# Long Awaited Verb Shootout to end them ALL!!



## José Herring (Dec 23, 2014)

Well not really to end them all, but here it is.

23 different reverbs collected spanning convolution, software Algos and hardware.

Couple of things before we get started.

Rules:

1) This isn't a this is better than that discucssion, but rather dialog of the pluses and minuses of each reverb. The names are left off so there are no biases. Each verb will be revealed after a healthy discussion and there's enough information to get some common characteristics of each verb.

2) This is not scientific rather subjective. I tried to level match as much as possible but that's as far as it goes. Different reverbs require different settings so I left it up to the submitter to find what worked for him.

3) refer to rule no.1. Try and judge the actual quality of the reverb rather than the skill of the person submitting. Comments like "too wet or too dry" are really not the issue. Comments like, " verb 5 has a distinct metallic ring in the tail, overall it sounds too cloudy and muffles the overall sound" those comments are totally valid. And, I hope that's what we stick to.

4) No comments on the composition. It's an original composition by me. Programmed by me. Stems have no mixing on them so only fx used is the reverb, so any comments about mix, composition isn't applicable. Though I did my best to balance the orchestra while programming I purposely left off all EQ and mastering plugs.

There's a lot to take in and after a few listens every reverb almost starts to sound the same. So I've included the original stems mixed dry to sort of cleanse your pallet.

What I would suggest is to listen to the full dry mix 1 time (painful to do but well worth it. It will perk up your ears to really distinguish the verb). Then dive into the reverbs. Maybe get a little of the first 30 seconds, a bit in the middle then the ending which shows the character of the verb after some hits fairly well. Jot down some comments then move on to the next...ect.... Also, just a few seconds in between of the dry version after each listen of the wet one keeps the ear fresh and helps to not blur the reverbs together so the next listen isn't being judged by the standard of the last reverb.

Here are the files. 66mb download, original files in .wav these have been converted to mp3. But I've checked and the character of the verb has remained in tact in the conversion.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R9OghYcycsbXh3Z0JNQTBqd0U/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R9Og ... sp=sharing)

Have fun, let's make it a good analytical analysis and keep it light. We're not curing cancer here. :D


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 24, 2014)

Highly interesting, thank you for doing this, José. I have my favorites already but will have some more listening rounds.

If nothing else it trains the ear and the personal taste ... like sommeliers do with wine. :D


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 24, 2014)

Can you name the reverbs used? well, at least the hardware? no in order or anything to give away the answer s


----------



## Garlu (Dec 24, 2014)

Nice one Jose! Thanks a lot for taking the time and effort to do this. Interested on what the options are, so we could guess... 

Thank you!!! :D


----------



## Resoded (Dec 24, 2014)

Thanks for doing this Jose, very interesting.


----------



## ErnestCholakis (Dec 24, 2014)

Numerical Sound received the dry track from josejherring but missed the deadline. 
So posting it's version here. Reverb Impulses only from The Hollywood Sound IR Collection were chosen. Different ER's lengths were used for each track. All the strings were mixed into one stem so one could not apply a separate ER for each string instrument - which I think is very important for acoustic realism. 

Included two version one with the wet signal -9dB relative to the dry and the second -7dB

The -9db version link:

http://www.numericalsound.com/files/theme/Eternal_RevShootout_NumSnd_THollywoodSnd_IR_9db.mp3

The -7db version link:

http://www.numericalsound.com/files/theme/Eternal_RevShootout_NumSnd_THollywoodSnd_IR_7db.mp3

Personally think that a 100% wet version should also be made available so that one can clearly hear the character of each reverb.

Ernest Cholakis
Numerical Sound
www.numericalsound.com


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 24, 2014)

Coolio, and nice cue.

First comment: you lose a whole lot of the sub-bass rumble with verb 1, but not with, say, verb 10.

I've only listened to three of them plus the dry one so far, but the image in verb 18 is way better than 2 and 10. You can localize the woodwinds in their solo chord part (about 30 secs in) way better in 18 than in 2 and 10. Actually that was what I noticed in 2 and 10 right away - that woodwind section wasn't coming from anywhere in particular, so that pointed my ears there.

It is really hard to judge reverbs this way, though. You do have some chord stabs at the end to listen just to the reverb, but there isn't any high transient stuff to reveal the really awful stuff you hear in bad reverbs. After a while you develop your own tests for reverbs, and listening to a dense mix like this is a difficult one just because it's so dependent on the mix itself.

One of the hardest things for a reverb is solo flute, in my experience. Great reverbs just stick to it, and lousy ones really sound like crap.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 24, 2014)

Nice, Ernest. Big jump up from the ones I've listened to. Wider, way more detailed.

But for bite-in-balls difference, listen to the tails at the ending. Totally different character. You hear the brass buzzing through like it should, and it's not just a muddled wash.

Plus you have the right predelay setting so you can hear everything throughout.

But I have to listen to the others!


----------



## José Herring (Dec 24, 2014)

Thanks for commenting so far.

Those that have listened don't be afraid to comment or wait for other comments. I want everybody's true impression. There is no right and wrong.

I have one little problem though with the numerical sound demo. I've been out of the studio and hadn't had a chance to review them before Ernest posted these. It kind of goes against what I intended and has the danger of becoming an advertisement for his impulses. 

Since this isn't a commercial section I would ask that you not include his submission in your analysis. I have no idea what he did, he could have done anything to the files to make them sound better where I had specifically instructed everybody else not to do anything but add reverb the way they see fit. No other processing at all.

I realized this isn't "the right way" to judge reveb, but it is a way on a real world type mockup to make the kinds of judgements that Nick B. is already making very well.

Keep it going!


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 24, 2014)

This is no scientific test. However I come to these conclusions for me:

1. For me nearly each reverb of these would be usable. Scrap that, I think all of them would be usable.

2. That being said each reverb has its own character. No matter whether it is dialed in to be a short reverb or a long, it retains its specific characteristic.

3. Some reverbs are more cloudy than others. I think that whether this is good or bad is debatable. With some reverbs you can dial the cloudiness (sp?) in via the diffusion parameter. If your criterium for a good reverb is that you want to spot individual woodwinds then the clear ones are better. I personally like it sometimes more cloudy (and some of my favorite recordings are cloudy in the positioning department). It depends on the music.

4. Some reverbs develop a bright sound in the reverb tail, almost like white noise. I think that is ideal for pop mixes that can be brightened by that effect. I have never heard it in a real concert hall and I would tend to avoid it for this type of music.

5. On some days I personally want to hear the music and not the reverb. A good room is nice, but the music is what changes while the room is always the same. Therefore I don't like it if I can hear the reverb as an own entity like - here comes the instrument - and here comes the reverb tail. Especially when there are hits and stabs I find an identifiable reverb tail distracting. What I want instead is the music placed in a room. All of that is a matter of taste of course. With that approach no. 9 would be my favorite.

These are just my opinions and I think I will have more individual listening in a few days and maybe change them alltogether :mrgreen:


----------



## José Herring (Dec 24, 2014)

gsilbers @ Wed Dec 24 said:


> Can you name the reverbs used? well, at least the hardware? no in order or anything to give away the answer s



There's only one hardware unit used, Bricasti. The rest are software plugins. I was reluctant to say, because I really wanted to keep the bias out of it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 24, 2014)

Unless it's a special effect, I *always* want to hear the music and not the reverb!

And whether it's pop or anything else, there's bright reverb (a creative choice) and then there's nasty metallic reverb with nasty sparkles in it that just doesn't sound good.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 24, 2014)

One more observation: Different reverbs have add different amount of compression.


----------



## ErnestCholakis (Dec 25, 2014)

josejherring



> It kind of goes against what I intended and has
> the danger of becoming an advertisement for his impulses." and "Since this isn't a commercial section I would ask that you not include
> his submission in your analysis. I have no idea what he did



Interesting Bricasti or the 480L are not commercial products ? Be interested to see if the list of 24 other reverb demos contain any other commercial units. 

The first comment on the Reverb Shootout thread was "This is a continuation of a thread about what reverb to get." Then your title for the posting is "Long Awaited Verb Shootout to end them All" does sound like you were attempting to be universal in your selection - apparently not ... 

"


> he could have done anything to the files to make them sound better where I had
> specifically instructed everybody else not to do anything but add
> reverb the way they see fit. No other processing at all."



This is a very insulting comment - I can read English and did follow the terms you outlined. If you want I can post all the individual ambient tracks of the mix so Vi-Control forum members can see if there is any additional processing done - WHICH THERE WAS NOT. For accuracy I did include the wet level relative to the dry level in the two mixes posted - which is not included in the posted 24 reverb shootout examples. This does makes comparisons rather useless because the ambient level is not consistent in each mix. Also since you asked users to submit a final mix how in the world could you determine if any of the other 24 submissions added additional processing on a 11 tracks mixed to stereo !

I encoded the two files posted at 320kbps and it resulted in a 6.1 meg files but all the Reverb Shootout mp3's you posted are 3.8 meg's so you clearly did not encode at the highest rate - which is not good enough for accurate reverb comparison.


Ernest


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Dec 25, 2014)

I agree with Ernest that it weird to exclude his contributions on the basis of being "commercial".

Otherwise my free Bricasti IRs should also have been excluded, as they can been seen as teasers for my other (commercial) IR libraries.

And using mp3 files is a no no IMHO. A much shorter 24 bit Wave file would make this test much more valuable!

And: one reverb over a mix, is that realistic?

BTW: I cannot play back any of the tracks from the link provided, so I am ranting a bit, without a clue... :-P


----------



## re-peat (Dec 25, 2014)

It being Christmas and all, I’m going to try to formulate this as nice as I can but … I am sorry, I have never heard a more ridiculous reverb test than this in all my life. With the possible exception of using the sound of the Niagara Falls or that of the bombing of Dresden, this is simply the worst possible way to evaluate and compare different reverbs. In fact, I go one further and say that the only thing that this test provides is yet more embarrassing proof that we, mock-up musicians, should keep humbly quiet when it comes to subjects like good reverb and quality sound. Because every example that illustrates how we work with reverb — and this ‘shoot-out’ is alas a particularly telling example — only shows that we’re in no way equipped to do such tests in a serious manner at all, and that our efforts are borderline insulting to the professional pride, dedication and seriousness with which these tools were designed and developed. (If I were a developer of any of the reverbs used in this test, I’d be simply horrified — horrified, yes — by what I’m hearing here.)

