# Reverbs? (again, sorry...)



## Steve Steele (Jun 22, 2012)

If I were to add one more reverb, something different, or a different convolution, to be used on the mixing down process for *orchestral instruments specifically*, what would you suggest, please?

I still see people using Altiverb, QL Spaces, or some of the algorithmic verbs like ArtsAcoustic. But I'm starting to hear some new names that I don't recognize.

*I'm currently using Waves IR1*. I've grown to like it because it can import WAV files and has a built in parametric EQ, amount some other very easy to use verb features. It's quite a versatile reverb. It might just work out. I'm surprised I don't hear about it more. I also have 3 more Waves verbs, Logic's verbs, and DP's 3 verbs.

Plus I have the fun "Type 4" spring reverb. Love it.

Thanks! (and sorry to beat this dead horse topic)


----------



## Blackster (Jun 22, 2012)

I'm (still) using Altiverb6 and QL Spaces for an orchestral environment, works great for me. 

I'm very sure it's not really about WHICH reverb to use but HOW to use it. For example, nobody ever told you to just use one reverb unit on the main bus, right?


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 22, 2012)

I understand that. I have my verbs set up via sends and aux tracks accordingly. I'm just asking for for any verbs that are fairly consistent for orchestral uses across the busses that I may not have thought off that some of you are using.


----------



## gsilbers (Jun 22, 2012)

how about altiverb 7 (64 bit) or spaces?

for the tail maybe the lexicon


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 22, 2012)

Cool. Thanks. I was planning on downloading the QL Spaces Demo when I get closer to mix down. I don't believe there is a Altiverb demo. I have ArtsAcoustic.

64-bit is important to me.

Just looking for opinions.

Thanks


----------



## Blackster (Jun 22, 2012)

Then go with QL Spaces. It's 64bit and has a good and solid palette of orchestral presets. You won't be disappointed =o


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Jun 22, 2012)

+1 for Spaces. I've stopped using Altiverb altogether in favour of Spaces.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 22, 2012)

Mihkel @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> +1 for Spaces. I've stopped using Altiverb altogether in favour of Spaces.



+2 for Spaces. I've stopped using Altiverb altogether in favour of Spaces.


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 22, 2012)

Mihkel @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> +1 for Spaces. I've stopped using Altiverb altogether in favour of Spaces.



Because of CPU load, or because of the types and quietly of spaces included, or both? It's also much less expensive.

I too use verb to create a soundstage for dry samples, and then adding a room after that. I like that they mention that in the video. Seems like a good verb. Don't know what's behind the setting tab yet, maybe an EQ, but I'll find out soon enough.

I'd like to get both at some point, but for this particular need, yeah, QL Spaces looks good.

Thanks everyone..


----------



## paulcole (Jun 22, 2012)

Altiverb 6 with the 32 bit bridge for individual tracks and a Lexicon on the stereo master.

The 32 bit bridge is a pain and I will probably update to Altiverb 7 shortly.


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 22, 2012)

paulcole @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> Altiverb 6 with the 32 bit bridge for individual tracks and a Lexicon on the stereo master.
> 
> The 32 bit bridge is a pain and I will probably update to Altiverb 7 shortly.



Paulcole - In Altiverb, you can move an instrument in a space. Is that how you would use different sections? And then using the Lexicon for on the mains for just the tail?

Is there any difficulty in matching the tone of the trail to work with the soundstage you've created with Altiverb?

Or is that a fairly trivial manner of adjusting parameters? (Eq, size damping, and time?)


----------



## Mihkel Zilmer (Jun 22, 2012)

nightwatch @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> Mihkel @ Fri Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> > +1 for Spaces. I've stopped using Altiverb altogether in favour of Spaces.
> ...



Don't get me wrong - I consider Altiverb to be a very versatile and high quality tool, but for day-to-day work with orchestral samples, Spaces offers me everything I need. It's pretty light on your CPU and the quality of the IRs is first class - they sound warm, lush and alive. 

I'd say the only downside of Spaces is the lack of more advanced controls e.g. impulse length.


----------



## paulcole (Jun 22, 2012)

nightwatch @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> paulcole @ Fri Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> > Altiverb 6 with the 32 bit bridge for individual tracks and a Lexicon on the stereo master.
> ...



I don't know if I'm using it in the most efficient and correct manner. The moving of an instrument into space is not entirely satisfactory. What I do is move the virtual speakers about (back, forward, side to side and so on) and generally I use the Todd AO soundstage setting. Even with a lot of sample libraries coming out pre recorded in their own spaces and positions on a stage, you can still add some reverb now and again. As I'm finding at the moment with Ozone 5, less is more: so with reverb.

The Lexicon also has to use the 32 bit bridge but does not use any computer resources as it's hardware as opposed to software within the computer and I use the Lexicon just as a gloss over layer of reverb at the end, if necessary.

Matching the tone of the trail is beyond my payscale.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 22, 2012)

After growing pretty tired of the convolution sound, I got Valhalla Room. Really inexpensive and a great reverb all around.

I like Spaces, but it has too much of the convo sound that I've grown to dislike a bit. Though its the best one I've heard.

Also, a convo reverb that I used for years was Voxengo's Convo' reverb with Samplicty IR's. That worked great.

If you want to spend the money then Lexicon's VST reverb sounded great. But, only the expensive one is good. The other one "lxp" I think its called I tried and tested against other algorithmic verbs and found that for $500 less Valhalla room was better.

Here's the link to room :http://www.valhalladsp.com/valhallaroom

Don't let the GUI fool you. This thing can be made to sound great.

As far as Altiverb. Many people like and use it. I never thought that it sounded all that good.


----------



## mark812 (Jun 22, 2012)

josejherring @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> After growing pretty tired of the convolution sound, I got Valhalla Room. Really inexpensive and a great reverb all around.
> 
> I like Spaces, but it has too much of the convo sound that I've grown to dislike a bit. Though its the best one I've heard.
> 
> ...



Totally agree with everything.

Somebody laughed at me when I wrote that ValhallaRoom stands up to Lexicon overpriced plugins.  Yeah - it's that good.

That said, Aether and ValhallaRoom (Den's presets) are the best soft verbs I've heard.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 22, 2012)

Saying you're tired of "the convolution sound" is like saying you're tired of sound. 

I'd add the VSL Hybrid Reverb to the list. It's just outstanding.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 22, 2012)

Everybody thinks that you have to spend a lot of money. I've never been so sure about that. Sure sometimes you got to shell out the dough for good stuff. But, more often than not, I even got free plugins that blow the doors off of things costing big bucks. 

I run two killer machines in my studio. I think the total cost of both is a combined $1700. And these machines are tricked out to the max.

My favorite vst compressor is the freebee Molot. I've put it up against UAD's finest and have little to complain about.

My favorite vst verb is Valhalla, it cost $50. Before I got Valhalla I a/b every VST verb on the market. It won. I slightly prefer Lexicons. But I think at the time it cost $1300 so, for me to "slight" prefer Lexicon, it was saying a lot about Valhalla at $50

My productions over the years have been getting better and better and my cost has been getting cheaper and cheaper. I hardly shell out any money any more. I'm a devs nightmare.

I learned my lesson. I walked into a studio once. The guy literally had $100,000 worth of stuff. 3 brand new mac pros, outboard, 3 vision daws. He played me his music. I was expecting a lot. What I heard could have been easily achieved with an old Proteous 1. It was that bad.

So I abruptly did an about face. Stopped sinking thousands in this stuff and started looking for deals. It's payed off a lot. There's some killer stuff out there by talented people that just want to share. Either they're hobbyist or part time programmers whatever.

My favorite sound design tool is this delay that can be picked up for $0. I have just boat loads of free plugins.

That being said though, you really have to know what you need to spend money on and what you can get away with. Reverb, no need to worry about that. There's plenty of good cheap stuff.

I mean if you use a lot of VSL stuff, then MIR is the ticket, but if you don't and you have samples recorded in a good room, I feel there's far too many people worrying about what reverb to use, and far too few people learning how to balance out an orchestral template which will yield much better results than any reverb ever could.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 22, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> Saying you're tired of "the convolution sound" is like saying you're tired of sound.
> 
> I'd add the VSL Hybrid Reverb to the list. It's just outstanding.



I dunno. People don't agree. That's ok. There are only a hand full of people that agree with me. Convo verbs just don't do it for me. Stale static and plastic. And adding "spin to the tale" as they say is a bit like putting lipstick on a blow up doll. Yeah, maybe it looks a little prettier, but....

VSL hybrid verb is ok, btw. Nothing there that can't be had for $700 less. But it looks pretty  

And, when I first heard MIR I was impressed. Then I attended a two hour long demonstration of it. I left less than impressed. I attributed that to the stage position thing. It just wasn't that convincing. Or perhaps the demo guy just didn't know what he was doing.


----------



## lee (Jun 22, 2012)

josejherring @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> I feel there's far too many people worrying about what reverb to use, and far too few people learning how to balance out an orchestral template which will yield much better results than any reverb ever could.



You sound like repeat, you know that dont ya? 

I´m starting to agree more and more though!

/Johnny


----------



## leafInTheWind (Jun 22, 2012)

Just to add to the valhalla mix - I use EOS. Same guy that build Valhalla. 
http://www.audiodamage.com/effects/product.php?pid=ad023 (http://www.audiodamage.com/effects/prod ... ?pid=ad023)


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 22, 2012)

lee @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> josejherring @ Fri Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> > I feel there's far too many people worrying about what reverb to use, and far too few people learning how to balance out an orchestral template which will yield much better results than any reverb ever could.
> ...



And I frequently write that as well.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 22, 2012)

lee @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> josejherring @ Fri Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> > I feel there's far too many people worrying about what reverb to use, and far too few people learning how to balance out an orchestral template which will yield much better results than any reverb ever could.
> ...



I'm big enough to admit that whenever I have a problem with somebody it's because they're more like me than I care to confront. :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 22, 2012)

> Convo verbs just don't do it for me. Stale static and plastic



Jose, convolution reverbs sound like the impulses you load in them. Nobody agrees with you - they agree about the same impulses you're listening to. That's whether they know it or not!

Now, if you don't like the lack of movement then that's different. But then you'd have to say you don't like algorithmic reverbs that don't have any movement too.

Also, show me any reverb on the planet for $700 less than Hybrid that sounds anywhere near as good. You can't. And if you were in my room listening to what I'm hearing, I promise you'd agree, because you're not a martian.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 22, 2012)

One other point: I love the thick Lexicon sound, especially on drums. Love it.

And I used to have two NuVerb cards, which are 300s on a card. The 300 is basically half a 480.

I ended up getting rid of the cards, because even without the Spin parameter I was perfectly happy with the Altiverb samples instead. A couple of years of not even starting them up was enough.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 22, 2012)

One other other point: you can answer every technical question ever asked by saying that musical skills are more important.

Sorry to sound crusty, but if someone doesn't know that then telling them is futile. So why even say it.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 22, 2012)

All a mater of taste. Saying "nobody agrees" with me would be incorrect.

