbs and spatialization tools I get to know and the better I get to know them, the more I am convinced of SPAT’s absolute, incomparable and unapproachable superiority. A true work of software genius if ever I saw one.

My litmus test for a reverb (not full spatialization, but reverb specifically ― there is a difference) is how well the source is _mirrored_ in the reverberation. Without that mirroring (and it’s a very subtle but oh so critical affair), you can never have convincing reverb. With older or cheap algorithmic reverbs (and with a few current ones as well unfortunately), the colour of the source never gets nicely reflected in the reverberation, making it very difficult, impossible even, to connect the two (source and reverb) and it is this connection which I think is an essential requirement for effective, good-sounding and convincing reverb.
The worse the reverb, the more its reverberation remains an isolated, unidentifiable, colourless wash of sound. The better the reverb, the better the reflections and the source fuse together into becoming one organic ‘spatial presence’.
To my ears, of all the ones which I’ve tried, it’s the ReLab and the two Exponentials which score best in this area.

You can tell if you’ve chosen a good reverb by how much you need of it. The more you need, the worse your choice.

And then there’s the tail. Which is where convolution reverbs often mess things up, I find. I have no explanation for why this is ― I have a masters in absolutely nothing, you see ― but convolution tails often bring a sense of burden and dragging to the music, I find, even when EQ’ed to loose some of their weighty lows. They don’t seem to resolve into the mix as well as (well-chosen) algorithmic tails do.
It’s not an observation which applies to all uses of convolution reverb of course ― I will never dispute that convolution reverbs *are* magnificent non-flying machines ―, but I’ve experienced it often enough anyway to make me gradually move towards the algorithmic variety of reverberation over the years. I don’t know, they’re lighter, fresher, sprightlier, morningdewinthemeadowier. (Don’t bother to look that last word up, Hannes. It’s not real. It’s a construct of my brain.)

_


----------



## Arbee

One of the accidental, but most important, lessons I learnt when trying to navigate my re-entry into music production last year - I downloaded (legally) some tutorial sessions of some mock ups that I thought sounded about the best I'd heard. For a variety of reasons none of the plug ins, including reverb, came up when I pressed play so I was just listening to the raw, dry mix. Guess what, it sounded incredible! 

Lesson learnt from that exercise? Reverb is the "salt and pepper", not the "meat and potatoes" 

.


----------



## Jack Weaver

I've really had my eyes opened to SPAT as of late - thanks to the instructive video from Piet. Much to my amazement I've found it's reverb to be greatly helpful in a lot of areas. 

Originally I was using a lot more MIR than SPAT. Currently (always subject to change) I use MIR for VSL instruments and synths. For synths MIR is like re-amping. For me, it's hard to imagine synths without MIR. Now, for drums and percussion it's always going to be SPAT - and of course all manner of strings. My only good WW's are still VSL and they stay in MIR. For matching Sample Modeling brass to CineBrass I use a special combination of B2/Bricasti.

I spent a lot of time going over and over sections of that video with an instance of SPAT open in my DAW. CinePerc, SD3, etc. are powerful and deep in SPAT (play with the different mics). Verb, the reverb in SPAT is so much more flexible than I originally thought. It can even evoke a 480L. It does uniquely mesh with SPAT. Previously I was muting Verb and using a Bricasti when using SPAT but now find the combination of it with it's own reverb works best. 

.


----------



## chimuelo

Love to see the instruction video for SPAT. Just becasue yuze 2 picky guys are touting it has piqued my interests.
I'd appreciate the link please.

Thanks


----------



## Jack Weaver

See if this still works:

http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be/SPAT_Parameters.mov (http://users.telenet.be/deridderpiet.be ... meters.mov)

Traditionally, Piet's links have the half-life of a fruit fly.

.


----------



## chimuelo

Coolio.. o-[][]-o 
Thanks Jack


----------



## Hannes_F

re-peat @ Mon Aug 12 said:


> My litmus test for a reverb (not full spatialization, but reverb specifically ― there is a difference) is how well the source is _mirrored_ in the reverberation. Without that mirroring (and it’s a very subtle but oh so critical affair), you can never have convincing reverb. With older or cheap algorithmic reverbs (and with a few current ones as well unfortunately), the colour of the source never gets nicely reflected in the reverberation, making it very difficult, impossible even, to connect the two (source and reverb) and it is this connection which I think is an essential requirement for effective, good-sounding and convincing reverb.
> The worse the reverb, the more its reverberation remains an isolated, unidentifiable, colourless wash of sound. The better the reverb, the better the reflections and the source fuse together into becoming one organic ‘spatial presence’.
> To my ears, of all the ones which I’ve tried, it’s the ReLab and the two Exponentials which score best in this area.