Firstly, and most painful of all: the raw, dry source material on display here exhibits all of the flaws (and alas: in disturbing abundance) which a mock-up nearly always suffers from — condensed in two words: awful sound — and which completely ruin all the spatial and sonic qualities which a good reverb is designed and meant to contribute to a music production. 
Secondly, I have a very hard time believing — in fact, I don’t believe it all — that the differences in some of these mixes were arrived at ONLY by using a different reverb and nothing but a different reverb. Thus rendering this comparison instantly completely compromised and of no use whatsoever.
Thirdly, the dry version also contains too many sounds which already have plenty of baked-in reverberation, again making any perceptive and useful observation pertaining to the reverb, simply impossible.
Fourthly, the track just doesn’t lend itself very well for rigorous reverb testing purposes at all.
Finally, it also seems a bit strange to me to try and evaluate the finer qualities of high-end reverbs using 192kbps mp3’s as listening material.

So, considering the above, how on earth, I ask nicely, are we supposed to be able to judge the potential and the distinguishing characteristics of any of these reverbs, if all their qualities are either fatally corrupted or rendered completely unrecognizable by the sonic turkey into which they were stuffed?

(The only thing I’m hearing again, but I knew this already, is that it doesn’t make one bit of significant difference which reverb you choose if you’re going to use it on a mock-up like this.)

If you want to be serious about testing/comparing high-end reverbs, the first thing you have to make sure of, I would think, is to use source material that is worthy of the quality of these reverbs and is capable of bringing it out. This track is neither. The sound is messy, there are phase-issues, it’s dull and severely congested, its stereo-image is totally screwed up, it is boomy and full of nasty frequency clashes, etc. … In short: it just isn’t up to the minimum required standard that is needed for any type of informative test whatsoever. And with this sort of sound, we are expected to compare and evaluate high-quality reverbs? I really don’t think so. I applaud the initiative and the effort invested and can even, if pressed, say a few nice words about the music itself, but as for the testing and ‘shoot out’-aspects of this endeavour: forgive me, but I can only suggest to erase this thread as quickly as possible, before the outside world hears (of) it, cause it makes us mock-up musicians look like an even more amateuristic, ignorant, technically challenged and largely deaf crowd than our reputation already says we are.

_


----------



## José Herring (Dec 25, 2014)

Yet in spite of the "flaws" of the test people are actually getting in pretty spot on as to the character of each verb. So again, Piet, you're very eloquently and with impeccable grammar, speaking out of your ass. And I'll no further take up your point. People can either participate or not. Since you have nothing to offer why would you offer anything?

@ Peter, Ernest kind of pissed me off because not only was he late to the party but then I specifically asked him to wait until I had a chance to get back in my studio and I would include his submission. So the fact that his submission is no longer blind then kind of throws his submission into the category of blatant advertisement. 

Your IR's on the other hand are blind.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 25, 2014)

@Ernest,

I was very happy to include your submission as a blind participant. Yet, you went around me and posted your submissions and advertise who you were and what impulses were used. Not really where I wanted to go with this. Also, I strongly suspect that you EQ'd the stems which I didn't want.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 25, 2014)

josejherring @ Thu Dec 25 said:


> Yet in spite of the "flaws" of the test people are actually getting in pretty spot on as to the character of each verb. (...)


No, they’re not. And what you call 'people' are in fact only _two_ (as in: not three, but two) persons having a stab at it, with remarks that don't really help much in revealing any value to this test whatsoever. Unless you find comments such as “some reverbs are more cloudy than others” or “each reverb has its own character” to be revelatory in any way. (I would think that most V.I. members are quite capable to advance to that level of insight without needing any sort of test at all, no?)

Besides, everyone who has responded thus far (beyond saying "Interesting!", that is) underlines that it is really hard to judge reverbs this way, and at least 3 of the 5 people that have replied, have also added the test is fundamentally flawed. Even you yourself raised a question mark about it. I simply went one step further, saying that it is not just hard, but that it is impossible, absurd and sensationally ridiculous.

Seriously, the only thing that this test proves — quite superbly, if you ask me — it its own worthlessness. Well done there. 

And as for my having nothing to offer: common sense and a rather fine ear for spotting incompetence, José, that’s what I’m offering. One has to able to recognize that of course.

_


----------



## ErnestCholakis (Dec 25, 2014)

josejherring



> Also, I strongly suspect that you EQ'd the stems which I didn't want.



I did state earlier that I did not EQ any component of the two Numerical Sound reverb examples posted. What important acoustic property you are hearing from *The Hollywood Sound: IR Collection *chosen for this shootout is a very high level of clarity because all the IR's in this an any other Numerical Sound IR collection all have a flat frequency response. Many hardware units and algorithmic reverbs have a very strong mid-range component in the wet signal and are not flat. Your statement clear illustrates that you are not impartial.



> @ Peter, Ernest kind of pissed me off because not only was he late to the party but then I specifically asked him to wait until I had a chance to get back in my studio and I would include his submission. So the fact that his submission is no longer blind then kind of throws his submission into the category of blatant advertisement.



After the links were sent to me there was no notification of when the deadline for submission was. When I noticed that you posted on Dec 23 I did PM message you but after not hearing from you for over 12 hours I decided to post it. 

Peter Roos is completely right in suggesting the the demos should not be in mp3 but in wav format. A double blind test with lower resolution sound files weakens the whole point of this exercise. 

So Numerical Sound is not part of the *Club Reverb* group - oh well 

Ernest


----------



## José Herring (Dec 25, 2014)

Ernest what's done is done and I am happy to include your submission. I just fet slighted. But to be fair i should reveal all the submissions.

I just wanted to hear from a few more people. So far Nick B and Hanness are pretty spot on.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 25, 2014)

To your point about mp3 i agree with Peter R and Ernest. But since most music gets played back with some sort of compression I went with it. It was never intended to be a hi/fi test. Rather a real world test for music for media. And, a point i wanted to prove is with samples and distribution via contemporary media just about any vetb is good enough.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 25, 2014)

I wished Ernest had sent his files to José who could have addded them as blind (anonymous) additions as afterthought.

The test is what it is, and I find it very helpful. Anybody who wants a different test: Feel free to initiate it as an own thread, nobody will stop you. 

Btw. the diffamatory remarks in regards to the quality of the music and the stems are imo undeserved. If you don't like the music and the test then why not simply ignore it - live and let live. Cheers.


----------



## wst3 (Dec 25, 2014)

Merry Christmas All!

Jose, thanks for setting this up, it is indeed somewhat instructive. There probably is no such thing as an ultimate shootout, but one can gather valuable information from this suite.

Ernest - I am sorry that things turned out the way they did, as I am a fan of your Impulse Response libraries. I would love it if you and Jose would let past events pass and continue forward.

While I do agree that a shootout using uncompressed, high sample rate files would probably be a more valuable test, in terms of hearing what the various tools are capable of, I still think there is great value here.

We are, after all, talking about applying reverb to a production made up of sample libraries, and then compressed with a lossy algorithm, and consumed on tiny laptop loudspeakers or ear buds.

So thus far I've simply listened on my laptop (I really dislike ear buds<G>!) And thus far I've decided that I can hear differences, but those differences are subtle enough, no, that's not the exact word, but in any case, the differences are minor, and I probably would be happy with many of the plug-ins (or hardware) used.

But, at least for me, that's not the point. Even when I know that I'm the only one paying attention to the subtle details I try to pay attention to them. So I do want to hear all these reverbs in all their glory<G>.

Its the same reason I still lug two amplifiers, and a pedal board filled with different stomp boxes instead of a kidney shaped pod, not to mention different guitars, when I play out. No one in the house can hear the difference, nor do they care, but I do.

I could continue to use GPO for most of my work and no one would be the wiser. But I continue to (slowly) build my collection of libraries so that I have better resources to work with. (If only there were a "talent" plugin that made me a better composer and arranger<G>!)

So I salute all that helped make this happen, and thank them as well!


----------



## José Herring (Dec 25, 2014)

I was miffed at Ernest but there's one thing that people don't really know about me on this forum and that is that I'm a fairly happy person and can't stay mad for long. So, I meant it when I said he's perfectly welcomed. I just had to get off my initial frustration.

@Hannes thanks for the support, but I meant it that I wouldn't take up any more of Piet's post so I didn't read anything beyond the first few sentences of his first post. He's so boring and predictable that I can follow his train of fairly mundane logic in about 2 sentences.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 25, 2014)

@ Larry, glad you found the test helpful.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 25, 2014)

> Ernest - I am sorry that things turned out the way they did, as I am a fan of your Impulse Response libraries. I would love it if you and Jose would let past events pass and continue forward.



Yeah, because I'm especially interested in what Ernest and Peter have to say. It never occurred to me that most reverbs are midrange-forward, but now that I think about it...yeah, I believe that.

Now. Does that mean you can clear up a mix by backing off the midrange in the reverb send? Ima try that. Rolling off the rumble is nothing new, in fact it's no secret that a lot of time you think your whole mix sucks when it's only the reverb that's cloudy - to the point that my instinct is just to increase the predelay and...now that I think about it, I'm really just putting a band-aid on that problem.

So this thread isn't useless. Even someone like me who knows everything there is to know has learned something new.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 25, 2014)

josejherring @ Thu Dec 25 said:


> It was never intended to be a hi/fi test. (...) And, a point I wanted to prove is with samples and distribution via contemporary media just about any verb is good enough.


So, your “Long Awaited Reverb Shootout To End Them All!!” — that is what this is called, right? — is, as you now admit yourself, in fact little more than a lo-fi exhibition of misrepresented reverbs, showing that they all do more or less the same when used on samples and when the results are compressed to mp3-format?
Well, if you feel that is an achievement of sorts, José, I’ll be the last to deny you that bizarre pleasure, but forgive me if I had hoped and expected to read — especially on a semi-pro and pro musician’s forum, in a thread titled the way this one is  something that sets its aims a little bit higher than that, and that reveals a little bit more than the plain obvious.