You're acting like I didn't use convolution with every possible impulse for 5 years.

Hybrid reverb is just a rehashing of Wizoos W2 which was a great reverb. 

Also, Reverberate can achieve the same things.

Then also check out Voxengo's convolution, which I used and actually sounds better to me than Hybrid does.

The best convos that I heard would be Wizoos W2, which is no longer available and Spaces. Reverberate would be a close 3rd, then Voxengo's.

Not that there's anything wrong with Hybrid. Just that there's comparable at a much lower price point. MUCH LOWER.


----------



## otr5 (Jun 22, 2012)

Why do you need to replace the waves ir1?
Just curious is there any different ? 
Is altiverb or spaces sounds so different ?


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 22, 2012)

I don't need to replace Waves IR1. In fact it's a very cool reverb that I've done some interesting stuff with. For instance, I made PianoTEQ sound like it was in a real piano cabinet with a real soundboard using a piano body IR that I tweaked quite a bit in IR1. I'm just thinking about picking something else up. I enjoy creating and I enjoy technology. Instead of browsing the internet, or reading reviews, I find it great to hear other's opinions. 

I, for one, like convolution verbs. They're obviously not the end all of verbs, but they're a heck of a lot of fun to play with. I like making my own IRs. I have an odd assortment of things around my house that I make IRs with. I have a cool sounding piano harp that's attached to a sound board (no keys). I've had endless fun with that. I also use that same piano as a "plate" in various rooms. Sometimes I sing directly into it to capture my vocals. GREAT for harmonies! I'll use my dog's loud and deep bark as a sound source and capture the response. Convolution reverbs are half reverb, and half sound design, and that's fun. Still, I forgot about Valhalla, and I want to check it out.

And Jose, I make and get plenty of things for cheap or free. Believe me, it's toy land in my house.

But I come to this forum to get other user's perspective on things, and I like to share whatever knowledge I have. I don't come here to argue, insult or put down anyone. I'm here in the best spirt of a music community. So, sometimes I'll ask a question that I basically know the answer to because I like to communicate and learn. 

I spend my whole day creating content and composing (and practicing several instruments), but I'll forever be a student of music and technology because I enjoy it.

So, that being said, I appreciate everyone here for taking the time to communicate their thoughts and sharing knowledge.

Thanks.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 22, 2012)

What you use Convo for I find it's the best use of it. I have tons of sound design IR's that are like magic. Though I've never tried to capture my own sounds. I think that would be a fun thing to do.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 22, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> One other other point: you can answer every technical question ever asked by saying that musical skills are more important.
> 
> Sorry to sound crusty, but if someone doesn't know that then telling them is futile. So why even say it.



That can be an excuse. Agreed.

But in the Writing For Strings course I show how the more you understand setups, the role of dynamics, the more you discover you know about mixing that you didn't know you knew! 

I acknowledge your point, but Jose's view is also valid.


----------



## Peter Alexander (Jun 22, 2012)

nightwatch @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> In Altiverb, you can move an instrument in a space.



This is part of the interest in Spat in that you can move the instrument or sound anywhere on stage you want, stage left/stage right, and stage front/stage back.

Once in place, you have the option of using any convolution or standard reverb however you want. 

So if spatial placement is important to you, read the three Spat reviews on http://www.soniccontrol.tv.


----------



## Dan Mott (Jun 23, 2012)

Hmm...

I have the LXP Native from Lexicon and when putting it up against the more expensive version, I didn't hear the price difference. Just me. I really like the LXP. It seems to be a great all round verb. I like fiddling with all the settings and designing unique spaces for drums and singers and more. I have Spaces too. I've tried alot of rooms and some sound good on specific instruments and some don't. It's my go to verb for dry sounds and it's my favourite convo verb for sure.

Probably my favourite verb of them all is the Relabs 480, but that plugin is really slow to load and it's very CPU intensive. It's still on the lite version and it's odd that they haven't updated it and it's been so long. I think they were going to adress the CPU issue and also the slow loading times. Hope something comes soon. It's my favourite verb because the tail sounds so damn good. It's not a static type tail, but a modulated sounding one. Really cool and very tasty on pretty much anything. I miss it :(

Waves Ren reverb is quite nice too. Extremely lite on CPU and quite warm sounding. Don't use it much though. 

Anyway. That's some of my reverb adventures in the past.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 23, 2012)

> All a mater of taste. Saying "nobody agrees" with me would be incorrect.



I don't think you follow what I'm getting at, Jose.

Absolutely it's a matter of taste, and I have no doubt that your taste is very refined after all the experience you've had. I'd go much farther and say there's a good chance my taste would agree with yours a good part of the time.

My point is that what you like or dislike isn't convolution technology itself, it's the impulses the convolution processor is running. What you put into Altiverb is pretty much exactly what you get out.

As to VSL's Hybrid reverb, try running the higher register of a flute or recorder, or for that matter a marimba (something close to a sine wave) through another reverb. Then another and another. Almost everything sounds like plastic.

Now pick a program from VSL Hybrid Reverb.

Tell me that processor isn't Dolly Parton TITS.


----------



## Wes Antczak (Jun 23, 2012)

As for LXP, I thought some of the underlying agorithms were the same as in the PCM software. Only the LXP does not offer as much editing detail and there is no on board eq. Which is not to say that it doesn't offer a decent amount of tweakable parameters.

As for Relab, the full version of the 480 has been a very long time coming, but I think part of that might be because they were working on the Solid State Logic X-Verb, which is also based on a 480. IMO, X-Verb's GUI is a lot easier to work with than the Relab branded one. CPU usage is not an issue.

For algorithmic reverbs I think Valhalla Roomverb has already been mentioned and is a great bargain. A lot of bang for your buck at only $50.

One that I haven't heard too many people mention is the one from EAReckon. I think that one is very transparent and lends itself very well to samples and to acoustic instruments.

Spat seems quite lovely and as Peter mentioned offers the best of both worlds (convo and algo) with tons of control. It's extremely tempting especially now with the current promotion. I'm going to have to take a pass and am probably going to hate myself for it... but will probably revisit that option at a future time.


----------



## madbulk (Jun 23, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> lee @ Fri Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Fri Jun 22 said:
> ...



It's bit hard to dispute, and that's a little piece of what Nick is saying.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 23, 2012)

Wes Antczak @ Sat Jun 23 said:


> As for LXP, I thought some of the underlying agorithms were the same as in the PCM software. Only the LXP does not offer as much editing detail and there is no on board eq. Which is not to say that it doesn't offer a decent amount of tweakable parameters.
> 
> As for Relab, the full version of the 480 has been a very long time coming, but I think part of that might be because they were working on the Solid State Logic X-Verb, which is also based on a 480. IMO, X-Verb's GUI is a lot easier to work with than the Relab branded one. CPU usage is not an issue.
> 
> ...



Good points.

LXP vst for some reason was really lacking in my test. I don't know what they did to it, but it fared no better than many free reverbs that I also tested. It was an utter disappointment and I was even sorry that I went through the trouble of requesting and authorizing the demo.

I was thoroughly surprised because back in college I used LXP1 hardware which was great for the price, $500. I was expecting it to be on par with that and sadly it wasn't. But, they did an excellent job with PCM, so I can't figure why they blew it with the LXP offering.

The only thing that I can think of is that it would compete with PCM. The only difference really between hardware versions of LXP and PCM was, the hardware and the editing options. I guess once you remove the hardware then the underlying algos would be so close that nobody would have a reason to buy PCM software. So imo they probably dumbed down LXP software. Because it really was bad in my test. Cloudy, merky, didn't blend well with the instruments, digital sounding. Sounded perhaps better than free verbs like Ambience, but not enough better to justify paying for it.

I wonder if they took the algos from the lexicon Alex. It was much closer to that than the original LXP box.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 23, 2012)

José, you use Cubase, yes? Do you use Reverence at all?


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 23, 2012)

Peter Alexander @ Fri Jun 22 said:


> nightwatch @ Fri Jun 22 said:
> 
> 
> > In Altiverb, you can move an instrument in a space.
> ...



Due to this thread I've learned quite a bit. I download a trial of Valhalla. been filling my IR1 up with some new IRs. I'm very interested in spatial placement. EDIT: I'm again looking at the Flux website, and Vienna Suite too.

Pierre Boulez is one of my favorite conductors/musicians too. I kept an eye on IRCAM when in collage. All the sound designers were talking about it. Btw, UNT had/has a great media performance room. Not sure how it compares with others but even back then is 92, it was two stories tall, had a huge video screen, 8 channel "surround" and I think there were some NeXT Cubes upstairs too if I remember correctly. Very nice environment. I heard some _amazing_ sound design compositions every Friday night or whatever. Whi knows what new room they've built. I need to go on a trip to Denton!

Anyway, thanks Peter for the link. I check out your site a lot, but have not read those articles until today. And thanks for being a part of that site. I working on my own site (different focus than yours). 

Of topic, but I own a domain that has schenkerian analysis in the title if anyone ever wants to get involved. I've invited Kevin Korsyn and Allen Cadwallader to join. It's currently inactive but I reserved it for a time when I could get enough people together to contribute. Maybe next year I'll start putting it together.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 23, 2012)

Wes Antczak @ Sat Jun 23 said:


> Spat seems quite lovely and as Peter mentioned offers the best of both worlds (convo and algo) with tons of control.


Wes,
SPAT doesn't do convolution, it's entirely algorithmic.


_


----------



## José Herring (Jun 23, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Sat Jun 23 said:


> José, you use Cubase, yes? Do you use Reverence at all?



No.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 23, 2012)

josejherring @ Sat Jun 23 said:


> NYC Composer @ Sat Jun 23 said:
> 
> 
> > José, you use Cubase, yes? Do you use Reverence at all?
> ...



Don't like it, haven't tried it?


----------



## José Herring (Jun 23, 2012)

Tried it. No better or worse than any other convo. Actually I think it's pretty good, but by the time I got C5.5 I'd pretty much grown tired of the sound and also I found it pretty cpu inefficient compared to other convos I have. Though I've heard they improved it. I may give it a go again.


----------



## Blakus (Jun 23, 2012)

I used Cubase's Reverence with Samplicity IR's for a long time with great results before I recently changed to algo reverb. I now use 2C Audio Breeze (I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned yet) and am really happy with it. There are some custom presets available that emulate lexicon and other verb units quite impressively. Personally, I can't justify spending so much more money for what I think are marginal gains.


----------



## Ryan Scully (Jun 23, 2012)

I really love Breeze myself - its unfortunate that there has been no news/update what so ever for 2c's intentions to port it to 64 bit on Mac. I've since moved to QL Spaces and have been floored ever since...


----------



## marcotronic (Jun 24, 2012)

Has anybody ever tried the Softube TSAR-1 algo reverb plugin? I'm pretty impressed by the demos:

http://www.softube.com/tsar1_reverb.php

Marco


----------



## re-peat (Jun 24, 2012)

marcotronic @ Sun Jun 24 said:


> Has anybody ever tried the Softube TSAR-1 algo reverb plugin?