Piet, do you use the newer version of the ReLab? I still use the older version of the LX480 and since I'm emotionally a bit peeved about how the upgrade came into life I never bothered with it. Do you think it is worth the effort?



Jack Weaver said:


> Verb, the reverb in SPAT is so much more flexible than I originally thought. It can even evoke a 480L. It does uniquely mesh with SPAT. Previously I was muting Verb and using a Bricasti when using SPAT but now find the combination of it with it's own reverb works best.



Wow, now that is an endorsement. You are speaking of the built-in verb of SPAT, not of the VERB that is of the same IRCAM family, right? I never quite understood whether or not the spatialisation part of SPAT handed more stems and information to its internal reverb part than a stereo mix, but if so then the internal verb should a priori be superior to any extra downstream reverb because internally it should still retain not only the phase but also the direction informations that get somewhat lost in the bottleneck of a stereo mix. 

However I am really not sure of all this because I can work with SPAT + VERB much better than with SPAT alone. It begins with having a dedicated dry/wet knob. Ircam should really provide a better manual when it comes to these details.


----------



## chimuelo

I'm really impressed with SPAT. While I just don't see such details needed for sustained sounds, using Muted Strings, Pizz and even Percussion could benefit immensely from this.
What's great is I can use my ReLab Lexicon verbs from Scope DSP still in conjunction with SPAT.
For years I have made my rigs as Non Native as possible since the DSP chips were so powerful, and in many cases sound better than Native.
Benn waiting for a reason to start using the 80% overhead I get from the i7, this is on the short wish list.
I only need a Holiday offer to break down and get this, thanks Piet and Jack.


----------



## re-peat

Hannes,

I didn’t even know there was an ‘old’ and a ‘new’ ReLab LX480. The one I have, is the one I bought late last year from Tony Belmont’s online shop and it’s called ReLab LX480 Complete. Whether that is the latest one or not, I have no idea, I only know I’m very pleased with it.

One more word about the lack of a dry-wet slider in SPAT. There isn’t one because that’s not the way reverberation/spatialization works in SPAT.
If you enter a room, or a hall or a church, there’s no dry-wet slider there either, is there? It’s the same in SPAT : the moment you enter SPAT, you enter a space. Now, you can do all sorts of things with this space, shape it just as you’d like and make it behave exactly as you want (from very present and reflective to barely audible and almost totally ‘sec’), but it’s always there. SPAT, you see, doesn’t think of spatial definition (positioning + orientation + reverberation) as something which you add to a dry sound, but it always considers the complete spatialization phenomenon “source inside a space” ― or: how a space responds to a sound generated within it ― as one entity, one inseparable whole. For SPAT, a sound always exists in a space, and you always work on the fusion of the two and the way they interact. It's never 'one plus (a certain amount of) the other', it's always 'one AND the other', siamesely intertwined.
Hence the absence of a dry-wet slider. A dry-wet slider goes in fact totally against what SPAT really is and how it was designed to function.

Having said that, there is no denying that this approach is not always the wisest or most desirable one, especially when working with virtual instruments and sample libraries which already have rather a lot of spatial information baked into them. In such cases a dry-wet option is indeed very welcome, a necessity even.
Which is why I rarely, if ever, use SPAT on libraries such as Spitfire’s or CineSamples’ because (1) libaries such as these really don’t need additional spatial definition ― such a thing would only ruin, or at least damage, what’s already there ― and (2) you’re bound to run into serious problems as a result of the clash between the baked-in spatial information of the samples and whatever it is that you want SPAT to do.

The more baked-in ambience your source signal has, the less there’s a need for SPAT, I feel. Maybe you still would like to hear a bit of extra reverb ― in which case there’s plenty of excellent ‘dry-wet’ reverbs to turn to, IrcamVerb very much included ― but you certainly don’t wanna superimpose a new spatialization over an already clearly present one. Bad idea. At least, that’s what I think.

_


----------



## Jack Weaver

To the point that it might not be good to superimpose SPAT upon libs like CineSamples, etc.:

While it is certainly dependent on which mic samples are selected for use in SPAT and its reverb _and_ with the acknowledgment that the purity of the intent of the manufacturer is somewhat superseded - my experimentation with SPAT has been joyfully fruitful. Not unlike the first person to push all four buttons in on a UREI 1176 and notice the unusual results I've found a useful & musical sense of 'otherness' with _some_ CinePerc articulations, SD3 patches and indeed, spiccs from Spitfire and 8Dio.

.


----------



## EastWest Lurker

I have been doing the following: separate QL Spaces instances for strings, winds, brass and perc, and UAD Lexi for Choir and rhythm section, with all the stems sending to a little bit of UAD Plate 140 for gloss and I am loving it, and a couple of my friends who came here and listened were blown away.