Besides, I — and many members with me, I’m sure — could have told you all that, before you started this amateur hour. As it happens, that is also very much what I’ve been saying around these parts for the past eight years. 

Hannes, excuse me, but _“defamatory remarks in regards to the quality of the music”_? Where so? As far as can read, only two replies include a comment on the music itself and both were rather positive.
And as for _“insulting and undeserved”_, the only thing that’s insulting and undeserved in this thread, if you want my opinion, is its pretentious assumption that there is anything interesting to be learned here for people who are actually striving for quality in their mixes and who are serious about their use and choice of reverb.

Never mind. If you want me to set up a reverb comparison (that is what you are suggesting, is it not?), just say the word, and I’ll be happy to prepare something before the year is over. Maybe, if you're not too annoyed with me yet of course, we can even collaborate on the compilation of the source material? And do this thing the way it should be done, for a change.
I can, however, only showcase the following (software) reverbs:

Exponential Audio Phoenix
Exponential Audio R2
Ircam SPAT (which is, of course, much more than just a reverb)
ReLab’s LX480
Sony Oxford Reverb
Eventide Ultraverb
UAD EMT140 and EMT250
UAD Lexicon 224
UAD Dreamverb
Softube’s TSAR-1
Logic’s Space Designer
Quantum Leap Spaces
Altiverb 7

Not as comprehensive a collection as could be wished for, I know, but perhaps enough for starters.

_


----------



## ErnestCholakis (Dec 25, 2014)

@josejherring 

Appreciate you including my submission. There was never any hard feelings -
clearly we just have different thoughts on a reverb shootout  

Ernest


----------



## José Herring (Dec 25, 2014)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Dec 25 said:


> > Ernest - I am sorry that things turned out the way they did, as I am a fan of your Impulse Response libraries. I would love it if you and Jose would let past events pass and continue forward.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm interested in what they have to say too. I thought Ernest example sounded rather good. Peter is going to try his Teldex IR's which should be very interesting.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 25, 2014)

ErnestCholakis @ Thu Dec 25 said:


> @josejherring
> 
> Appreciate you including my submission. There was never any hard feelings -
> clearly we just have different thoughts on a reverb shootout
> ...



I understand but please keep in mind that it was a test to just quickly judge the character of a wide range of reverb. Nothing more. And for those that have taken the time to comment on the files I am amazed that their thoughts are fairly close to mine.


----------



## guydoingmusic (Dec 25, 2014)

re-peat @ Thu Dec 25 said:


> I can, however, only showcase the following (software) reverbs:
> 
> Exponential Audio Phoenix
> Exponential Audio R2
> ...



That's just too many reverbs for one person to own!


----------



## peksi (Dec 26, 2014)

Thank you Jose for your work on this. It is very informative.

I kinda also agree with Piet too, on a bit more softer level. I am at highest a semi pro musician, more like a hobbyist with passion such as some of us here. Even pro composers do not usually possess talent for pro quality mixing and mastering, they have professionals to do it for them, therefore most of us are not qualified to make reverb calls  

But those of us who cannot afford mixing and mastering services still want our music to sound as we imagine it in our minds and these kind of comparisons gives us good guidance in achieving this. Thanks for that!


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 26, 2014)

OK, I had a detailled listening session now. As I provided some of the examples (I believe there were 5 participants all in all) this is what I did:

- I did not alter the ratio of the individual stems because I felt that would have brought too much variance into the examples and rather feature the individual ability for mixing than the reverb.
- I did not add ERs or such because the stems were already prepared depth-wise.
- However I tried to find a sweet spot for each reverb, in a way that would be as convincing as possible _for my taste_. That is important to mention because there were two reverbs that easily had a metallic ringing to them which I dampened by their internal settings. As the outcome they appeared to be on the darker side.
- My aim was to make it as convincing as possible under the given conditions. With other words I did not crank up the reverb in order to 'hear the tail' or such. I felt this was not necessary anyways (for me).

For listening then I blinded myself by reordering the stems until I lost track on which was where. Before that I had some clues what was what and I wanted to loose them. I included the Numercal Sound examples into my listening session, however also there I did not know at which position they were. I wrote down my findings before looking at the track numbers again.

I picked out certain spots (the same for each track) in order to watch out for

1. Envelope. Verbs can have the ability to 'surround' the listener more or less.
2. Positioning accuracy, especially in the woodwinds.
3. Blooming. Verbs can have an euphonic effect for woodwinds and strings.
4. Clarity, especially in the busy parts.
5. Transients. The stabs can have different punch, most are less punchy than the dry mix as you would expect, however some appear to be equally punchy or even more.
6. Overall room impression.

I gave scores for each of these items, checking back and fourth between them and also with the dry mix. All this is highly subjective of course but I felt that by giving scores this forced me to get beyond commonplaces.

Additionally I noted down whether there is movement in the reverb tail, whether it is dialed in short, medium or long and what the overall color is. However I did not give scores for those attributes as they largely depend on the individual settings.

All this might seem a bit winded, however taking in account that the plugins are between 50 - 400 EUR, hardware > 3k and somebody took the time and love to provide an example I thought they all deserved some individual and fair attention.

I then picked up the five examples that scored highest and had individual re-listenings and score corrections.

I'll post my findings in the next post, however given the acid spread in this thread I dediced to keep them in the anonymous order and send the key to José. That means while I left the dry mix at the top of my list (A) the next track (B) is neither verb1 or verb2 but some other verb. Should anybody be interested in my key then pm me.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 26, 2014)

My completely subjective, amateurish, unrepresentative and lack of talent ridden observations:
(Note that the order is altered compared to the original test. If you are interested in the key pm me or José.)

A. Dry mix.
B. Bright reverb with a tendency to be metallic, slight movement in the tail, very good transients, room impression and clarity are quite good, positioning and blooming are good, envelope is lacking.
C. Dark diffusive verb, room impression and positioning are good, no movement in the tail, lacking in the envelope, clarity and blooming department. I thought it was euphonic for the high strings though.
D. Nice blooming and positioning, medium room impression and envelope. Neutral color.
E. Excellent room impression and envelope, however at costs for the positioning. Good transients and blooming.
F. Dark verb with moving tail and strong coloration, lacking in clarity and blooming.
G. Has a distinct eigensound, tubby-metallic. Sub-bass is lacking.
H. Short neutral verb with nice transients and clarity, however medium in all other departments. It seemed to me that the ratio between the voices was altered compared to the dry mix.
*I. Excellent clarity, envelope and transients, good blooming, positioning and room impression. Neutral short tail without modulation*
J. Clear neutral verb, medium positioning and blooming, poor envelope.
*K. Excellent envelope, positioning, clarity and room impression, good blooming, euphonic for strings.*
L. Dark reverb, somewhat tubby, excellent envelope, however medium to poor in the other departments.
M. Neutral to dark verb with slight modulation, lacking in the sub-bass. Everything seemed to be very far away.
N. Darkish verb with medium to low scores throughout, everything seemed to be far away.
O. Bright reverb with a delayed movement in the tail, overall good scores.
*P. Neutral reverb with excellent clarity, transients, very good envelope, good room impresssion. Second tier group for me.*
Q. A bit of tubbiness, however good to very good scores throughout.
R. Neutral to bright, a bit flat room impression, low to medium scores throughout.
S. Medium to bright, good scores throughout.
T. Bright verb, everything seemed to be far away, low to medium scores throughout.
U. Long neutral to bright verb, quite good in the envelope, positioning and clarity department, I heard some rumbling in the sub-bass.
V. Dark and somewhat tubby, the woodwinds were very far while the strings stayed on the front, I felt the mix was a bit falling too much apart between the left and the right side. Good envelope, medium to low scores for everything else.
W. Neutral Verb, medium to good scores throughout.
*X. Neutral medium-short Verb with low or no modulation, excellent envelope, transients, positioning and clarity, euphonic for the strings. Highest score for me.
Y. Neutral-bright short verb without modulation, a bit more neutral than X, other than that excellent throughout. It seemed the ratio between the stems was altered compared to the dry mix. Second tier group for me.*
Z. Neutral to dark verb with no or low modulation, good to very good scores throughout.

Printed in bold are the top group (strictly speaking for my taste).


----------



## jamwerks (Dec 26, 2014)

Thanks for these Hannes, interesting read!


----------



## José Herring (Dec 26, 2014)

Very detaile Hannes!

I have the flu so i have been out if it. Today i am feeling better so will review your observation, reveal what reverb goes with which file and give my observations. 

Also i will host for a time publicly the stems so that people can post additional reverbs if they like.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 26, 2014)

Had a chance to review your impressions in detail Hannes. I'd say they are fairly close to the impression I got.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 26, 2014)

Ok. Here are the verbs used.

Verb 1 Spaces
Verb 2 Aether
Verb 3 Breeze
Verb 4 LX480
Verb 5 Mmultiband
Verb 6 MReverb
Verb 7 MReverb 2 (different setting)
Verb 8 Phoenix Verb
Verb 9 R2 Exponential Audio
Verb 10 SPAT
Verb 11 TSAR 1-R
Verb 12 Samplicity Bricasti
Verb 13 Roomworks Church
Verb 14 Valhalla Room
Verb 15 VSL Hybrid
Verb 16 Origami
Verb 17 Bricasti Hardware Large Deep Hall
Verb 18 Bricasti Hardware Large Hall
Verb 19 Bricasti Hardware Medium
Verb 20 Waves Manny Marroquin Reverb
Verb 21 Lexicon PCM Native
Verb 22 Valhalla Vintage
Verb 23 Tsar 1

I want to thank all the participants Guydoingmusic, Hannes, Muk, Oliver Codd and Tokatila. And, Ernest Cholakis for his excellent examples.

I'll give my impressions of each reverb in a moment. Gotta rest for a bit.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Dec 26, 2014)

I heard the examples earlier today. I am not really an expert on reverbs or on the topic of how to conduct such tests and what they can hope to achieve. 

But, just thinking off the top of my head - how would this test really work? Every reverb is so different and so are the various presets in those reverbs. Using just one piece of music and applying presets might be a little unfair. It also doesn't really say much about the reverb itself. 