Yes, I have.

_


----------



## marcotronic (Jun 24, 2012)

re-peat @ Sun Jun 24 said:


> marcotronic @ Sun Jun 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Has anybody ever tried the Softube TSAR-1 algo reverb plugin?
> ...



o-[][]-o :D And??? What was your impression?!

Thanks
Marco


----------



## Dan Mott (Jun 24, 2012)

Well, I hope Relab get on it soon. I love that LX480.


----------



## Waywyn (Jun 25, 2012)

On the last mixing session in a bigger studio I frequently work, I had the chance to compare Valhalla with the hardware Lexicon 960, PCM 70, PCM 80, L300 and the Bricasti M7.

I didn't have time to do excessively but Valhalla Room definitely could keep up with it.

Yes, it is that good ... and yes, people got a problem with a reverb that is just 50 bucks.

But always remember as long as there are hardcore physics problems getting solved by 12 year old kids (not because science is so stupid, but those kids are that brilliant) I can totally imagine "some nerd" was able to crack out an algorithmic reverb for 50 bucks, which just kills!


----------



## Dan Mott (Jun 25, 2012)

Waywyn @ Mon Jun 25 said:


> On the last mixing session in a bigger studio I frequently work, I had the chance to compare Valhalla with the hardware Lexicon 960, PCM 70, PCM 80, L300 and the Bricasti M7.
> 
> I didn't have time to do excessively but Valhalla Room definitely could keep up with it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Waywyn (Jun 25, 2012)

Dan-Jay @ Mon Jun 25 said:


> Waywyn @ Mon Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> > On the last mixing session in a bigger studio I frequently work, I had the chance to compare Valhalla with the hardware Lexicon 960, PCM 70, PCM 80, L300 and the Bricasti M7.
> ...



Nope, sorry. Don't know the relab verb ...


----------



## Erik (Jun 25, 2012)

Dan-Jay @ Mon 25 Jun said:


> Waywyn @ Mon Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> > On the last mixing session in a bigger studio I frequently work, I had the chance to compare Valhalla with the hardware Lexicon 960, PCM 70, PCM 80, L300 and the Bricasti M7.
> ...



+1 definitely! 
It is really outstanding, seldom heard a verb with that degree of transparancy without losing warmth. Bargain.


----------



## Theseus (Jun 25, 2012)

Waywyn @ Mon Jun 25 said:


> On the last mixing session in a bigger studio I frequently work, I had the chance to compare Valhalla with the hardware Lexicon 960, PCM 70, PCM 80, L300 and the Bricasti M7.
> 
> I didn't have time to do excessively but Valhalla Room definitely could keep up with it.
> 
> ...



Valhalla is extremely good, and Sean Costello (the man behind it) is at the top of its game together with Casey Dowdell from Bricasti. 

Marcotronic, Softube TSAR-1 is trully excellent. It was designed by a former TC Electronic guy and it pretty versatile (it has only one algo as the name implies). Beautiful lush tails, can sound grainy and vintage, it has the most well thought controls of any reverbs I've ever tried. Presets are great and there's a lot extra ones designed by Den (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/members/122167-den/) that are also great starting points.

Valhalla might be cheapest, but that's just a marketing decision. Sean could totally sell it at 500 bucks and it would still be a good price for what you get. But he wouldn't sell that many !


----------



## ozmorphasis (Jun 25, 2012)

+1 for Valhalla.

Last year, a local professional orchestra performed a composition of mine, and while the archival recording that I received was beautifully captured, it needed a bit of tail added to sweeten things up a bit. I tried Spaces, Altiverb, Lexicon, and Valhalla. In the end, I went with the Valhalla version. 

I also really like it for drums.

I'm not sure how well it would fare for a template with all dry-ish samples that have to be placed on a soundstage. Convolution or SPAT may still be needed for a realistic set of ER's.


----------



## mark812 (Jun 25, 2012)

ozmorphasis @ Mon Jun 25 said:


> +1 for Valhalla.
> 
> Last year, a local professional orchestra performed a composition of mine, and while the archival recording that I received was beautifully captured, it needed a bit of tail added to sweeten things up a bit. I tried Spaces, Altiverb, Lexicon, and Valhalla. In the end, I went with the Valhalla version.
> 
> I also really like it for drums.



No, it's impossible that some would choose $50 reverb over Lexicon. :sarcasm: :D


----------



## José Herring (Jun 25, 2012)

ozmorphasis @ Mon Jun 25 said:


> +1 for Valhalla.
> 
> Last year, a local professional orchestra performed a composition of mine, and while the archival recording that I received was beautifully captured, it needed a bit of tail added to sweeten things up a bit. I tried Spaces, Altiverb, Lexicon, and Valhalla. In the end, I went with the Valhalla version.
> 
> ...



It fares pretty well. I tried it with a VSL trumpet I have and it made the patch almost palatable. Place SPAT for ER's and placement then use Valhalla as the overall Hall verb. But if you want it dead center for solo stuff then placing two instances of Valhalla, one for ER, and one for Hall where the hall is really, really wet, worked as well. 

But, if I where heavily invested in VSL, I think MIR would be a better choice. Tailor made for each other.

Can't really be dogmatic about verbs imo. It really depends on the situation. I've even used Roomworks that comes with Cubase and it works well for certain situations. Mostly on tracks rather than groups or sends though. But, I was reaching for that reverb so much at one point, that it was the reason why I went back to algoverbs. My ear kind of growing weary of convolution.

But, like I said, can't be dogmatic. When I get Spaces, if they ever fixed the bug, I'm sure I'll probably fall in love with convo all over again. :lol:


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 25, 2012)

I love the UAD Emt Plate. It's too bad that it's stuck at 32 bit unless I upgrade for $200. $50 reverbs start to look attractive at that point. Is Valhalla 64 bit on Mac?


----------



## Waywyn (Jun 25, 2012)

NYC Composer @ Mon Jun 25 said:


> I love the UAD Emt Plate. It's too bad that it's stuck at 32 bit unless I upgrade for $200 $50 reverbs start to look attractive at that point. Is Valhalla 64 bit on Mac?



Yup!


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 25, 2012)

One tip from me: Experiment with a good eq in your reverb channel. It can do much, very much! Especially when cutting the highs or the lows...., as is needed. Or boosting a frequence.... .

Also it is very cool to experiment with a compressor, inserted in the reverb channel! 

And yes, one can use 2 or more reverbs at the same time for only one instrument.

Edit: Also very very important is to experiment with a delay plugin! Inserted in the reverb channel or used in another send channel.... . The delay can let shine a sound so much deeper.... . Experiment with time based delays (song tempo), and also with not time based.... .


----------



## PasiP (Jun 25, 2012)

Another yes for ValhallaRoom. The only reverb I use now.

You can do some remarkable ambient stuff with Den's Bladerunner preset and then just choose a instrument and start playing.. 8)


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 25, 2012)

marcotronic @ Sun Jun 24 said:


> Has anybody ever tried the Softube TSAR-1 algo reverb plugin? I'm pretty impressed by the demos:
> 
> http://www.softube.com/tsar1_reverb.php
> 
> Marco



I downloaded quite a few of their demos. Checking them out now. Thanks!


----------



## playz123 (Jun 25, 2012)

I only heard of Valhalla Room a few weeks ago (thanks to Dirk Ehlert and his video for ERA), but am suitably impressed so far, and after hearing what the demo can do it's going to be very hard not to purchase it. Alex, if you ever obtain a copy, how about incorporating it in one of your fabulous tutorials sometime?? 

My 'go to' reverb is currently Spaces and before that it was Aether. Sadly the 64 bit Mac version of Aether never materialized, but I don't miss it now because of Spaces. I'd like to see Spaces developed even further, but I've seen no indication of that. Anyway, definitely planning to explore Valhalla further.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 25, 2012)

Just get it. You won't regret it.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 25, 2012)

This is a good find. Thanks, Jose! I'm in.

Btw-I don't find Reverence especially taxing.


----------



## lee (Jun 25, 2012)

What´s also interesting is that he only gets 45 bucks for every copy sold.



> I am donating 10% of all ValhallaRoom proceeds to the American Red Cross International Disaster Relief Fund, to support recovery in Japan and other places as needed.



Some guy!

I think I`ll jump on the train too.

/Johnny


----------



## José Herring (Jun 25, 2012)

Been a while since a pulled up Reverence. I'll give it another shot.


----------



## playz123 (Jun 25, 2012)

lee @ Mon Jun 25 said:


> > I am donating 10% of all ValhallaRoom proceeds to the American Red Cross International Disaster Relief Fund, to support recovery in Japan and other places as needed.



Yes, I noticed that, but didn't mention it. For me, that means a lot, because I've traveled extensively in Japan, spent years studying the language and have a great deal of sympathy for what happened due to the tsunami. We're now being reminded of the disaster here in BC on the west coast of Canada because debris is washing up on shore.

Re: "What´s also interesting is that he only gets 40 bucks for every copy sold."
 Uh, for those who can't do math, the developer is actually donating $5, not $10 from every purchase (10% of $50 is $5),  so a purchaser can consider then that he/she is also making a donation as well as buying a product.


----------



## lee (Jun 25, 2012)

hehe sorry, it´s too late to post on vi-control here! 45 bucks, yep, that´s right.


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 25, 2012)

I'm really sorry if my ignorance is frustrating, but regarding the usage of reverb I am so confused. I have come from a rock background, and am fairly capable of applying reverb to a snare drum or a vocal, but mostly I do things very dry. Recently I decided I needed to incorporate reverb into my mixing more, and I bought Aether (which I now regret, after reading about Valhalla!!). 

I often read in threads on VI Control about people using 2 or more reverbs for the same instruments, for example an IR and a `tail'. I don't get it. What does it mean by a tail? How do you apply a tail of reverb without including the earlier, more immediate reverb sound? I'm not sure I'm explaining myself properly though.

Also, in my experience with reverbs, it doesn't matter whether my instrument is panned, when I send to a reverb bus the reverb sound is not panned at all. Is this always the case? Or are there any reverbs which follow the left to right location? 

I also use Waves IR-L with convolution reverbs available from Waves. I really like the sound of it, although I don't understand what I'm doing with it.


----------



## Dan Mott (Jun 25, 2012)

zacnelson @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> I'm really sorry if my ignorance is frustrating, but regarding the usage of reverb I am so confused. I have come from a rock background, and am fairly capable of applying reverb to a snare drum or a vocal, but mostly I do things very dry. Recently I decided I needed to incorporate reverb into my mixing more, and I bought Aether (which I now regret, after reading about Valhalla!!).
> 
> I often read in threads on VI Control about people using 2 or more reverbs for the same instruments, for example an IR and a `tail'. I don't get it. What does it mean by a tail? How do you apply a tail of reverb without including the earlier, more immediate reverb sound? I'm not sure I'm explaining myself properly though.
> 
> ...



Hello

Alot of people around here use two reverbs, where the first reverb would be for their Early reflections, or a simple room verb to get dry sounds into some sort of space. These verbs generally have very short tails, or no tail at all. Once this is done, a second reverb is added for the tail and also for the final space for the sound, such as a concert hall/chamber, ect.