That said, my first impression ofUAD Ocean Way Studios was that it was really good for tracking "real"instruments, not so much so for virtual instruments, but an engineer friend of mine whose ears I consider "golden" tells me that i am missing the boat. We are going to get together this week and he is going to school me. I will report back.


----------



## nickhmusic

Important to mention the Lexicon PCM Native reverbs, very happy with them in my recordings.


----------



## Echoes in the Attic

There's a lot of talk about B2 being a cpu killer and yes it can be at XTRM quality setting. But using "High" quality mode instead often has no noticeable effect on the sound (especially in the mix) and halves the cpu! The "high" quality setting is apparently equivalent to the quality of Breeze so that sure isn't bad. If you're only flipping through presets you'll be seeing many of them using XTRM. Flip that down to high and see if you can tell the difference.

I must say, both Aether and B2 have a quality of really preserving the sounds character in the tails. Many reverbs, even the Valhalla ones I love, have a tail sound that you definitely know it's reverb. With the 2caudio verbs sometimes the tails sound like they are the actual source sound being sustained, they blend so well.

When it comes to all the "vintage" type verbs, lexicons etc. I say just get ValhallaVintageVerb and be done with all that!


----------



## pierre434

[/quote]I must say, both Aether and B2 have a quality of really preserving the sounds character in the tails. Many reverbs, even the Valhalla ones I love, have a tail sound that you definitely know it's reverb. With the 2caudio verbs sometimes the tails sound like they are the actual source sound being sustained, they blend so well. 


> This is what I 'm loking for, essentially for lead vocal !
> 
> And what about the Exponential Audio reverbs ? Could you compare them ?


----------



## Dan Mott

I must say, both Aether and B2 have a quality of really preserving the sounds character in the tails. Many reverbs, even the Valhalla ones I love, have a tail sound that you definitely know it's reverb. With the 2caudio verbs sometimes the tails sound like they are the actual source sound being sustained, they blend so well. 


> This is what I 'm loking for, essentially for lead vocal !
> 
> And what about the Exponential Audio reverbs ? Could you compare them ?


*
"With the 2caudio verbs sometimes the tails sound like they are the actual source sound being sustained, they blend so well"*

For me personally, I do not see this you mentioned as a good thing at all. If the verb is making it sound like the source is just sustaining, then you will have no separation and it won't be easy to tell what type of space it is in. IMO, I hate those type of verbs that do that.

Everyone raves about the B2, but meh, I don't think it's all that special, along with their other verbs. I find them to sound like they are completely saturated and take some tweaking to get it almost right. I think the 2C verbs have a character of their own, but perhaps a character that's subjective.

Exponential Audio? Yeah, I downloaded the demo and they are pretty good. You will however, find that on some forums their is quite some hype, though I think it's over hype. Sometimes your brain can fool you that the latest reverb with a fancy GUI is the best thing ever. 

I'd stick with Valhalla. Cheap, but can easily compete with 2C/Exponential Audio/Lex PCM Native/TSAR-1, ect. Though, the relab LX-480 is a tough competitor.


----------



## dgburns

[/quote]

Everyone raves about the B2, but meh, I don't think it's all that special, along with their other verbs. I find them to sound like they are completely saturated and take some tweaking to get it almost right.

I'd stick with Valhalla. Cheap, but can easily compete with 2C/Exponential Audio/Lex PCM Native/TSAR-1, ect. Though, the relab LX-480 is a tough competitor.[/quote]

The B2 is the first software verb that seems to allow me to push the source back in space.Valhalla just adds it's sound around the original,to me.But Valhalla has that lexicon vibe for sure.
i find especially for Lass,B2 can make the strings sound smooth.i also find it really hard to record stuff and make it sound like it got recorded further away,so this is a big issue for me.With lexicon type verbs,I find I get too much "effect".

to each his own i guess... o-[][]-o


----------



## Dan Mott

Everyone raves about the B2, but meh, I don't think it's all that special, along with their other verbs. I find them to sound like they are completely saturated and take some tweaking to get it almost right.

I'd stick with Valhalla. Cheap, but can easily compete with 2C/Exponential Audio/Lex PCM Native/TSAR-1, ect. Though, the relab LX-480 is a tough competitor.[/quote]

The B2 is the first software verb that seems to allow me to push the source back in space.Valhalla just adds it's sound around the original,to me.But Valhalla has that lexicon vibe for sure.
i find especially for Lass,B2 can make the strings sound smooth.i also find it really hard to record stuff and make it sound like it got recorded further away,so this is a big issue for me.With lexicon type verbs,I find I get too much "effect".

to each his own i guess... o-[][]-o[/quote]

I see.

If you want to push an instrument back, chuck Room or Vintage, straight on the insert and turn the mix knob up. If you are getting too much effect, just turn down the modulation on the tail.