To me, a lot of them sounded good enough. I was surprised to see in the list that a real Bricasti was used. IMHO, it did not feel any better than some of the other examples. Neither does it shine all that much with this example compared to most other test files. I am not sure why? I have used it a few times before in a studio and it sounded fantastic! I did not however use it for orchestral elements. 

May be I have rotten ears but even though there were some differences in the examples, they were too minor for me. Some of them jump out a little more so than others. But, over all I could use any one of them and get a good sound. 

It depends so much on the music, programming, the processing and how hard you hit a reverb. I have many reverbs with me and almost all of them are really great! I could use any one of them and get it done. But, I seem to have figured out how to work quickly or efficiently with some of them. That is why they remain my go-to reverbs. 

Reverbs like B2, Aether and SPAT do bring something special but I find them mostly useful for non-orchestral work. With the exception of SPAT. It has some great localization stuff going on. But then, that is it's unique feature, missing from most other reverbs. It is an entirely different concept. Similarly, B2 can do things which many other reverbs cannot in an as easy and straightforward way as B2 does. It has very unique features. 

Great effort and nice music but it did not really tell me too much about the quality of the reverbs as such. For one, may be using at least 3-4 different program materials would have helped to show the differences in them. But once again, I am not sure how we can really evaluate this on a more meaningful and relevant level. 


Just my thoughts! But, thank you all for taking the time to do this. I am sure it was not easy to put time aside to do it. 


Tanuj.


PS: I own the following reverbs: VSL Convolution, Hybrid, Numerical Sounds FORTI, SPAT/VERB, Aether, Breeze, B2, Exponential Audio Phoenix, Altiverb and the UAD Plates. I have also extensively demoed EW Spaces previously.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 26, 2014)

As for the Hardware Bricasti, it shines on a 24 bit .wav file. I think that if you are doing music for Cinema then a Bricasti would do rather well. But, since most of our music for media these days ends up on Netflix or DVD or Cable TV, I decided to use some compression in the form of mp3 at which time the effect was greatly reduced.

What I did find about the bricasti even at lower resolution is that It added to the depth of the sound like no other reverb.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 26, 2014)

Thanks José for revealing the key.

It turns out that my blindly given scores sorted the versions into these groups (within the groups in alphabethical order):

Excellent:
*Aether, Bricasti Hardware Large Deep Hall, LX480, QL Spaces, R2 (Exponential Audio)*

Very good:
Bricasti Hardware Large Hall, Numerical Sound Hollywood -7, VSL Hybrid, Waves Manny Marroquin, SPAT

Good:
Breeze, Bricasti Hardware Medium Hall, Numerical Sound Hollywood -9, Phoenix (Exponential), MMultiband Reverb, MReverb, Valhalla Vintage

Sufficient:
Lexicon PCM, MReverb alternative setting, Origami, Roomworks Church, Samplicity Bricasti IR, Tsar 1, TSAR 1-R, Valhalla Room.

There are some runaways but give and take I can live with that result 

I miss B2 though. I mistakenly thought somebody else would provide a sample or else I would have done it. Have a nice holiday everybody!


----------



## José Herring (Dec 26, 2014)

The Manny Marroquin was the surprise in this group. It showcased very well.

AS for B2 there is somebody who PM'd me that has an example ready to go. I asked him to post it here. I'll follow up with him.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 26, 2014)

One thing that I learned: it is only half the fun if you know what is what. Blind testing is what we really need, or else we are too easily fooled by GUIs and names. When it turns out that the quality differences are less than expected but one can still objectively hear them then this brings a beneficial realism into it.

The unpleasant thing about blind tests is that at some point you have to commit to an opinion which could be entirely wrong ...


----------



## guydoingmusic (Dec 26, 2014)

josejherring @ Fri Dec 26 said:


> The Manny Marroquin was the surprise in this group. It showcased very well.
> 
> AS for B2 there is somebody who PM'd me that has an example ready to go. I asked him to post it here. I'll follow up with him.



I use the verb inside the CLA FX plugin often! Surprising how good it is.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 26, 2014)

Ha ha!

But, I think the people that were willing to put up an opinion were really very accurate.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 26, 2014)

For those that want to post a verb that isn't covered I'll make the stems available for another few days here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R9OghYcycsMnZlYUZ1eEd0YjA/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R9Og ... sp=sharing)


----------



## José Herring (Dec 26, 2014)

guydoingmusic @ Fri Dec 26 said:


> josejherring @ Fri Dec 26 said:
> 
> 
> > The Manny Marroquin was the surprise in this group. It showcased very well.
> ...



Yes. For as much as Waves plugins seem to be roundly panned, I liked what I heard at least reverb wise.


----------



## jamwerks (Dec 26, 2014)

Which IR in Spaces was used?


----------



## guydoingmusic (Dec 26, 2014)

jamwerks @ Fri Dec 26 said:


> Which IR in Spaces was used?



So. Cal


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 26, 2014)

I would expect that the Bricasti should stand more out compared to software reverbs with real recordings. But at this point (in my completely subjective, amateurish, unrepresentative and lack of talent ridden world) this is an assumption yet to be proved. Maybe we'll do a new (blind) test ... but not in this year any more please


----------



## paulmatthew (Dec 26, 2014)

Thanks for putting this together. I did a blind test and broke them into 3 categories : Top , Good and Okay. 

Top : Spaces , Aether , Breeze , LX480 , R2 Exponential Audio , SPAT, Bricasti Hardware Large Deep Hall , Waves Manny Marroquin Reverb 

Good: Mmultiband , MReverb 2, Phoenix Verb , Valhalla Room , Bricasti Hardware Large Hall , Origami , Lexicon PCM Native , *****Valhalla Vintage Verb ( which was teetering betwwen Top and Good) , TSAR-1

Okay : Mreverb , TSAR 1-R , Roomworks Church , VSL Hybrid , Bricasti Hardware Medium

The differences really showed up in the clarity and depth when the drums come in at about at 1:16 minutes. Some of the reverbs really dulled down the percussion at certain points. I would have liked to have seen the B2 , Liquidsonics Reverberate , Verb Session and Verb3 in this shootout too , but it was interesting to hear the differences from a lot of other reverb units.


----------



## TravB (Dec 26, 2014)

Was there any interest in ArtsAcoustic Reverb?


----------



## José Herring (Dec 26, 2014)

The stems are posted above. Anybody can post any verb not already covered.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 26, 2014)

Here's another submission from David Burns using B2 and a different preset from Valhalla Room.

He's also included full wet versions of it. Though I don't quite know what to do with them.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R9OghYcycsdkRWdmItTUlKVktWdmdvTW91SS05V2pycnlJ/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R9Og ... sp=sharing)


----------



## José Herring (Dec 26, 2014)

Funny thing is that now that I hear my beloved Valhalla Room stacked up against B2, R2, LX480, VRoom isn't sounding so great to me anymore.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 26, 2014)

@ Travis, I didn't want your observations to go unrecognized so thank you for posting.

When Hannes first mentioned using SPAT I told him I didn't think it was right for a verb test. He said he had a way to make it work and I was surprised at how good of an overall reverb it is. I had only used it previously to position solo instruments and then I shelved it when I went 64bit. Now with it fully 64bit it's time to dust it off.

Perhaps you can tell us a little bit about how you used SPAT Hannes?


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 27, 2014)

josejherring @ Sat Dec 27 said:


> Perhaps you can tell us a little bit about how you used SPAT Hannes?



Yes sure. Funnily enough I used the default setting that it comes with when opening a new instance. Often the developers put their asset setting right to the front. From there I did very little changes:

Stereo channels linked
Source Presence = 76
Room Presence = 56
Reverberance = 56.5
Heaviness = 20.7
Liveness = 30.8
Room Size =1847 m3
Reverb Start = 56.8 ms
Shape = 0.54
Early min. = 16.1 ms
Cluster min. = 21.4 ms

Source distance = 1.91 m
Aperture = 91 deg.
Output = - 0.13 dB

In hindsight I would perhaps return to slightly higher reverberance values like 65 - 70 and set the Reverb start to 60 - 70 ms, that helps the positioning.

Very nice B2 version too, as expected.


----------



## eric aron (Dec 27, 2014)

thanks Jose for your good will and dedicated time 

i listened all this through Sennheiser HD800 headphones

the only examples i can underline are 1) 4, 2) 9, but this by a small margin to everything else, thus my remark is of no interest if you want more accuracy in the answer. i just felt the global sound was a little more “natural”.. but after some more auditions, this little plus was itself arguable

by “natural”, my reference is a concert hall with a real orchestra, which is the only ”hi fi” standard acceptable, related to that you posted a mostly orchestral mockup

for me everything sound average to horrible. lot of mud, clear artificial looped tails , metallic tails, no good harmonic resonance, phase problems, no real wrapping of the sound

mostly, as Piet said, the test conditions are not allowing subtleties, and cannot be objective. to start with, the dry music isn't dry, already including different tails. the different libraries mixed together produce a mess in the global coherence. so we have in the base a flawed condition to properly judge what will come after in the audio chain

and in these test conditions, i am even not convinced by the Bricasti results (having read after who is which). puzzling, considering the reputation of this hardware, isn’t it…

to be more naughty, if i had to make my mind to choose a reverb from this test, and by extension all the gear and sound sources behind, i would have a satori, gave up computers and sample libraries and return to the real acoustic world. all these expensive libraries, plug in, to get this result?


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 27, 2014)

I'm surprised Logic's Space Designer wasn't included. It must be one of the most used.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 27, 2014)

eric aron, you are coming from playing in concert (as I do) and there the conditions are very different. It is important to consider this: Mockups are not trying to emulate the concert experience, they try to emulate recordings. And also they usually don't try to emulate grammy winning extraordinary mighty fine top of the crop recordings but run-of-the-mill studio productions - that are nevertheless an industry for themselves, have their own quality standards (that are not low at all) and have a right to live in a practical world. So do the mockups.

It is important to keep that in mind in order not to develop a cynical attitude. Hope that helps, Hannes

PS.: Of all aspects of mixing like balance, dynamics, EQ etc. the reverb is probably the one the least suited for being checked with headphones only.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 27, 2014)

Aside from Piet's vomit, this is a useful thread. Thanks for going through all the trouble, Jose!