I think people do this to avoid the whole "dry sound, plus reverb" thing. I have to admit, it does sound odd when you put a hall verb on a dry sound, depending on the verb though, but it doesn't sound like it's actually IN the hall, or a room. To me it sounds like you've got your dry sample playing and then some sort of hall ambiance is in the background. It sounds unnatural and it's obvious that your sample is in a fake space.

I've tried doing this before and I think it works pretty well. I tried first putting a dry drum sample into a QL Spaces room, then I added my final space with an algo verb. I compared this up against putting my sound straight into my tail verb vs Room + Tail verb. Room verb + Tail verb sounded better, bit more natural.


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 25, 2012)

Thanks Dan-Jay, that's a very helpful post. So when I see the abbreviation ER it means `early reflection', and IR means Impulse Response? And would most people use an algo verb for the tail and a convolution (IR) verb for the ER? What about the `pre-delay' on a reverb (if that is the correc term); I know when mixing drums when you increase the pre-delay it can make the snare for example sound like it's more `up-front', and with no pre-delay it sounds further away. When you use an IR reverb for your early reflections, do you set a pre-delay, or is that only something you do with an algo reverb? 

And finally, to make the `tail' work on your second reverb send, is that related to pre-delay settings also?

Sorry for all the questions!


----------



## Dan Mott (Jun 25, 2012)

zacnelson @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> Thanks Dan-Jay, that's a very helpful post. So when I see the abbreviation ER it means `early reflection', and IR means Impulse Response?  And would most people use an algo verb for the tail and a convolution (IR) verb for the ER? What about the `pre-delay' on a reverb (if that is the correc term); I know when mixing drums when you increase the pre-delay it can make the snare for example sound like it's more `up-front', and with no pre-delay it sounds further away. When you use an IR reverb for your early reflections, do you set a pre-delay, or is that only something you do with an algo reverb?
> 
> And finally, to make the `tail' work on your second reverb send, is that related to pre-delay settings also?
> 
> Sorry for all the questions!



Yeah. ER means early reflections and IR means impulse response. I'm not sure what most people are using for the tail. I guess it's personal preference, but I like to use an algo verb for my tails because I like to design my own tail, rather than putting two standard Convo verbs on top of eachother. 

As for pre-delay, I guess it depends. For the ERs, less pre-delay makes sense because you want your sound to be more into the room, especially for a dry sample. Infact, if it's completely dry, I wouldn't use any pre-delay.

For the tail, experiment with pre-delay settings. I little bit a pre-delay would help seperate the two verbs a little. I guess the amount is also personal preference. Some people use pre-delay to position instruments in the room, so the instruments upfront will have more pre-delay because you'd be hearing the reflection later than the instruments at the back if that makes sense.

This is just my experience with all this stuff and from reading those long reverb threads in the Pro Mixing discussion. :D


----------



## mac4d (Jun 25, 2012)

josejherring @ Mon Jun 25 said:


> ozmorphasis @ Mon Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> > +1 for Valhalla.
> ...



Is the bug not fixed? So much for my plan to pick up Spaces in the 2-for-1.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 25, 2012)

I'm not sure if the bug is fixed. I haven't been keeping up with it.


----------



## Dan Mott (Jun 25, 2012)

Bug in spaces?? huh? No bugs here...


----------



## mac4d (Jun 25, 2012)

I googled and found this...

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-co ... esets.html

but not much else.

Wish I could know for sure. This predelay bug was said to have been fixed in an update, but the above thread is from this month. And I don't know how obvious this bug would be to some people, some may have the bug and not even know notice it.


----------



## Dan Mott (Jun 25, 2012)

He obviously doesn't have the update, or this issue still persists. I have the latest update and I never get the echo delay thing anymore. Just me.


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 25, 2012)

zacnelson @ Mon Jun 25 said:


> I'm really sorry if my ignorance is frustrating, but regarding the usage of reverb I am so confused. I have come from a rock background, and am fairly capable of applying reverb to a snare drum or a vocal, but mostly I do things very dry. Recently I decided I needed to incorporate reverb into my mixing more, and I bought Aether (which I now regret, after reading about Valhalla!!).
> 
> I often read in threads on VI Control about people using 2 or more reverbs for the same instruments, for example an IR and a `tail'. I don't get it. What does it mean by a tail? How do you apply a tail of reverb without including the earlier, more immediate reverb sound? I'm not sure I'm explaining myself properly though.
> 
> ...



I use IR1 too. Great verb. I think you almost answered your own questions.

There are three issues in you question. About panning or placement of a sound, yes, there are plug-ins/programs for this.

Spatial Placement - (more important in orchestral work or film scoring, than rock music I would think because of the dynamic range, and stage size). Check out IRCAM Spat to learn more
http://www.fluxhome.com/products/plug_ins/ircam_spat

*Convolution verbs* - Early reflections are where convolution reverbs are strong, using IRs to allow your instruments to react with the space the IR was recorded in. Not all convolutions give you control over all aspects of reverb (like QL Spaces for example), but your IR1 does have more. I haven't tried all CR's but the IR1 is a bit of a hybrid. You have a four band Para EQ and you can adjust the room size, apply complex decay envelopes, emphasize room mode resonances, adjust the damping and change the relative levels of the early reflections and the decay tail. But CRs can start to sound overwhelming in some cases. Bass frequencies can build up, and they can tax your CPU fast. In effect, you're sending a sound through another sample (the IR). Some CRs don't have enough adjustments for some people. You wouldn't want to add a CR to a main mix, because a lot of ensembles have a stage sound already, and you may not want to added another space to that.

*Algorithmic verbs* - These generally give you much more control over certain reverb parameters, like the reverb tail (and modulation) - Sony Oxford. Having an Algorithmic verb after a CR will allow you to have good in phase reverb tails, while a CR is good with early reflections. And the combination of the two can have a great effect.

In conclusion... Reverb's have two main elements: (pre delay and modulation are others)

The early reflections is the initial echoes that happen when sound waves hit walls and ceilings.

The reverb tail is the sound created by waves as they bounce around a space.

A CR is used to create realistic simulations of early reflections while Algorithmic verbs create a smooth and _neutral_ reverb tail.

Ok, I'm so tired I can't keep my eyes open. Hope that even made sense!


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 25, 2012)

That's wonderful! Thanks so much I feel a lot clearer about it now; with this knowledge from you guys I know that when I start playing around with reverb I won't be going down the wrong tangents. By the way, I actually have IR-L (the lite version) which doesn't have all the extra parameters of IR1.


----------



## marcotronic (Jun 25, 2012)

Theseus @ Mon Jun 25 said:


> Marcotronic, Softube TSAR-1 is trully excellent. It was designed by a former TC Electronic guy and it pretty versatile (it has only one algo as the name implies). Beautiful lush tails, can sound grainy and vintage, it has the most well thought controls of any reverbs I've ever tried. Presets are great and there's a lot extra ones designed by Den (http://www.gearslutz.com/board/members/122167-den/) that are also great starting points.
> 
> Valhalla might be cheapest, but that's just a marketing decision. Sean could totally sell it at 500 bucks and it would still be a good price for what you get. But he wouldn't sell that many !



Thanks a lot!

Marco


----------



## re-peat (Jun 26, 2012)

Nightwatch,

Rather a lot of partially and even completely wrong info in that post of yours, I'm afraid. 
In fact, nearly all of it is incorrect to some extent. Remarkable.

Now, normally, I'd love to explain a little further (just as I would love to talk a bit about Softube's TSAR-1, which I own and frequently use), but with *the SPAT-thread disappearing the way it did* — 3 pages of valuable and informative posts (a few of which actually required quite a bit of time and effort to write) about two great pieces of software (MIR and SPAT) which many V.I. members are very interested in — I just can't be bothered anymore. I mean, what's the bloody point? Completely lost the desire to share anything whatsoever with this forum at the moment, even my annual donations. 

Did ask Frederick, nicely and politely, about what happened, but for some reason, he didn't feel like replying. Not a word. It's been three days and no answer at all. He's always amazingly quick to reply whenever I send him fifty dollars, and now that I really would have appreciated a few words (even if these had said: "Stay out of this, it's none of your business."), he keeps completely silent. Really don't like that.
There's something rotten in the state of V.I., it seems to me.

So, unless there's some positive concluding act to this whole unsavoury SPAT-affair — preferably the thread restored (without the 'legally problematic' post if necessary), or at the very least, a really good explanation for why it needed to be removed in its entirety —, I don't think I will be using the 'Submit post'-button very often anymore around here.

_


----------



## Scrianinoff (Jun 26, 2012)

What? Yes, indeed, the SPAT thread was deleted completely. And a thread with questions about it is locked: http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26545

Why? Well, "because a legitimate complaint of a legal nature". What does that mean exactly? 

Now, even if Frederick was legally obliged to remove the offending material, then why remove the whole thread, and not just the offending post inside it?

It was the thread that made me reconsider my opinion about SPAT, mostly due to posts by Piet. I bought it, and the seller and IRCAM were even so nice to upgrade me to 1.1 for free, without asking. Great!

Piet, come on, you cannot be that blunt; unless you're Dutch  Well, maybe you are, and I am simply fooled by the .be extension. Well, perhaps I am not fully awake yet, and this is not bluntness but an example of 'frankness to the extreme'.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 26, 2012)

Yes it is a pity that the SPAT thread vanished, I've put quite some work and time into it too.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 26, 2012)

We all did. What a waste of time.


----------



## Scrianinoff (Jun 26, 2012)

It could be that Frederick has only temporarily hidden the thread during his process of cleaning the legally problematic material in it. So let's be careful in drawing conclusions. In the thread I linked to he replied that the thread was "moved", this could be a typo, or not.


----------



## Udo (Jun 26, 2012)

re-peat @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> ... with *the SPAT-thread disappearing the way it did* — 3 pages of valuable and informative posts (a few of which actually required quite a bit of time and effort to write) about two great pieces of software (MIR and SPAT) which many V.I. members are very interested in — .......
> 
> ...... Did ask Frederick, nicely and politely, about what happened, but for some reason, he didn't feel like replying. Not a word. It's been three days and no answer at all. He's always amazingly quick to reply whenever I send him fifty dollars, and now that I really would have appreciated a few words (even if these had said: "Stay out of this, it's none of your business."), he keeps completely silent. Really don't like that.
> There's something rotten in the state of V.I., it seems to me ........


I contacted Frederick after a new thread I started about the issue was locked. http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26545 (www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26545) 

He didn't seem to know exactly what the problem was and/or didn't want to get involved. Said I should get in touch with Peter Alexander asap, which I did, but got no response. Contacted Frederick again, mentioning several issue, the main one: there was no excuse for removing the whole thread .... .no response.


----------



## marcotronic (Jun 26, 2012)

I edited a post and it appeared as additional entry. What's going on here?