LX-480 can push sounds back pretty good too, but if B2 works for you, then great! o-[][]-o


----------



## dgburns

no,Valhalla room or Vintage just didn't get me there.B2 did.

but I am a fan of Room and Vintage.Great plugs for the price.not in the same league as B2 though.Not in my books.

and the reason for the modulation originally was to compensate for the limitations in the old digital tech.Less modulation just means less swirl in the tail.It still doesn't "push the sound back".

funny thing is,none of them are perfect anyway,so I will probably find a "new" fav next month!

g'night boys


----------



## Dan Mott

dgburns @ Mon Sep 16 said:


> no,Valhalla room or Vintage just didn't get me there.B2 did.
> 
> but I am a fan of Room and Vintage.Great plugs for the price.not in the same league as B2 though.Not in my books.
> 
> and the reason for the modulation originally was to compensate for the limitations in the old digital tech.Less modulation just means less swirl in the tail.It still doesn't "push the sound back".
> 
> funny thing is,none of them are perfect anyway,so I will probably find a "new" fav next month!
> 
> g'night boys




I mentioned the swirl because you thought it sounded too much like an effect, so no swirl will get you there.

IT IS IN THE SAME LEAGUE AS B2. :D. 

Have a good sleep Sir.


----------



## tmm

I do have to agree that, to my ears, there is something special about B2 that Valhalla just can't do, and a lot of it is in the tails. That said, it's almost not perceivable in a full mix, unless you know what to listen for, and even then, it's minute. I only really hear it when I'm doing experiments with the intent of comparing tones at a very acute level, like running solo Ping Pong Glock through it at high mix levels. That really brings out the difference in tails.

For that reason, though I really love B2, and truly believe it to be superior, I haven't purchased it yet. Next time I have $250 just laying around, that's definitely where it's going. Until then, the combo of Valhalla and TSAR-1 (which itself has unique properties and uncomparable usefulness in close verbs) is working just fine for me.


----------



## pierre434

Thanks very much Dan for the feedback !

Maybe, the interest for a reverb depends on the musical context in which one is working. For me (above all for lead vocal in pop music and not for orchestral works), it's a hard task to get this reverb sound that confers that thickness character and "3D" (Bricasti is a dream for that); most average plug-in reverbs can do this kind of impression when soloing the track, but in the whole mix, the effect is fainting.

For that, such a "blending" sustain characteristic would be highly appreciated.


----------



## jamwerks

Anybody tested the Flux Ircam Verb 3, maybe versus the SPAT? I can't see any documentation anywhere as to what the differences might be. Though at half the price, Verb 3 still does multi-channel, so it seems it not (just) a reduced routing version of SPAT.

And wasn't there speak a while back about doing a stereo-only version of SPAT?


----------



## Udo

jamwerks @ Tue Sep 17 said:


> Anybody tested the Flux Ircam Verb 3, maybe versus the SPAT? I can't see any documentation anywhere as to what the differences might be. Though at half the price, Verb 3 still does multi-channel, so it seems it not (just) a reduced routing version of SPAT.
> 
> And wasn't there speak a while back about doing a stereo-only version of SPAT?


Verb v3 is a new version of Verb. Spat is a totally different product. It's main function is positioning/localisation (it contains reverb).

Spat and the other Ircam Tools will also be converted to the Flux v3 framework, eventually.

From the Flux website - www.fluxhome.com ::
_"Ircam Verb v3 is built around our latest 64-bit version 3 framework improving the processing performance dramatically. The graphic rendering in Verb v3 is using a GPU-efficient 2D/3D graphic engine. The engine, introduced first in the Pure Analyzer System, is based on the OpenGL standard optimizing the audio-to-visual experience utilizing the GPU on the computer’s built in graphics card."_


----------



## JohnG

re-peat @ 12th August 2013 said:


> I truly believe most people would be much better off with a simple but good algoritmic device. Not only because such a reverb more than provides all the production ingredients that reverberation needs to provide (for a mock-up), but also because it will help/nudge/force people to listen to (and work on) _the real issues_ that determine whether a mock-up will succeed or not.



I agree with Piet on this one. For me, simple has been effective.


----------



## KingIdiot

JohnG @ Sun Nov 03 said:


> re-peat @ 12th August 2013 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I truly believe most people would be much better off with a simple but good algoritmic device. Not only because such a reverb more than provides all the production ingredients that reverberation needs to provide (for a mock-up), but also because it will help/nudge/force people to listen to (and work on) _the real issues_ that determine whether a mock-up will succeed or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with Piet on this one. For me, simple has been effective.
Click to expand...


I'm not a religious man but it's possible Piet was looking for an Amen here....
so...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwQLk7NcpO4


----------