----------



## jamwerks (Dec 27, 2014)

Don't agree about original stuff needing to be dry, as almost all our samples now have ambience, so that's the real world starting point.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 27, 2014)

jamwerks @ Sat Dec 27 said:


> Don't agree about original stuff needing to be dry, as almost all our samples now have ambience, so that's the real world starting point.



Not necessarily. The Hollywood Series, LASS, VSL of course, Kirk Hunter, and some others with more ambience but less so with their close mics, etc. are all pretty dry. 

Without commenting on the aesthetics, which would be deemed inappropriate of me because EW makes QL Spaces,, I will say that Piet's comments, after being run through the De-Hyperbolizer machine, have some validity .In an ideally _objective_ and _scientific_ reverb test the material would be very dry. But as a _practical_ and _subjective_ matter for people here, who are composers and not scientists, hearing the verbs with a mix of the libraries many use is of value to some.

In the end if people here find it useful, and it appears that many have, then Jose's hard work here has worth.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 27, 2014)

@ Eric, I too come from a concert world. The funny thing about this piece is that I released this one to the public and it was received rather well. Nobody has written back to me and said, "wow sounds really fake". I write music for the general public not some idealized fantasy and the public is looking for overall impact. I think if more concert based composers took an approach with the audience in mind there would be more successful composers of concert music. And it has taken me a long time to realize that reverb isn't a concert hall.

@ Ned,
Piet is as Piet does. So I stopped reading the vomit. I do grant him the courtesy of reading at least the first few sentences, every once in a great while he's put forth some useful information. But after the first few sentences of his first post you see where he's going and his Aristotelian black and white logic laden with hostilities is fairly easy to predict and really boring too. 

In truth though, I actually feel rather sorry for him. I can't imagine that he's too happy or even experiences much joy from life. 

@ Hannes, thank you that is very helpful. Will dust off my copy of SPAT now.

In the end, even if a few people found this little experiment useless, I got a tremendous amount from it. So thank you!


----------



## José Herring (Dec 27, 2014)

@ Jay, it was really never intended to be a scientific test. If it was I would have just used a dry piano close miced so the reverb could be heard clearly. But, in the end, I realized that kind of test would be equally as useless and there are already 1000 examples of that on each site that sells reverb. So I went subjective. My reasoning was, If I had sent out stems to a mix engineer what would he be getting? So I stemmed it out without fx.

Very real in our world.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 27, 2014)

josejherring @ Sat Dec 27 said:


> @ Jay, it was really never intended to be a scientific test. If it was I would have just used a dry piano close miced so the reverb could be heard clearly. But, in the end, I realized that kind of test would be equally as useless and there are already 1000 examples of that on each site that sells reverb. So I went subjective.



Understood, and for the people here that is probably more useful than a scientific test, as I said.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 27, 2014)

Funny this is that one of the participants and I joked about what Piet's response would be and we nailed it. That's how predictable he's gotten.


----------



## dgburns (Dec 27, 2014)

josejherring @ Sat Dec 27 said:


> Here's another submission from David Burns using B2 and a different preset from Valhalla Room.
> 
> He's also included full wet versions of it. Though I don't quite know what to do with them.
> 
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R9OghYcycsdkRWdmItTUlKVktWdmdvTW91SS05V2pycnlJ/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R9Og ... sp=sharing)



I just gave you the full wet because I did not know the wet/dry blend you went with for the examples.Because I had mp3's as a source file,and converted to wave 24 bit/48 k to process and back to mp3 to post,I thought the files might suffer from all the conversions.That said,I just wanted a B2 example in there,and while going through the presets was surprised to find that some settings I had always thought to be good,didn't actually flatter the music,and I went with a new setting,single engine I might add,that I never thought of using.I concentrated on the tutti hits at the end of the music,because I felt that the legato sections were more forgiving to the settings used,and to a great extent,all the verbs used provided a decent result.The hits at the end really give the verb's charactor away,some are far too long in tail,some just sounded out of place with the source.I thought B2 was at least to me,as good as the better examples of the Bricasti,Aether and some of the others.
my two cents,and thanks for the hard work on your part Jose.I hope you get better soon.
cheers everyone,
David


----------



## dgburns (Dec 27, 2014)

btw,I find Valhalla room to be a decent verb,but for some reason you have to watch the tail,it can get away on you and take over ,it can be overly flattering,like a lexicon,and has decent density,but for some reason,it can get a bit metallic in the tail,especially on perc or short sounds.The B2 on the other hand,will keep the sound of the source in the tail better then most verbs I've used,including the venerable Spat.The thing with Spat,is not so much in the reverb itself,but in the positioning it can bring.Magic going from stereo to surround in a way not even Phoenix verb or R2 can do.
again,my two cents 

And also,I wonder how much is in the settings.Could it be a that a great verb set wrong or not as approriately can lead us astray ? I guess it comes down to personal taste as well.However,I can't help thinking that a test of this kind does in fact bring out many of the traits that are inherant to the verb design in the first place ,regardless of setting,especially algo verbs.
the convo verbs ,on their own,just don't do it for me anymore.

again,all in my opinion


----------



## José Herring (Dec 27, 2014)

Thanks David. The B2 came off rather well in spite of the conversions. If you want to do it with the original files they are posted somewhere in this long thread.

But, for our purposes I rather thought B2 sounded rather good and in the end, our music goes through so many conversions before it actually gets broadcast that what you went through may actually be pretty "real world".


----------



## re-peat (Dec 27, 2014)

Call me weird and un-V.I.-member-like if you wish, but I’m of the opinion that the point of a reverb test, is to test reverbs. I.o.w. the ability of a plug-in or a hardware device to generate a simulation, or approximation, of what happens when sound is heard in a space and fuses with that space’s response into a coherent and convincing whole. Testing the quality of that response and that fusion, is what an exercise like this should be all about, it seems to me. And then hopefully allow interested parties to make, or at least get closer to, an informed decision as to which plug-in (or piece of hardware) will suit their purposes best.

But you can’t do any of that with a test (or material) such as the one under consideration. And it’s not just the source material that doesn’t cut it (for testing purposes, I mean), but also the way in which the reverb is applied to it, that is painfully absurd. That’s why so many of these mixes sound so much alike, even though the reverbs that were used are very, very different sounding animals.

In order to really hear the glaring and/or subtle differences between various reverbs (and trust me, between a hardware Bricasti and a $100 plug-in, there are more than a few _very_ glaring differences), you need to send in different audio material. Preferably dry-ish, isolated, lively and dynamic sounds (of various stereo width, from mono to full wide) — a few snaredrum hits, a piano or harpsichord, some percussion, vocals, synths, an acoustic guitar, a few phrases with solo woodwinds or brass, hand claps, impacts, … things like that — the reverberation of which will quickly and clearly tell you:
(1) how a reverb responds to an incoming sound, and to which degree it is capable of mirroring the color(s) of that source in the reverberation, 
(2) how good the reverb is at wrapping itself around that source while at the same time also suggesting a convincing spatial presence,
(3) how effective the definition, character and spatial- & positioning-suggestive ability of the early reflections is,
(4) how smooth, rich and natural the (diffusion in the) tail is,
(5) and how good a reverb is at becoming part of the sound of a mix, and not remain hanging behind it like a detached wash of sonic pollution. 

This last element can of course not be tested properly with just a single isolated sound, you need to be working on a fuller mix to be able to evaluate that. But not a full mix which you send in its entirety (or split up in a few stems) through a reverb, like it was done in this test, but a proper mix in which each and every single track gets precisely the optimal amount of reverb — and the right reverb —, in order to make the summed signal sound musically and sonically strong and pleasing.

None of the above points can be evaluated with the test at hand. None whatsoever. This is 24 times more or less the same result (or non-result, to be more precise), with only a few minor and inconsequential differences here and there (most of which I simply don’t believe can be attributed to just the reverb alone, by the way). I listen to this and I end up knowing nothing more about any of the reverbs in this line-up. And forgive me, but anyone who _does_ claim to be wiser about any of these reverbs than he was before this test, is motivated by something entirely different (and far less becoming) than a genuine interest in reverb(s) and good sound.

And this is not me vomiting — although the complete absence of any desire, commitment and/or insight in this thread, to do things right or to care about quality, is, if not surprising, mildly disappointing —, this is me really NOT understanding how you guys, musicians of some experience I was led to assume, refuse or fail to hear that this is not the way to test or compare reverbs.
This test is like tasting and comparing fine wines after they’ve been poured and mixed into a dish. And a very clumsily prepared and suspicious smelling dish at that.

_


----------



## muk (Dec 27, 2014)

josejherring @ Sat Dec 27 said:


> Funny this is that one of the participants and I joked about what Piet's response would be and we nailed it.



That's true. For long time forum users his opinion about what different reverbs add to a mockup is well known.

Personally I find this test very interesting, but it takes me some time to go through all the versions thoroughly. That's why I haven't commented yet. What I can tell already is that I have a differing view to Hannes' about Origami and Hybrid reverb (that's the two versions I contributed). For my taste Hybrid Reverb added too much color to the mix, whereas Origami is cleaner. So I liked that version much better.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 27, 2014)

@ David I see where Vroom can get that nasty tail. Something I have struggled with. Never even considered your observation regarding retention of the original sound source. I had started to suspect something along those lines when I got the files back and noticed how much some reverbs changed the original sound.

As far as convo verb goes I've moved away from them too. Though I am interested in Samplicity Teldex. Also of note is that the convo verbs used did the worst when converted. The wav files sounded great. I learned this the hard way when I heard a film I scored that had been converted and it sounded like the verb had been separated from the source.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 27, 2014)

@ Muk, I was very fond of Origami. And, I am still not sure of VSL HV. Nick B and Hannes seem to rather like it so I am still willing to do further research.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 27, 2014)

EastWest Lurker @ Sat Dec 27 said:


> De-Hyperbolizer machine


I want one.



dgburns said:


> And also,I wonder how much is in the settings.


Very much imo. It is almost just as with testing different libraries against each other. 

Yes it is a bit weird. Speaking for the versions that I provided: In the first step I tried to find a sweet spot setting for each reverb according to my taste, and since my taste is always the same that means I tried to make them all sound the same (however that is only true for the versions that I provided ... which can be spotted very easily because they all sound nearly the same).