----------



## marcotronic (Jun 26, 2012)

double post... sorry


----------



## marcotronic (Jun 26, 2012)

marcotronic @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> marcotronic @ Tue Jun 26 said:
> 
> 
> > re-peat @ Tue Jun 26 said:
> ...



thanks for the info! Your point of view is completely comprehensible.

Marco


----------



## Hannes_F (Jun 26, 2012)

I am sure Frederick is doing his best within the boundaries he faces.

That being said ... it is a structural problem if somebody has an opinion as a regular member of a forum like this and at the same time offers something professionally, as happens for some of us. That is all good and fine but when it comes to conflicts between those two points of views then commercial interest should walk on tiptoes rather than with legal threats. Sense of proportion.

On the other hand it is also not good to be over the top mercyless - not mentioning names but to whom it fits: it not always pays to exhaust everything to the maximum, because extreme measures often cause extreme reactions. Live and let live, that way we can all get along here.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 26, 2012)

Threads of mine have been moved, threads of mine have been locked. Fredrick has not always responded, and occasionally this stings for a minute. I try to judge the overall experience, which I find to be far more positive than other forums I've been on.

No offense to the involved parties, but this seems to be a lot of drama about a locked thread.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 26, 2012)

It's not just locked, Larry, _it's gone_. (For the time being anyway, I hope.) And I really wouldn't mind if there was good reason for it, but as far as I can remember (and I have a fairly good memory), there was absolutely nothing in that thread that justifies its _entire_ removal. The only thing I can think of was the fact that Mr. Alexander was exposed (****) and that there was, apparently, also some misinformation about pricing, but other than that : three pages of very valuable material for anyone with an interest in either MIR or SPAT, or both. And, as already been stated : material which some of us worked very hard at to compile.
And again : why not just remove the risky or problematic posts? Why trash the entire thing?

A while ago, another thread got removed which I thought was a bit of a shame at the time, as it contained a rather satisfying and at times interesting discussion about film music vs classical music. However, after a couple of good pages, that thread had clearly derailed into exchanges of unpleasantness all around, making it perfectly understandable when, finally, it got shut down. No problem. (Although, again : I would have kept the good pages.)

I don't mind threads being locked or disappearing — I even believe that I'm not entitled to mind anyway, it is indeed none of my business to do so, and besides, there's almost always a perfectly good reason for it to happen — but the SPAT-thread is something different though. There's something ugly going on here, I feel. Something dangerous. And it casts a chilly shadow over the entire forum.

(****) something has been edited out here by the Administrators and/or Moderators.

_


----------



## KEnK (Jun 26, 2012)

re-peat @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> Mr. Alexander was exposed for the blatantly self-serving charlatan which he is


Hmm...

I also think an explanation for removing the thread is in order.
From reading the reaction to the removal, one could easily draw some incorrect conclusions.

I now have some ideas about why the thread was removed that may not be based on fact.

As to threads having an intrinsic value, even if they include some flaming-
I've learned a lot here from the many knowledgeable people who kindly and generously post their expertise. 

I've even copy&pasted some entire threads for future reference and even study.

I didn't see the offending posts, but would hope that censorship, if "required",
would be meted out in as sparing a manner as possible.

Or we're "throwing the baby out w/ the bathwater".

k


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Jun 26, 2012)

Scrianinoff @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> It could be that Frederick has only temporarily hidden the thread during his process of cleaning the legally problematic material in it. So let's be careful in drawing conclusions. In the thread I linked to he replied that the thread was "moved", this could be a typo, or not.



This


----------



## playz123 (Jun 26, 2012)

Wow, this thread has certainly taken a turn in a different direction, but rightly so. I have my suspicions as well, but as others have suggested, perhaps we need to just wait a bit, not jump to conclusions and see if the thread reappears after some editing. A bonus from that would be that it should then be easy to determine what got someone's knickers in a twist based on what is no longer there as opposed to what remains.  So come on Mods, most of the information in that thread couldn't have been offensive or open to legal challenges, so please restore the good bits minus the offending ones.


----------



## Scrianinoff (Jun 26, 2012)

Well, it appears a disk cache is useful after all. Here you go, re-peat's initial post in that thread:

"Dietz,

With all due respect (and believe me, you get a lot more from me than the banality of the formula ‘with all due respect’ might suggest), I have never been convinced by that Ellington mix, I must say (and I’ve listened to it dozens of time already in the past). I really do like the pianosound, terrific sound, but … that’s about it, I’m afraid. To my ears, the instruments don’t quite connect in this mix as they should, and the whole thing sounds a bit sterile and dead-ish to me. Now, this might very well have nothing to do with MIR itself of course, it probably even hasn’t: it could just as well be the somewhat disappointing sound of the VI Jazz Drums (never liked those, I’m sorry to say) and/or the sonic character of the upright (a VI library which, while sounding decent, I find incredibly difficult to place well inside a mix — so difficult in fact that I’ve stopped using it).
Whatever it is, I always thought this particular mix is a truly excellent demonstration of the magnificent Bösendorfer but rather less so of all the other elements involved (except the obvious musicianship of course).

The Varèse and the Schocker both sound quite good, no doubt, (not jaw-droppingly great though, if I'm permitted to say so), but I really can’t say I hear anything at all here which makes me want to buy MIR. Not implying that SPAT would easily do better, definitely not, but it certainly wouldn’t do worse. That I know.
Thing is: in all these examples I still hear sounds to which reverb has been added, rather then sounds truly existing in a space. There's a not entirely unconvincing suggestion of depth and dimension, sure, but there's no real presence of either. (The Varèse and the Schocker both sound quite artificial in this respect, to my ears). I’m quite aware that the reason for this has a lot more to do with the intrinsic and inevitable flaws of the musical weirdness that goes by the name ‘mock-up’ than with whatever limitations the MIR-spatialization might have (which I know nothing about), but even so, these results are, in my opinion, not fundamentally better-sounding than what can be done with other good spatialization software, be it SPAT, or a wise combination of various other quality tools. In short: if this is MIR at its best, then I know I don't need it.

These three examples are, by the way, also a perfect illustration of what I hinted at before and already discussed at annoying length in the past: as long as mock-ups are what they are, good reverb is often a strangely absurd and amazingly powerless presence in a mix, I find. In fact, the better the reverb (as for example the one generated by MIR), the more this absurdity surfaces, it seems to me.

But again, I’d really hate it if any of the above might suggest that I have any doubts whatsoever about the qualities and usefulness of MIR. I really don’t. It’s obviously a stunning piece of software, and a tremendously versatile and satisfying tool in most any studio or set-up, I would imagine. "

I'll remove it once the original thread is restored, that is, if they don't beat me to it.


----------



## Scrianinoff (Jun 26, 2012)

More to follow later, at least until we reach the legal breaking point  Posting more might have to wait a few hours.


----------



## playz123 (Jun 26, 2012)

Scrianinoff @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> More to follow later, at least until we reach the legal breaking point  Posting more might have to wait a few hours.



Maybe best NOT to do that?? Reposting what was in that thread without allowing the moderators to do their job, is perhaps not in everyone's best interests and we wouldn't want to affect the current thread here either...correct??


----------



## José Herring (Jun 26, 2012)

+1, let Frederick sort it out. If you post the offending post it could open up more legal action. Nobody wants that to happen.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 26, 2012)

zacnelson, to answer your question from a less practical angle, the basic way reverb works in acoustic space is that the first seven paths to your ear are the *early reflections*: the direct path from the source, and bounces off the ceiling, floor, sides, front, and back of the room.
After that the sound bounces around in a wash of iterations - the tail.

Those seven early reflections are what tells you about the space you and the instrument are in, and it's a) why they're so important, and b) why convolution is so realistic - rather than simulating the frequency response and timing of those seven delays, it actually samples the space and applies the character to the sound. It's very good at positioning the sound as well - far ahead of the pan control.

Convolution does a very good job of the tail too, but because the impulse response is just one picture of the space, it can't simulate the complicated interactions between the tail build-up. While they don't all do so, algorithmic reverbs can modulate parameters around to simulate some of that - and also to improve upon reality in many production contexts. Recording production isn't always trying to be totally realistic - it enhances reality to make it work on speakers.

Having said that, it's very hard to say that convolution is good for this and algorithmic is good for that. There's far more overlap than there is differentiation, although you certainly have more control over more parameters in an algorithmic reverb.

Getting back to the VSL Hybrid Reverb I'm so enthusiastic about (and I'm telling you people, it's getting short shrift in this thread!): that's its concept - convolution ERs and algorithmic tail, crossfaded. But the part you crossfade is a little after the ERs, so it's seamless (unless you want it to be separated for an effect).

Oh - you can also use one instance of a convolution processor for the ER and another for the tail. That's a common trick: individual ERs for instruments/ sections to position them accurately, then another one shared for the tail. If you're confused how it works, it's just a crossfade.


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 26, 2012)

Certainly, that re-peated (heh) bit from Piet contains no legal problems-it's just a statement of opinion, so I can't imagine that was the offender.

In this case, I really do think it would be helpful to hear from Frederick. There are ways to say things eliptically, after all.


----------



## lee (Jun 26, 2012)

I´m guessing the special price thing that someone wrote was the problem.


----------



## Udo (Jun 26, 2012)

I have now received a reply from Frederick and Peter Alexander (with a CC to Frederick). Frederick was out of town. From his response it now looks like the thread may come back. Here's part of what he said:

"I'm not even sure why the legal issue was raised but my response to it is standard. I'm not asking you to agree with it but it has worked to keep our forum out of plenty of close calls over the last eight years. Anyway, let me know what you come up with in all that and we'll look at it again, thanks."

Peter said the mentioning of a price was his reason and says further: "I do agree with you that the thread had useful information that possibly could be posted in a different VI forum."

Why a different forum? It was a Spat thread outside the Commercial Announcements section after all.


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 26, 2012)

re-peat @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> Nightwatch,
> 
> Rather a lot of partially and even completely wrong info in that post of yours, I'm afraid.
> In fact, nearly all of it is incorrect to some extent. Remarkable.
> ...



I'm not quite sure what you mean. He asked about panning and positioning. I mentioned a method for doing that, and in what contexts it might be best at. No rock engineer I know uses spatial placement software per se.

I mentioned that not all CRs have the functions that ARs do, and IRs being sample based can build up a lot of low frequencies and perhaps a noise floor. I mentioned why one might combine the two. That info is based off my experience working in both a rock and classical mixing environment.

What's wrong with that?


----------



## devastat (Jun 26, 2012)

Zac, there is a really great tutorial video about reverbs (altho not really related to orchestral mixing) called 'creating space with reverbs' by Fab Dupont at puremix.net. You can find a trailer here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPhmPRGfaLI.

Unfortunately it is quite expensive to watch if you are not a subscriber, but worth every penny in my opinion.


----------



## mark812 (Jun 26, 2012)

zacnelson @ Mon Jun 25 said:


> Recently I decided I needed to incorporate reverb into my mixing more, and I bought Aether (which I now regret, after reading about Valhalla!!).



No need for regret, it's a fantastic reverb. Especially with Den's latest presets.