In the second step José posted all samples with other names. Still I thought I had some clues about which was what and reordered them arbitrarily for my own listening session. Nevertheless I tried to hear quality differences between the reverbs (quality differences, not differences in color or settings). As it showed this was still possible, and they do have different quality levels (for my hearing).

It would have been a completely different test for example to leave each reverb with its default setting and then feed the usual snares, claps etc. into them. The characteristics of the verbs would have been much more different. But then we would have a debate whether the result would be too dependent on the default settings. If anybody wants to do that test, go ahead, but there are plenty of drum loop and snare demos already. 

Perhaps it is really analogous to testing different string libraries. The ones say, run the same midi track through all of them in order to show how they sound out of the box, the others say, try to make them individually shine. Both has its pros and cons.



dgburns said:


> Could it be a that a great verb set wrong or not as approriately can lead us astray ?


Yes absolutely. However the other way (making a problematic verb shine) will be much more difficult.



muk said:


> What I can tell already is that I have a differing view to Hannes' about Origami and Hybrid reverb (that's the two versions I contributed). For my taste Hybrid Reverb added too much color to the mix, whereas Origami is cleaner.


muk, for that you would need to know my testing order, so it might be that we speak of different takes. Just saying. Nevertheless I believe that it is best if everybody comes to own conclusions of course, so my amateuric conclusions should not be too relevant anyways.



re-piet said:


> anyone who does claim to be wiser about any of these reverbs than he was before this test, is motivated by something entirely different (and far less becoming) than a genuine interest in reverb(s) and good sound.


Please explain. I say that I am wiser now than before, so then tell me by what I am motivated.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 27, 2014)

Regarding the pros and cons of different testing methods: Perhaps one could see an analogy to testing graphical printers. There is the technical/scientific method where you print test sheets with siemens stars, rectangular patterns and so on. That is very objective and can be compared to feeding snares and claps (which means: spikes with virtually every frequency in them) into reverbs.

Or you could say: I am a landscape photographer, so I take a typical landscape photo and print it with each of the printer models. However I allow to calibrate each printer or use individual transfer curves, test prints etc. in order to test how close I can individually get to a result that I like.

I am sure that if a photographer then looks at the different printouts from the same motive in a blind test he/she will still be able to see different quality categories. And that might then be more a practical and everyday approach to testing than test patterns. However it might not be relevant for a photographer doing portraits.

The important thing with a test is to define what you sort of test you want to conduct _before you start_ and then stick to it. As long as that is communicated all is good imo because then everybody can decide for himself whether it is valid for him or not.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 27, 2014)

Common sense from Hannes IMHO.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 27, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Sat Dec 27 said:


> Regarding the pros and cons of different testing methods: Perhaps one could see an analogy to testing graphical printers. There is the technical/scientific method where you print test sheets with siemens stars, rectangular patterns and so on. That is very objective and can be compared to feeding snares and claps (which means: spikes with virtually every frequency in them) into reverbs.
> 
> Or you could say: I am a landscape photographer, so I take a typical landscape photo and print it with each of the printer models. However I allow to calibrate each printer or use individual transfer curves, test prints etc. in order to test how close I can individually get to a result that I like.
> 
> ...



This was my thinking. It would have been easy enough to just do a solo close mic instrument or click of some sort or some bone ass dry anechoic recording, but everybody does that and it's just not realistic.

As for my little test being successful or not, I certainly got a lot out of it and didn't really realize how good R2 and B2 were for sample work.


----------



## jleckie (Dec 27, 2014)

I have to agree 100% with mr Re-Peat. This test (as is) is silly at best. In fact I think it counter-productive.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 27, 2014)

jleckie @ Sat Dec 27 said:


> I have to agree 100% with mr Re-Peat. This test (as is) is silly at best. In fact I think it counter-productive.



What you think doesn't matter it's what you do that counts. If you find the test silly than simply do another one.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 28, 2014)

Okay, let’s go over this again. Calmly. 

V.I., or at least a few of its members under the supervision of José, have embarked on the ultimate reverb shoot-out. The one to end them all, it said at the beginning. Fine. Great. All for it. Honestly.
Alas, instead of doing this with a minimum of serieux, instead of delivering something that can, months or even years from now, be looked back upon with pride and satisfaction and referred to as an illuminating aural essay on reverbs, what have we ended up with?
An embarrassing mockery of a test that lazily ignores all the paramount requirements for such an excercise to make any sense at all, that doesn’t even have the appearance of having passed some suggestion of quality control anywhere along the way, and that never rises above the level of toddlers-with-toys. 
In short: the sort of rank lo-fi amateurism that makes V.I. the ridicule of anyone who’s interested in good sound and mixing.

Several of the submissions (the ones Hannes provided) use reverb which, as Hannes said so himself, have _their early reflections disabled_ because, apparently, _the stems were already ‘prepared depth-wise’_. Read that again please. Just read it. Tell this to anyone who knows about reverbs, and they just won’t believe you. But this is how things are done on V.I., yes: we’re supposed to compare reverbs, and form an educated opinion on their qualities, in a test that shows several of them with their early reflections bluntly disabled, and used on material that is already spatially prepared. 
For those who don’t know: early reflections are every bit as much the defining heart-and-soul of a reverb as the tail is. But Hannes, it seems, felt that that could be ignored altogether and still make for a valid comparative test. One might just as well compare graphic printers with their ink cartridges taken out.

Only marginally less dubious in the context of a serious audio test that expects us to evaluate the character and qualities of some excellent and even high-end reverbs, is the fact that some people used lowres mp3’s for stems, that the source material makes it com-ple-te-ly impossible to consider any of the five essential points which I outlined in my previous post, and that the whole thing was presented to us after being converted, yet again, to mp3 (and not even 320kbps mp3, but a meagre 192kbps).
Now, I don’t really mind this mp3-thing all that much — after all, there’s still rather a lot that can be learned from even that crippled an audio format — but I mention it because it is indicative of the careless, slap-dash attitude with which this test was undertaken.

But then the self-proclaimed ‘experts’ appeared. And things quickly went from merely depressing to downright preposterous, with their pseudo-observant comments that speak of “excellent clarity, envelope and transients, good blooming” or “euphonic for strings and good room impression”. Please. Enough.
Good blooming? Excellent clarity? With sonically compromised material like the source mock-up, there’s just no way that anyone, not a single soul, can make any assessment whatsoever about how good or how bad the blooming or the clarity is. Let alone about subtleties like envelope and transients.
And, excuse me, but what possesses someone to want to make such a fool of himself by talking about a reverb giving a “good room impression” if the source material is already spatially prepared and also contains several instruments which already have plenty of baked-in reverb, and if this material was treated with a reverb that has its early reflections disabled? 
Enlighten me please, cause here we’ve reached a level of incomprehensible absurdity I wasn’t even aware existed.

I am disappointed, Hannes. Can’t deny it. You of all people I had expected to want to do these things with a curiosity for true insight, a sense of integrity, some analytical accuracy and a wish to raise the level of V.I. 
Instead, you subscribe to and participate in this degrading display of baffling ignorance and ‘amateurism galore’, and, worse still, even choose to join in the petty and infantile hostilities towards anyone who dares to question it or go against it.

What is even more worrying though, and what makes me write the way I write — or should that be: vomit the way I vomit? — is that the level of V.I. (a level which, up until a few years ago, I recall being more than able of satisfying a rather knowledgeable and dedicated crowd) has dropped to the deplorable low level it has found here. Sillyness and incompetence on the scale that this test has managed, would, only a couple of years ago, have been laughed of the premises or completely ignored, right after the opening post.
Every single member I talk to in private, they all complain bitterly about the decline of the forum. Well, permit me a few more words to those people: it’s threads like these that will do just that to the forum: spread an attitude of all-pervading shallow carelessness, a complacent neglect and even hostile dislike of the strive for excellence, that may indeed make the beginners and hobbyists among us feel right at home, but that also alienates and frustrates anyone who hopes to find, or contribute, something here which appeals to those of us who approach their music with insight, passion, care and a deep desire for quality.

Anyway. Never mind.

I’ve quickly thrown something together yesterday evening which, in my view, presents the sort of musical material which offers a lot more possibilities to explore the powers and qualities of a reverb, especially for us, mock-up musicians. It’s a three-minute collage of short bits made with various dry-ish sample libraries: a few VSL woodwinds, the Efimov nylon guitar, the new Orange Tree harp, Erskine drums, SampleModeling horn, XSample spinet, some piano, London Percussion, … a few Greg Adams brass stabs, and a trumpet- and saxophone solo from some BFA jazz-collection. Oh, and a bit of CosmoD solo cello as well.

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

_


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Dec 28, 2014)

What an ego! What balls! What an utter lack of respect for others you show, Vomitman. Start your own thread instead of lazily stomping on others' work.

As for your comments about the forum and those who whisper in your ears: 

A) I have little patience for people who can only express their criticism of this forum through private messages. Are they afraid that they might be called out for actually adding to the noise instead of adding value? (I'm looking at you, kid)

B) Your inability to criticize without insulting is a great flaw and is in fact one of the dark parts of VI-C.

Pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 28, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun Dec 28 said:


> Several of the submissions (the ones Hannes provided) use reverb which, as Hannes said so himself, have _their early reflections disabled_ because, apparently, _the stems were already ‘prepared depth-wise’_. Read that again please. Just read it.



No, that is not true. You misquoted me. That is not what I did, and I never said so.

Skipped to read the rest of the post because it is building on false assumptions (as usually are your posts these days, sadly).

PS: One point to agree that I picked up before stopping the read: The title of this thread is a humorous exaggeration, not a program. The test came out of this thread:
http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtop ... are+reverb

The underlying question is: Would investing into a hardware reverb like a Bricasti make sense at this point or not? This is a question José for sure is sharing with other composers. 

If it were my setup then I would come to this conclusion after this test: Obviously not. While the Bricasti is a very fine unit it would make at this point more sense to invest half the money into adding a slave filled with ambient string libraries, especially from viola upwards. Because the Bricasti does have its qualities but can not elevate the existing samples much above what can be achieved with B2, R2, Spaces etc.

So, that was (for me) the question to answer and that is why I took the time. Cheers and out.


----------



## tokatila (Dec 28, 2014)

*Small shootout*



re-peat @ Sun Dec 28 said:


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



Ok, I play. Here's a little test with 5 reverbs with your file, I used all of them in the "maintest" with basically identical way (100% wet, Sends -6 dB).

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

General parameters (if applicable):

All sends (100% wet, -6.0 dB send)
Based on Large Hall (Random)

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

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


----------



## AC986 (Dec 28, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun Dec 28 said:


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



Excellent work Piet. Sounds very good to me, not in anyway an expert.

What about SPAT with this example track? Or is that irrelevant regarding this test?


----------



## PJMorgan (Dec 28, 2014)

I'm gonna have to agree with re-peat here & say this is as far from the "Reverb Shootout to End Them All" as you can get. The source material while musically is quite good, is far from ideal for a reverb shootout with it's already baked in room sound/early reflections.

I listened to a few of the verb mixes & rather than being able to judge the reverb itself could only possibly comment on the skill in the use of a particular reverb. Some were wetter, darker, brighter, etc. than others, some I liked & others I really didn't. I find a test like this can be actually very damaging to the reputation of some of the very excellent reverbs featured in this test.

Take Phoenixverb for example, I bought it recently in the Black Friday sale after a weeks worth of extensive A-Bing up against my other most used verb "Breeze" & found it to be much better (to my ears) with Orchestral content than Breeze (although breeze is no slouch in this department). Phoenix seemed to blend better with the instruments while breeze sort of sat on top of the mix a bit more & was slightly muddier & darker than Phoenix. But the results of this test come across as exactly the opposite, The Phoenixverb mix in this test to my ears is a lot muddier & less defined than the Breeze one. This only really tells me that I prefer the way the Breeze example was mixed with the source material over the PV example rather than which reverb is best. So there in lies the big flaw in this shootout, this could misdirect someone from buying an excellent reverb to a perhaps mediocre one (not referring to breeze as mediocre) purely on the bases on someones mixing skills or tastes with a reverb.

I think you should change the name of this thread which is kind of misleading or redo the test with re-peats much better example for use in a Reverb test. It still won't IMO give you the ultimate Reverb but with re-peats drier mock-up the results should be a lot more accurate, & please do if possible use lossless audio.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 28, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Sun Dec 28 said:


> (...) No, that is not true. You misquoted me. That is not what I did, and I never said so.


*Hannes,* then how I am to understand what you wrote on page 1?



Hannes_F @ Fri Dec 26 said:


> (...) I did not add ERs or such because the stems were already prepared depth-wise.(...)



*Ned,*

_Lazily_ stomping? Me??? Shall we compare our contributions to this thread? Mine first : I went to great lengths to explain what, in my opinion, is wrong with the test and then added a further detailed list of points which should, I believe, be taken into consideration when evaluating/comparing reverbs. (In between those two posts, I wisely ignored the childish attacks at my expense.) And never satisfied with just empty words alone, I then also invested several hours of work in preparing a counter-example which illustrates why I have misgivings about the current test, and what I propose as an, in my view, more useful alternative.

Now, let's see what _you_ have contributed ... Wait for it ... I'm looking ... Ah, here it is: one question about Logic's SpaceDesigner, two inspired and classy vomit-comments ... and then: nothing. Rien du tout.

_


----------



## woodsdenis (Dec 28, 2014)

I have to admit as much as I dislike re-peats tone and dismissve language, if you take that away (difficult I know) he makes very valid technical points.


----------



## MrCambiata (Dec 28, 2014)

Out of tokatilas examples I really like Reverb 1 the most, sounds very natural to me. Anxious to find out what it is...


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 28, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun Dec 28 said:


> Hannes_F @ Sun Dec 28 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) No, that is not true. You misquoted me. That is not what I did, and I never said so.
> ...



In the only possibly meaningful way of course.

If the stems had been close and dry I would have pushed them to the back by adding _additional ERs_ or using positioning tools. And I would have done that individually in order to stack the WW behind the strings etc.

However since there already was a depth staggering in the stems I skipped that and applied one overall reverb per test. I did _not _disable the ERs of that reverb of course. Now read your post again and see how you jump to conclusions. BTW I thought you should have known just by listening to the examples.

I struggled through the remains of your personal attack now and try to answer some:

*'self-proclaimed' experts:* When did I declare myself as an expert? Show me the place. The only thing that maybe sets me apart is that I take the risk of comitting to an opinion in public (and more users should do that but your reaction is not encouraging), but I never proclaimed to be an expert, and especially not in mixing questions. Anybody is entitled to have a totally different opinion.

*Giving a good room impression while the material is already spatially prepared:* There is a difference between space and room. With room impression I meant that I could hear how deep and wide the room was, not where the instruments sit.

Obviously I spotted the difference between the Bricasti Large Deep Hall and the Bricasti Large Hall, so maybe I heard what I heard it even if you didn't.

*Blooming, being euphonic for strings, envelope and transients:* I know what I hear and it seems you don't hear it. But how can you say it is impossible to hear if you don't? That seems to be a logical fault to me.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 28, 2014)

1. I am pretty sure that Jose' was having fun with the title and did not really think that this test would make any other teat never relevant. There is room for the kind of scientific test Piet suggests this should be, but Jose' was pretty clear this test was not trying to be that.

2. If enough people find value in something, there is value in it and those that do not simply do not. 

3. The over-riding principal I have heard from engineers since I got off the plane from Boston to Los Angeles is "if it sounds good, it IS good."

4. I have not participated in this test because I think my software reverb tandem sounds great and I am 100 % happy with it. And I no longer get budgets that warrant the purchase of a Bricasti or TC 6000 but if I do, I will print my stems dry and take it to an engineer who does.


----------



## Vlzmusic (Dec 28, 2014)

Just to chime in on the subject:

- Yes, Master bus reverb sounds like a thing of the past. With today`s processing power, DAW flexible connection capabilities, and the fact that we mostly start from a scratch - single instrument/section processing sounds more relevant to me.

- Some of the plugins use IR convolution, and I think it was widely accepted by now, that this kind of processing is as good, as the underneath IR. So, for example, its not really Spaces VS Altiverb, but their stock sounds, which are varied, and not necessarily finite. Specially with Altiverb example.

- If real life mocking experience is concerned, not only I feel the reverb is important on the instrument/section level, but on the given input/ desired output sounds, whether you want to augment the Room in your samples, or transfer it to Hall, or drawn in Ambience, so it looses its immediate realistic presence cue - all these, and many other goals would require different plugins/IR`s as I see it.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Dec 28, 2014)

No one is questioning your technical observations, Piet. For the most part they are quite brilliant. 

But will you please try to deliver your messages without attacking others?


----------



## Astronaut FX (Dec 28, 2014)

Usefulness, like beauty, is often in the eye (in this case, ear) of the beholder.

No the shoot out isn't scientific, as was stated clearly in the original post. We could go crazy with this, and conduct a test using the strict scientific method, isolating variables, etc. but is that even possible? How do you decide which settings to use with each, when they don't all share the same adjustable parameters? Should we include code inspections as well...is that going to help? At the end of the day, is that any more useful than comparing reverbs as used on some typical source material, warts and all?

Or is the notion of a shoot out in and of itself a little nutty? If there's a clear winner, are we all going to rush to our hard drives and delete all of our other reverbs? Ha! Not likely.

Maybe another approach might be more helpful. I would assume many people have one or more "go to" reverbs, and know that reverb well, and have landed on some settings they use frequently. Maybe we need a post where folks can post one entry, with a dry version, and a version with their reverb of choice. Yes, I understand that I'm leading us away from apples to apples comparisons, but maybe that's the direction we need to go...having an opportunity to hear what can be accomplished with a given reverb in actual use.

Maybe I'm an anomaly, but I don't always use the same reverb for all purposes. Like most of you, I have several, but tend to use whatever sounds best for what I'm trying to accomplish.

Not sure I'm adding much here, but would add a thank you to the OP for attempting to sort them all (well, many of them) out. Many of us found it useful in some way, others not so much, but at least did so in a delightfully endearing manner.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 28, 2014)

Frederick Russ @ Sun Dec 28 said:


> (...) But will you please try to deliver your messages without attacking others?


I can do that, Fred. Although, if you permit me, it would have been nicer if you had directed this request at a few other people in this thread as well. The ‘vomit’ didn’t start with me.

Besides, my attacks are strictly and carefully aimed at the (lack of) quality in the work delivered and at one’s commitment and understanding of the topic at hand. Or, in this case, absence thereof.
I’m quite aware though, based on a long and rather testing experience here at V.I., that people are only too eager to twist such comments into so-called 'personal' attacks, because that then allows them to be loudly offended by what I have to say. The old story, with all too many chapters.

I won’t deny that my tone acquires, on occasions such as these, perhaps a somewhat unpleasant sting, but I don’t call people Vomitman. And I don’t stoop to the infantile childishness of mockingly questioning someone’s happiness. You did read that too, I hope? 
I merely call out incompetence and lazy ignorance when I see it (and there has, alas, been plenty to see here). As the poet says: _the fault unknown is as a thought unacted._

I’m annoyingly predictable in that sense, yes. 
Anyway, I’ll bring it down a few notches. As far down as complete silence, in fact.

_


----------



## Frederick Russ (Dec 28, 2014)

Thanks Piet. 

Very curious where this goes with this shootout. Would love to see examples of recordings of different instruments and voice in an Anechoic chamber if possible for pristine content for the testing process.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 28, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun Dec 28 said:


> Besides, my attacks are strictly and carefully aimed at the (lack of) quality in the work delivered and at one’s commitment and understanding of the topic at hand. Or, in this case, absence thereof.



No. Your attacks are deliberately calculated to hurt by words, and you seem even to enjoy the fact that you have the intellectual ability for it. However when counter-arguments come you don't respond. You never admit anything. A sad case of intellect eats heart.

You have been trying to torpedo this test and this thread even before they existed, and with all means that you had. Most probably because of a silly feud between José and you that has been there since years. You could have so easily been keeping out of this thread and instead start your own test. Now you have managed (again) to center this one around you. Man, that is really poor.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 28, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun Dec 28 said:


> Frederick Russ @ Sun Dec 28 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) But will you please try to deliver your messages without attacking others?
> ...