----------



## Blakus (Jun 26, 2012)

Agreed. Den's presets for breeze/aether are amazing!


----------



## José Herring (Jun 26, 2012)

mark812 @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> zacnelson @ Mon Jun 25 said:
> 
> 
> > Recently I decided I needed to incorporate reverb into my mixing more, and I bought Aether (which I now regret, after reading about Valhalla!!).
> ...



+1. Aether is a great reverb. It came in a close second in my test. The only reason I went with Valhalla is because a) it was cheaper, b) it was just as good and c) Aether sounded just a tad cold to my ears. That being said, if I had worked longer with Aether then I'm sure it would have done just as well as Valhalla.

@Nick,

I don't think that I'm short changing Hybrid Verb. I'm just debating if it's substantially better given the price point of the plugin. But, I'm seriously considering it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 26, 2012)

I wasn't pointing that at you specifically, Jose. Recently I've been tearing you a new one, and I don't like myself for that. 



> No rock engineer I know uses spatial placement software per se



The thing is, you can spend an hour panning everything painstakingly to get it to sit exactly in the right position...and then you move your head half an inch and it all changes. That's why amplitude-based panning is not incredibly effective, and why a lot of engineers prefer to hard-pan most elements or put them in the middle - where the image is totally solid - leaving the stereo stuff mostly for ear candy. Or they'll use delay-based panning (another subject).

A friend of mine who's an outrageously good engineer put it this way: if everything is stereo, nothing is stereo.


That's rock/pop production. Acoustic is different.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 26, 2012)

^ Reading what I wrote, I may have made that too general. Stereo drum overheads aren't ear candy, for example.


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 26, 2012)

Thanks Nick and others for your continued advice! I spent ages last night loading various IRs into IR-L and I certainly found it very effective, however I can definitely see how the low-end can build up and get messy, which helps me understand some of the logic behind using an algo reverb for the tail.

What are these `Den's presets' for Aether, and does anybody know how I can find them? I have tinkered a lot with Aether as well, and I find it frustrating that most of the stock presets are hard to work with; I always have to change settings on them, whereas with the IRs I have been experimenting with, I usually just `like' them even if I have to put an EQ after them. There is just something pleasing about the sound.

I love the generosity of forum members here, it has made my music life so much easier!


----------



## José Herring (Jun 26, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> I wasn't pointing that at you specifically, Jose. Recently I've been tearing you a new one, and I don't like myself for that.



:lol: 

We just disagree on a few things. I'm not taking it personally. I hope you aren't either.

Tried to get a demo of Hybrid Verb, but VSL says I've downloaded it too many times. WTF!? I haven't even downloaded it once. I think they hate me over there.


----------



## mark812 (Jun 26, 2012)

zacnelson @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> What are these `Den's presets' for Aether, and does anybody know how I can find them?



Check out this thread. :wink:


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 26, 2012)

> The thing is, you can spend an hour panning everything painstakingly to get it to sit exactly in the right position...and then you move your head half an inch and it all changes. That's why amplitude-based panning is not incredibly effective, and why a lot of engineers prefer to hard-pan most elements or put them in the middle - where the image is totally solid - leaving the stereo stuff mostly for ear candy. Or they'll use delay-based panning (another subject).
> 
> A friend of mine who's an outrageously good engineer put it this way: if everything is stereo, nothing is stereo.
> 
> That's rock/pop production. Acoustic is different.



So we agree then. I don't understand why you said "In fact, nearly all of it is incorrect to some extent. Remarkable. " about my post. Admittedly it was a bit incoherent as I was falling sleep while rushing to type that post. But all of it being remarkably incorrect? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

No big deal though.


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 26, 2012)

Hi Nightwatch, the quote in your post above was from Nick, but it was re-peat who initially said you were incorrect, not Nick. From what I can tell your advice was excellent and seemed to match what the others are saying.

Mark812, thanks for the link to that thread, I will download those presets as soon as I get home from work! I'm excited

By the way I love that quote `if everything is stereo, nothing is stereo' - that applies to a lot of stuff in mixing, ESPECIALLY loudness - panning is not as noticeable if for example you're listening from an unusual location, but volume dynamics communicate to every listener. I hate the way radio stations squash the dynamics of great recordings and make the whole thing so `in your face'


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 26, 2012)

zacnelson - Thanks for pointing that out. Yeah, I meant that for re-peat. Just kinda peeved me because I'm not wrong and, on top of that I fell asleep twice at my desk just trying to share some knowledge. Ha! So, it was sloppy, but the points are valid from my experience of using reverbs in this manner, and it was weird getting called out in that vague way. No big deal though.

But the important thing is that you got some good responses and now know more about the subject. That's why we're all here asking questions.

o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 26, 2012)

Yeah, re-peat and I are two different people!

I agree with your post about panning too!


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 26, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> Yeah, re-peat and I are two different people!
> 
> I agree with your post about panning too!



Sorry about that Nick!


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 26, 2012)

VSL Hybrid Reverb - powerful stuff. My fave software reverb also. You can easily dial in so much variability. It makes it quite useful for a wide variety of sources. I would recommend that it would be worth it to download it for trial at least. Everyone's ear is different and their uses for reverb is a very personal decision. 

For the record, I don't have TSAR-1 or Valhalla Hall but have pretty much most of the others. My apologies that I can't make a completely knowledgable opinion based upon having them all. I do my best. 

.


----------



## re-peat (Jun 27, 2012)

nightwatch @ Tue Jun 26 said:


> (...) Yeah, I meant that for re-peat. Just kinda peeved me because I'm not wrong (...)


*Nightwatch,*

Before carrying on, let me first apologize to you, deeply, humbly, most sincerely and down on my knees. Because — as I assumed was rather obvious — I actually (ab)used your generous, well-meaning post and exaggerated its shortcomings somewhat, ONLY to give myself a chance to say what I really wanted to say (all that noise about “The Mysterious Case of The Disappearing Thread” and such). On any other day, I would never have replied to your post the way I did, but here … I sort of needed to, in order to be able to carry on. Like I said, I thought the manoeuvre was pretty obvious and transparent. Either way, really sorry about that.

Having said that, there *are* a few points in your post which had me raise my left eyebrow, R. Moore-style.

First of all, I don’t really see how spatial placement is related to dynamic range and/or stage size and how this, in turn, might help towards a better understanding of reverberation. 
Secondly, the suggestion that convolution reverbs are better at generating early reflections than algorithmic reverbs is highly questionnable, I believe. Give me an algorithmic device any time, to define a space with pinpoint precision. (There is, for example, no software better at this particular aspect of spatialization than SPAT, which is entirely algorithmic.) Likewise, I don’t see why people should stop enjoying the tails generated by QL Spaces, Altiverb, SpaceDesigner or any other convolution-based engine in favour of algorithmically generated tails.
And finally, I also have serious doubts about your conclusion which says: “A CR is used to create realistic simulations of early reflections while Algorithmic verbs create a smooth and neutral reverb tail.” It might be me, but I don’t think this helps anyone who’s eager to find out how a reverb works and how it is best applied. If anything, it makes the job of adding reverb to a mix much more complicated and complex than I believe it should be.

You see, the eternal problem I have with this statement (and the philosphy behind it) is the aim for realism. More precisely: the aim for realism in a production (a mock-up) that has, by its very nature, all realism sacrificed from the very outset. To me, this quest for ‘realism’ is the biggest misconception, or fallacy (are those two synonyms? I’m not sure), in all reverb-related discussions here on V.I.. And for some weird reason, it keeps returning and returning … (But let’s not get in to this subject again. Dwelled on it long enough already in a number of other threads.) Suffice to say that I will never understand why anyone would want to make ‘adding reverb’ much more complicated than it has to be, in the hope of increasing realism _where there is no realism to begin with_. Or, in other words (and this sums it up very nicely, I think): *what’s the point of adding realistic ER’s to fake strings?* Someone really needs to explain that to me, one day.

In the Lexicon thread, John Rodd states that the Bricasti is the best reverb for realism. Maybe that’s so, I don’t know and I’m not in the least interested to find out, but again: what’s the point of bringing Bricasti-realism into a mock-up mix? How much, I ask, remains of that ‘realism’-quality if all the sounds that are surrounded by it are as unreal as can be? Ab-so-lu-te-ly nothing. That’s how much. And it’s exactly the same with realistic ER’s.
I’ve asked this many times before: people who swear by ‘realistic ER’s’ and complex reverb-configurations (set up in order to increase the ‘realism’ in their mixes), show me ONE example where this actually pays off and results in a more believable production. Never heard it. (Because, as I’m convinced, it doesn’t exist.) One mock-up that truly benefits (in a musically significant way, that is) from the supposed ‘realism’ in a reverb. That’s all I want to hear. One example where, say, the VSL Appassionatas can be made to sound more strings-like (more ‘realistic’, in other words) by having ‘realistic ER’s and a smooth, neutral algorithmic tail’ added to it, rather than just a single, simple, good-sounding reverb (of whatever type one prefers). 

Anyway, enough for now, I think.
Once again, Nightwatch, very sorry for what happened earlier on. You were nowhere near as wrong as I made it out to be (even though I can't agree with a lot of what you were saying/suggesting, for reasons the above paragraphs, I hope, have made clear).

Oh and by the way, I quite liked the example you posted on the Pianoteq-forum, where you illustrated how to enrich the pianosound by running it through an IR of a piano-cabinet. It’s a well-known and often-used technique, but it didn’t work as well with earlier versions of Pianoteq, mainly because the dry pianosound itself still left a lot to be desired. But the better Pianoteq becomes (and v4 is an impressive step forwards), the more effective this IR-method becomes of course. Nicely done!

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 27, 2012)

re-peat @ Wed Jun 27 said:


> You see, the eternal problem I have with this statement (and the philosphy behind it) is the aim for realism. More precisely: the aim for realism in a production (a mock-up) that has, by its very nature, all realism sacrificed from the very outset. To me, this quest for ‘realism’ is the biggest misconception, or fallacy (are those two synonyms? I’m not sure), in all reverb-related discussions here on V.I.. And for some weird reason, it keeps returning and returning … (But let’s not get in to this subject again. Dwelled on it long enough already in a number of other threads.) Suffice to say that I will never understand why anyone would want to make ‘adding reverb’ much more complicated than it has to be, in the hope of increasing realism _where there is no realism to begin with_. Or, in other words (and this sums it up very nicely, I think): *what’s the point of adding realistic ER’s to fake strings?* Someone really needs to explain that to me, one day.
> 
> In the Lexicon thread, John Rodd states that the Bricasti is the best reverb for realism. Maybe that’s so, I don’t know and I’m not in the least interested to find out, but again: what’s the point of bringing Bricasti-realism into a mock-up mix? How much, I ask, remains of that ‘realism’-quality if all the sounds that are surrounded by it are as unreal as can be? Ab-so-lu-te-ly nothing. That’s how much. And it’s exactly the same with realistic ER’s.
> I’ve asked this many times before: people who swear by ‘realistic ER’s’ and complex reverb-configurations (set up in order to increase the ‘realism’ in their mixes), show me ONE example where this actually pays off and results in a more believable production. Never heard it. (Because, as I’m convinced, it doesn’t exist.) One mock-up that truly benefits (in a musically significant way, that is) from the supposed ‘realism’ in a reverb. That’s all I want to hear. One example where, say, the VSL Appassionatas can be made to sound more strings-like (more ‘realistic’, in other words) by having ‘realistic ER’s and a smooth, neutral algorithmic tail’ added to it, rather than just a single, simple, good-sounding reverb (of whatever type one prefers).
> ...