I don't know Piet you throw out insults that I would consider beyond childish. Almost bullyish. And, I thought that "vomit" was an accurate description of 90% of what you wrote and which actually clouded one or two decent enough points. That you don't see that points to a major issue.

I guess I've gotten so use to the long winded insulting diatribe that this time it didn't even bother me and was surprised a little when mods stepped in. Seem like no different than before. :D 

This test was not to "judge the finer pints of reverbs" as you put it. If it were I would have done it the way Peter Roos does his test and I would have consulted him. He's an expert. 

When working at RC the studio I worked in we would run sometimes entire finalized tracks in itunes through gear just to get a general impression. The lead engineer there admits to mixing games and trailers on laptop speakers. I just don't think there's a place for technical idealism when it comes to gear. It's how is it going to sound on the medium that it's going to play back on? That's what matters.

We've gone away from the working musicians that founded this place into a realm of idealized music making were contemporary relevant music isn't really being done. It's kind of sad. It was such a great place that lead to nurturing the talent of some really great sample developers. Now we bicker like Gearslutz on what the ideal test conditions should be. There is no ideal in our world beyond what's it going to be like when the listener hears it over a TV or if you're lucky a cinema system.

So in my defense am I the greatest composer that ever graced the sample stage? Never tried to be. Am I the worst? Anybody that thinks in absolutes really has gone to the dark side. :mrgreen: 

In the meantime, I bow out of this conversation. I've had two major illness in the same number of months and I'm having a hard time bouncing back from this one. So, I'm heading on vacation, take some rest. ect...

Happy new year to everybody.


----------



## AC986 (Dec 28, 2014)

I don't believe this thread.


----------



## rayinstirling (Dec 28, 2014)

adriancook @ Sun Dec 28 said:


> I don't believe this thread.


I don't know about that Adrian,
It seems pretty predictable to me. That's why I paid absolutely no attention to it until it got real :twisted:


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Dec 28, 2014)

josejherring @ Sat Dec 27 said:


> As for the Hardware Bricasti, it shines on a 24 bit .wav file. I think that if you are doing music for Cinema then a Bricasti would do rather well. But, since most of our music for media these days ends up on Netflix or DVD or Cable TV, I decided to use some compression in the form of mp3 at which time the effect was greatly reduced.
> 
> What I did find about the bricasti even at lower resolution is that It added to the depth of the sound like no other reverb.



Jose, 

If you do come back to this thread. I would like to hear a 48/24 version of the Bricasti test file. This is because currently I cannot really seem to hear added depth compared to some of the other examples in the Bricasti test file. I think a high quality version should be made available for all the test files. 

I write music for feature films regularly. That is a major part of my work. I for one do not really care all the time about the lowest quality playback system or Mp3's. I always send high quality files to all my clients of even WIP stuff. 

That is somewhat a thing for engineers to figure out I guess. But, I have worked on over 200 commercials in the last 7 years as well and I am always arguing that the source be of the highest quality and the mix be robust in nature so that it is tolerant of generation loss down to the iPhones of the world. Compression seems to be more relevant in that topic than choice of reverbs. When working on a commercial, I do think about the playback medium if its only ever going to be on TV/YouTube. But that is more on an orchestration and over all frequency balance level. Not about the mix as such. The engineer does that. 

Film mix itself is different. I often find that some film music sounds dry in the movie compared to the released version on CD/iTunes. The release version is also mastered of course.

Cinema format has its own equalisation curve. Anyway, that is a different topic.

I think more than the final playback format or compression, the source and the way it has been manipulated is far more important.

I may post some files back myself. May be tomorrow.


Tanuj.


----------



## eric aron (Dec 29, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Sat Dec 27 said:


> eric aron, you are coming from playing in concert (as I do) and there the conditions are very different. It is important to consider this: Mockups are not trying to emulate the concert experience, they try to emulate recordings. And also they usually don't try to emulate grammy winning extraordinary mighty fine top of the crop recordings but run-of-the-mill studio productions - that are nevertheless an industry for themselves, have their own quality standards (that are not low at all) and have a right to live in a practical world. So do the mockups.
> 
> It is important to keep that in mind in order not to develop a cynical attitude. Hope that helps, Hannes
> 
> PS.: Of all aspects of mixing like balance, dynamics, EQ etc. the reverb is probably the one the least suited for being checked with headphones only.




you are right, i didn’t scaled appropriately my appreciation to the mockup context

yes, every context can have its own validity and coherence, and so are mockups in their relation to their functional use

i also intended to say “they emulate recordings” instead of “they emulate concert experience”, my lack of precision 

having also done mockups, i know the inherent limits. but there is possibility to have good musicality and sound, in the price of hours of extra work. this being mostly incompatible with the dead ended production times

i have a good experience of headphones mixing with HD 800, using if since years. the reverb spatial accuracy/resonances/details is better rendered than on most speakers, and i always have close to hand reference recordings for a/b ing


----------



## dedersen (Dec 29, 2014)

Hannes_F @ Sun Dec 28 said:


> Regarding the pros and cons of different testing methods: Perhaps one could see an analogy to testing graphical printers. There is the technical/scientific method where you print test sheets with siemens stars, rectangular patterns and so on. That is very objective and can be compared to feeding snares and claps (which means: spikes with virtually every frequency in them) into reverbs.
> 
> Or you could say: I am a landscape photographer, so I take a typical landscape photo and print it with each of the printer models. However I allow to calibrate each printer or use individual transfer curves, test prints etc. in order to test how close I can individually get to a result that I like.


The question is, of course, are you then really testing the printers or instead testing your ability to USE the printers properly?


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 29, 2014)

dedersen @ Tue Dec 30 said:


> The question is, of course, are you then really testing the printers or instead testing your ability to USE the printers properly?



Jesper, that is a good question and actually the right question. I would say: both in conjunction. A printer that does not have the ability to get calibrated will probably perform worse than one that does, but it also depends on the effort to do that. This sort of test gives anybody as much result as much work he/she is willing to invest, and therefore it is not a scientific test but a subjective one. I think it was highly interesting for those that participated but probably less so for mere observers.

For observers this test will also only be of value if they understand the conditions and procedure. 

For example: Say you did not participate at the test but still want to know how good reverb X is. You listen to the example and/or read someones opinion and find out that it is rated low. Does that have significance? Not much, because it could be that this example suffers from unfavorable settings. (I believe this could be true for EA Phoenix and Lexicon PCM.)

Now say you want to know how good reverb Y is. You listen to the example and say you like it, is that then significant? Yes, because at least it says it was possible with this reverb to get this result. (I believe the Manny Marroqin reverb is such an example, and also SPAT pure was a surprise.)

So imo this sort of test is most significant for the participants, and on top of that the positive ratings are more significant than the negative ones.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 29, 2014)

Some afterthought: It is very similar to testing instruments. For example if I want to test several violins, will the outcome of this test depend on my ability to play? Yes, definetely. If I can't play well I might overlook the Stradivari. But if I can play halfway and get a nice result with a certain violin then that one will be good for me. That is the nature of this sort of tests, they are highly subjective.

_However_

Compare to the usual alternative: Somebody asks "Reverb X / plugin Y / sample library Z is on sale and I am tempted, how good is it, opinions?" And then we often have a thread going on over pages, and all post are _all _completely subjective opinions, most times with no listening material whatsoever (with exceptions for sample libraries), and with all sorts of opinions. Well not really, because usually those that like the reverb/plugin/library will chime in while those that did not like it after the testing period (for plugins) will more likely keep out of the thread. At the end the OP will most probably weigh in the reputation of the several posters - instead of relying on the own ears.

Taking that into account I thought this thread was a fresh alternative ... own blind testing with open outcome instead of relying on hearsay and second hand opinions. No?


----------



## ErnestCholakis (Dec 30, 2014)

Enclosed is a version with impulses from Hollywood Impulse Responses. The impulses from this product can be used to change the overall timbre or sound of a recording. But one can use the flat IR's in HIR for a neutral addition of reverb. Note no EQ or compression was used and the wet level is -6dB relative to the dry level. 

The sequence has a lot of compositional power but I personally feel that the mixes posted do not reflect this. Thus warm and dark impulses were used to add sonic weight and power to this composition in order to give it that Hollywood larger than life sound. 

More information on HIR with a new video posted can be found at:

http://www.numericalsound.com/hollywood-impulse-responses.html

Here is the link to the power mix (mp3 320kbps):

http://www.numericalsound.com/files...tout_NumSnd_HollywoodImpulseResponses_6db.mp3

Ernest


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 30, 2014)

Piet wrote:



> I’m of the opinion that the point of a reverb test, is to test reverbs. I.o.w. the ability of a plug-in or a hardware device to generate a simulation, or approximation, of what happens when sound is heard in a space and fuses with that space’s response into a coherent and convincing whole.



Often, but not necessarily! Every pop production has lots of reverbs going, and there's all kinds of suspension of disbelief. Nobody is going to run the bass drum through the vocal plate, for example.

And the famous Lexicon 480 isn't the most realistic one, it's just a nice sound that augments the live studio ambience.

Herr Frederick de Russ wrote:



> Would love to see examples of recordings of different instruments and voice in an Anechoic chamber if possible for pristine content for the testing process.



For what it's worth:

http://www.allmusic.com/album/anechoic- ... 0000936037


----------



## José Herring (Dec 30, 2014)

ErnestCholakis @ Tue Dec 30 said:


> Enclosed is a version with impulses from Hollywood Impulse Responses. The impulses from this product can be used to change the overall timbre or sound of a recording. But one can use the flat IR's in HIR for a neutral addition of reverb. Note no EQ or compression was used and the wet level is -6dB relative to the dry level.
> 
> The sequence has a lot of compositional power but I personally feel that the mixes posted do not reflect this. Thus warm and dark impulses were used to add sonic weight and power to this composition in order to give it that Hollywood larger than life sound.
> 
> ...



hmmmmm, I'm sorry Ernest but it just kind of makes it seem distant, rubbery and lacking in impact from the get go. I use to be a believer in impulses but many hours in failed attempts kind of made me turn far away from them.

For those that are interested, here's what the released version of Eternal sounds like which was done way before this test here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R9OghYcycsRjhHTW5KbTc1bGM/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5R9Og ... sp=sharing)


----------