I agree almost entirely with this, although I do think that while it does not make samples sound more real, my approach of using Spaces IRs on the different sections and the UAD Plate 140 or sometimes UAD Lexicon 224 has led me to a sound that I like to listen to.


----------



## lee (Jun 27, 2012)

I really dont understand this black/white philosophy when it comes to realism, be it samples, reverb, spacial simulation or whatever.

For me, the quality of my orchestral samplebased music is the fact that it reminds me of real orchestras. It doesn't try to be exactly like the real thing, it's something else. And I like that it somehow evokes a mood or feeling from a real orchestra, may it be fake, weak, and inferior, but wait!? The goal for me wasn't to mimic the real thing in every single aspect in the first place! I want to make something different, something new.

This is a bad image but here we go: A dj who makes a remix using small clips from an existing song does not want to make an exact copy of the original. He wants to "paint" an image that reminds the listener of the song but is something new.

This philosophy means that realism is part of the quality, but not the only part.

/Johnny


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 27, 2012)

lee @ Wed Jun 27 said:


> I really dont understand this black/white philosophy when it comes to realism, be it samples, reverb, spacial simulation or whatever.
> 
> For me, it's the quality of my orchestral samplebased music is that it reminds me of real orchestras. It doesn't try to be exactly like the real thing, it's something else. And I like that it somehow evokes a mood or feeling from a real orchestra, may it be fake, weak, and inferior, but wait!? The goal for me wasn't to mimic the real thing in every single aspect in the first place! I want to make something different, something new.
> 
> ...



Agreed, it is all a matter of degree. To guys like me and Piet, people go to exaggerated lengths in pursuit of realism at the expense of more important compositional considerations. 

I sure hear a lot of stuff that while it may be well mixed I do not consider well composed. But it is highly subjective.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 27, 2012)

I think many composers are after the real thing when they use their libs...., want to sound like the real thing as good as possible....?!

And, if you after this,using a lot of dynamics, e.t.c., then a good or best reverb can do a much better job than a ......reverb. 

As I suggested in my earlier post: Experiment with other plugs, inserted in your reverb channel, like chorus, delay, e.t.c. . And: Delay is a swiss knife!


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 27, 2012)

re-peat @ Wed Jun 27 said:


> nightwatch @ Tue Jun 26 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Yeah, I meant that for re-peat. Just kinda peeved me because I'm not wrong (...)
> ...



Thank you for the apology. 

Let me try to clarify my points of view. zacnelson mentioned four things that triggered my response - He comes from a rock mixing background. He asked about using two reverbs ("and IR and a tail", as he put it). He asked about panning in terms of not only left and right, but front to back, and mentioned using the Waves IR-L (I use the IR1), and he said "don't understand what I'm doing with it".

In that context I responded with these points.

Dynamic range - I wasn't tying to explain how to use a reverb when I mentioned dynamic range. But because zacnelson has experience in rock productions, I put things in that context. There is a huge difference in dynamic range between your average rock production, and a classical or film production. Rock music is generally always full on and compressed (at different levels of course), so that you never really hear the kind of reverb detail you would in classical/film (there are exceptions). Rock is generally recorded in dead rooms to get as much source recording possible (a lot of Metal bands do this to get a very direct and completely unaffected sound caused by a room), with very close mic'ing and some room mics. Or, like I tend to do, recorded in a small to medium lively room for a more "live" sound, or to capture some space (Led Zeppelin). I don't like tight and dry recording booths). And even today, a lot of good engineers, (and I'm working with a guy who won a Grammy 2 years ago for mixing a Steve Earle album), will track rock music on tape or mainly over the last couple of years, at 44.1/24-bit because there is no need to waste CPU and drive space on higher sample rates that won't pick up any extra detail anyway. I'm sure bands like Muse are tracking at higher same rates but they do have a lot of dynamics in their music with solo piano and orchestral music included in their songs, and they're are a very epic sounding band on record. That's why I mentioned dynamic range as it applies to spatial elements, because in rock mixing, _you're generally creating a sound stage in the mix, not recording from one_. But I pointed him to Spat anyway, in case he wanted to see what a room acoustics simulator does, and what applications it might be useful in. I just mentioned Spat, leaving the context up to him.

I know you know all of this, but my post was based off this context (I use that word too much).

On the other side classical music is recorded at the higher sample rates to cleanly capture room spaces and reverb trails (anti-aliasing). 

Two reverbs - When he asked about using two reverbs, I was NOT telling him that there was only one solution and that it was a solution intend to make perfection. I felt I explained what I knew about that approach, the reasoning behind it and why some people think that's the best solution. I'm a composer and sound designer myself, so I'm not out to make perfect sounds, _but_ there are times in the style of music I record that I need my samples to sound as real as possible if I don't have access to the real thing. I'm not just an orchestral composer. My main genres at this moment are rock, film music, and "classical" music. I use synths, elec. guitars and basses, drum kits, a assortment of electronic and natural sounds, and of course a lot of sample and modeled based orchestral and other instruments. But I do compose and do mockups of orchestral music.

I also tried to tie some of that into the usage of the Waves CR. I also happen to love dealing with IRs. IRs are a heck of a lot of fun for a sound designer. Hence the PianoTEQ thing. Thanks for the compliment on that. I'm sure it is a popular solution, but I'm not sure that some of the people on the PianoTEQ forum are thinking like that. I don't spend much time on that forum and at first I thought that it was mostly pianist talking about piano or PianoTEQ stuff. But there are a few guys over there talking about sound. I was glad to see that someone was taking the approach of using multiple speakers positioned below and around his MIDI comptroller to get a piano cabinet feel, instead of just listening to that instrument on stereo monitors. My next step with PianoTEQ is to find a way to alter the string's sound of the piano, beyond PianoTEQ's own tools.

Anyway, sorry for the long response, but I hope that helps put my response in perspective. I in know way pretend to know it all,but I have quite a bit of experience, which I'll mention at some point. There are a lot of great people on this forum, and regardless of what they have to say, I enjoy listening and learning from everyone here.

Cheers o-[][]-o 

Back to recording!


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 27, 2012)

germancomponist @ Wed Jun 27 said:


> I think many composers are after the real thing when they use their libs...., want to sound like the real thing as good as possible....?!
> 
> And, if you after this,using a lot of dynamics, e.t.c., then a good or best reverb can do a much better job than a ......reverb.
> 
> As I suggested in my earlier post: Experiment with other plugs, inserted in your reverb channel, like chorus, delay, e.t.c. . And: Delay is a swiss knife!



But here's the thing IMHO, my friend Gunther:

When working with samples "sound like the real thing" does NOT necessarily equate to "as good as possible". And I assume you mean as "close" as possible, correct?

Frequently, it is the opposite in that the LESS time you spend you trying to make them sound "real", which is illusory at best, and the more you treat them as their own beast, the better you can make them sound. Hans Zimmer understands this really well. He frequently takes samples and makes them sound less real but with more emotional impact.

More times than not IMHO, a "cello-ish" approach sounds much better than samples trying to fool someone into thinking they are real.


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 27, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 27 said:


> germancomponist @ Wed Jun 27 said:
> 
> 
> > I think many composers are after the real thing when they use their libs...., want to sound like the real thing as good as possible....?!
> ...



My bad "american" english.... . You are right, Jay! +1!


----------



## germancomponist (Jun 27, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 27 said:


> ...Hans Zimmer understands this really well. He frequently takes samples and makes them sound less real but with more emotional impact. ...



Cool that you stated this out, Jay! 

While so many other composers are looking around, copying this and that sound (very often the temp track is asking for this...) Hans is following his soull, experiments with new ideas and sounds... , and bring us often to be amazed.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 27, 2012)

> what’s the point of adding realistic ER’s to fake strings? Someone really needs to explain that to me, one day.



Because lousy reverb and unrealistic ERs tend to go together and v.v., no?

I'd say the same of sampled strings: while you can add synthy stuff to them and it'll sound good, there's an uncanny correlation between realism and good sound.


----------



## José Herring (Jun 27, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Jun 27 said:


> > what’s the point of adding realistic ER’s to fake strings? Someone really needs to explain that to me, one day.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with most of it. 

But, I was baffled by John Rodds statement. Not to knock his skills which I find him very competent.

I've heard all the units he mentioned and not one of them sounds close to being real. But, I don't expect artificial reverb to sound real. I've been in dozens of concert halls and scores of studios, and I've never heard a "hall" verb that sounds even remotely close to a hall, or a "room" verb that sounded remotely close to a room.

So rating algorithmic reverb units based on "realism" is just a little off the mark.

I base my judgements on what sounds good as apposed to what sounds bad.

Though I agree that the closer an artificial reverb mimics the acoustical properties of a space the better it is, but the overall sound quality, the actual timbre of the sound always sounds artificial. So, I guess if I were to add to the statement about "realistic" reverb, I would say the closer the reverb mimics the acoustics of a real space the better it is, but it will sound fake. It's just a fake that I've grown to love on recordings. Even beyond what was naturally recorded in a hall. It's almost like you have to match fake with fake. If you're going to mimic sound in an artificial medium like a recording, it's almost as if you have to also match it with an artificial space. I guess that's why a soured on Convo verb. Because nothing sounded "less real" to me than a snap shot of a dynamic space.

Kind of strange.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jun 27, 2012)

Hi guys,

Please indulge me for a second. I'm going to quote myself from the last portion of my comments in the 'I bought the $1500 Lexicon Plugin' thread.



> And 'realism'? It's mixing - nothing is real. Real would not be acceptable.



I just like things to sound good. If a better reverb does that then that's what I'd want to have. It's not a philosophical or technical issue. 

.

PS - 
Let me perhaps explain what John was thinking (not that he needs me to do this - he seems quite capable of explaining his own remarks) when he said the Bricasti sounds the most 'realistic'. I hear Bricastis for hours most days of the week. I think what was the silent rationale behind those words was something like this - "It sounds 'really' good, with a sense of hyper-reality. It 'realistically ' sounds like the best of the plate reverbs. It's nonlin programs 'realistically' sound like AMS RMX16's when they were new and still in good shape. It's halls give orchestral instruments a 'real' sense of depth."

You know, something along those lines. Mix engineers don't care if it sounds realistic per se - they want hyper-reality and emotional impact. Their reputations and income depend on it.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 28, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 27 said:


> When working with samples "sound like the real thing" does NOT necessarily equate to "as good as possible". And I assume you mean as "close" as possible, correct?
> 
> Frequently, it is the opposite in that the LESS time you spend you trying to make them sound "real", which is illusory at best, and the more you treat them as their own beast, the better you can make them sound. Hans Zimmer understands this really well. He frequently takes samples and makes them sound less real but with more emotional impact.
> 
> More times than not IMHO, a "cello-ish" approach sounds much better than samples trying to fool someone into thinking they are real.


Jay, intellectually I agree with you, however it's not the real vs. non-real that makes me wince in so many of the sampled sounds that I hear over and over again, it's the musically "not believable" that gets me every time. I have heard synth string lines sound better to my ears than many other lines using the hottest and latest products, simply because the programmer has taken all the things into account that a string section would, such as breathing, bowing, articulation etc. These things are what makes music live in a believable world to me.

However, I don't think that HZ's music is really relevant in this context, because to my ears he doesn't' write orchestral music. It is sample based music, parts of which are then transcribed to an orchestra, which is not the same thing at all.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 28, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu Jun 28 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed Jun 27 said:
> 
> 
> > When working with samples "sound like the real thing" does NOT necessarily equate to "as good as possible". And I assume you mean as "close" as possible, correct?
> ...



Perhaps. It is just that I hear so many pieces posted that are compositionally crap and 7 guys come on and say how great it sounds because they are impressed with how it sounds. Then someone else will post a beautifully composed and also nice sounding piece and someone will write, "yes, this is good but at bar 34 on the 4th beat it sounds a little synthy. If you shorten the reverb tail and cc11 a bit more, yadda yadda".

Missing the forest for the trees IMHO, putting lipstick on the proverbial pig.

And there is no such thing as sample-based orchestral music, only orchestral style music. Once you accept that, again just IMHO, the better music one will make with samples.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 28, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 28 said:


> And there is no such thing as sample-based orchestral music, only orchestral style music. Once you accept that, again just IMHO, the better music one will make with samples.


Possibly, except that I approach my orchestral style music as if it is written for an orchestra, and pay no attention to whether or not I think I can make it work with samples. I wasn't always able to do this, but it hasn't really been a problem for the last 4 or 5 years. It also means that I have music ready to trot out when I have a gig to conduct. No need to write something new. Hurrah....!

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 28, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu Jun 28 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 28 said:
> 
> 
> > And there is no such thing as sample-based orchestral music, only orchestral style music. Once you accept that, again just IMHO, the better music one will make with samples.
> ...



So are you still composing on score paper first then?


----------



## Daryl (Jun 28, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 28 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Jun 28 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 28 said:
> ...


Yes. I draft a rough thematic and partial, often graphical score with paper and pencil, and then type it using Sibelius.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 28, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu Jun 28 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Thu Jun 28 said:
> ...



Interesting. So you are not listening to any samples as you compose, only your inner ear. OK, that explains a lot to me about your approach.

It has been a while since I did that, except for some contrapuntal passages. I should try it again and see how differently I compose.

So what happens when you have written something and no matter which samples you choose, it still does not come close enough to what it would with real players in your judgement , because surely that must happen sometimes. Back when I was a musical director/arranger I quickly learned that there were things that I could write for L.A. players that would not come off well when we got to Omaha.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 28, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 28 said:


> Interesting. So you are not listening to any samples as you compose, only your inner ear. OK, that explains a lot to me about your approach.


I know only too well what orchestral instruments sound like, so listening to samples would be of no advantage to me. I find that plonking around on a keyboard is not a good way to compose, because my hands always want to do what they find easy, and that's not likely to give me the best quality of music.


EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 28 said:


> It has been a while since I did that, except for some contrapuntal passages. I should try it again and see how differently I compose.
> 
> So what happens when you have written something and no matter which samples you choose, it still does not come close enough to what it would with real players in your judgement , because surely that must happen sometimes. Back when I was a musical director/arranger I quickly learned that there were things that I could write for L.A. players that would not come off well when we got to Omaha.


It hasn't happened yet, so I'll let you know when it does! However, your LA/Omaha approach would probably be my approach, except it would be samples vs. live.

The other thing is that I nearly always hire some players anyway, so that means that virtually everything is possible. However, I guess that if I couldn't program it, a few live players wouldn't exactly fix it.

D


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Jun 28, 2012)

Daryl @ Thu Jun 28 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 28 said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. So you are not listening to any samples as you compose, only your inner ear. OK, that explains a lot to me about your approach.
> ...



Do you have a website where we can hear some of your sample-based stuff? I know you work a lot but I am not familiar with your work.


----------



## Steve Steele (Jun 28, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 28 said:


> Daryl @ Thu Jun 28 said:
> 
> 
> > EastWest Lurker @ Thu Jun 28 said:
> ...



I actually have one of those old large music staff chalkboards that I compose on (with a piano in the room). Moving around helps me think. So I compose straight to the chalkboard, if needed check any ideas on piano, and take photos and erase and keep going.

In college I would go into a classroom in the evening where they had one or two very large chalkboards and a piano. I don't like dry-erase boards. There is something about chalk that is graceful (like a good pencil). I easily get my best work done without an instrument or samples in hand. That actually is very distracting to me. I think that sound possibly interferes with the process in some circumstances.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 28, 2012)

Jose said:



> So rating algorithmic reverb units based on "realism" is just a little off the mark.



And now I get to agree with the sprit of what you're saying for once!

Producing music for speakers is quite different from live, and by its nature there's considerable suspension of disbelief. (That's way more true of "pop" production than orchestral mock-ups, if for no other reason than that you're trying to put the orchestral instruments in a credible space.)

But in standard pop production for the past 30 years it would be weird to have, say, the snare going through the same reverb as the lead vocal. The ear can accept lots of spaces simultaneously, in fact it expects it.

(I had to edit the last paragraph a few times to remove all possibility of making absolute statements, because there are always exceptions.)


----------



## zacnelson (Jun 28, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jun 29 said:


> But in standard pop production for the past 30 years it would be weird to have, say, the snare going through the same reverb as the lead vocal. The ear can accept lots of spaces simultaneously, in fact it expects it.
> 
> 
> > Excellent observation Nick


----------



## re-peat (Jun 29, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 28 said:


> (...) and by its nature there's considerable suspension of disbelief. (That's way more true of "pop" production than orchestral mock-ups, if for no other reason than that you're trying to put the orchestral instruments in a credible space.) (...)


Nick,

I would actually argue the complete opposite. In a pop production, you always have at least a few essential elements which are completely _true to themselves_ — the voice(s), the bass maybe, the drums, synths-not-pretending-to-be-anything-but-synths, a couple of guitars, ... — resulting in much less need for 'suspension of disbelief' than there is in a mock-up where simply everything is completely fake from start to finish, from top to bottom.

That's the very reason, I think, why you can get away with soooo much more in a pop production (multiple spaces, simulated instruments, unrealistic pannings, extreme processing, etc ....) and still sound totally convincing: because (1) the artificiality of the mix, and its ingredients, is an accepted given and need never be disguised and (2) the focus of the mix is nearly always on something authentic and real. The beating heart of a pop production is, more often than not, something 'real' and honest (honest about its identity). In a mock-up, on the other hand, you can focus all you like, you'll never find anything that's real (except for the musical craft and talent, or lack thereof, needed to assemble the mock-up).

Mock-ups rely _entirely_ on suspension of disbelief. Pop productions almost never do, because there is hardly any intent there to manipulate or fool the listener — what is necessarily an illusion in a mock-up is never intended as an illusion in a pop mix —, nor is there the imbedded request that listeners interpret and/or translate sounds or performances: _everything is what it is_ (even if a lot of it might be generated or coated artificially). Fake strings can be fake strings in a pop mix, just as fake space can be fake space, without anyone minding or even being slightly confused. Synthy brass can be synthy brass, and as such even be the perfect sound for a particular mix. A synth bass can be a real bass in a pop-mix. (I mean: its synthesized nature being the very element which makes it 'the real thing' in a specific musical context.) Not so in a mock-up though.

(I know, there are many examples of pop productions with which to contradict the above, but I'm talking 'in general'.)

_


----------



## NYC Composer (Jun 29, 2012)

"Pop" covers a lot of ground. Some popular music is designed to be intimate and dry as a bone (think singer/songwriter stuff that attempts to put you right next to the artist). If what we're talking about is big dance pop, what used to be called disco, electronica in its hundreds of genres and sub genres, 80's synth pop, yes, producing that stuff means that taking extreme license with spaces and sonic possibilities is practically expected.
If producing, say, Bruce Springsteen, I'd imagine the idea would be to create a large live sound that mimics an organic band. That's still "Pop" production, as is all the super- hyped Nashville stuff and the horror that is Glee. 

A brief diversion-one thing that is clear to me after talking to a lot of kids-they expect all vocals to be robotically, perfectly Auto-Tuned. It's what they've grown up with and what they think singing really sounds like. Scary times we live in.


----------



## paulcole (Jun 29, 2012)

re-peat @ Fri Jun 29 said:


> Mock-ups rely _entirely_ on suspension of disbelief. Pop productions almost never do, because there is hardly any intent there to manipulate or fool the listener — what is necessarily an illusion in a mock-up is never intended as an illusion in a pop mix —, nor is there the imbedded request that listeners interpret and/or translate sounds or performances: _everything is what it is_ (even if a lot of it might be generated or coated artificially). Fake strings can be fake strings in a pop mix, just as fake space can be fake space, without anyone minding or even being slightly confused. Synthy brass can be synthy brass, and as such even be the perfect sound for a particular mix. A synth bass can be a real bass in a pop-mix. (I mean: its synthesized nature being the very element which makes it 'the real thing' in a specific musical context.) Not so in a mock-up though.
> 
> _



Or even suspension of belief. Everything one might believe these days, including what happens to your money when you walk out of a bank is dependent on what may be regarded as the norm. Whatever you believed a day ago can change in a moment in these times.

With music and musical sounds, that is very true about pop music, quoted above, But that only started really, with the advent of synthesisers. Before that, up to the end of the nineteen sixties roughly, even the sound of a guitar was scrutinised to the point that nerds had to know what guitar, what amp, and so on. And drums. And basses. Horn sections were always real and so on.

It's a fascinating subject that a whole thread could create.

Yesterday, I bought NI Vintage Organs because they were, according to my belief, cheap. They weren't really cheap, they were just perceived to be cheap because the previous day, they seemed expensive. So I suspended my belief of what I thought was expensive, and adopted a suspended disbelief approach and bought them on a whim.

I could play these sounds to any non musician who doesn't care two hoots how the sound is created; i.e. either from tone wheels and dirty contacts, or from Kontakt 5 and great programmers......and they would never know. :|


----------



## Arbee (Jun 29, 2012)

Interesting discussion. As I try to get my head back into music after many years away I find, in the modern pop/electronic genre specifically, I like the sound of my string samples played more as sound design elements than "real" instruments. Must confess this surprised me a little after going to so much trouble to get the most realistic string library I could find (to my ears anyway, let's not start anything  ).

And, BTW, I'm totally in love with Vienna Suite's Hybrid scoring stage reverbs for this purpose 8)


----------

