# Reverbs: Hardware vs Software.



## LoungeLizard96 (Dec 17, 2014)

I'd like to start a discussion on reverbs.

In the last few years, software reverbs have come along way.
Before, you'd find allot of the time that hardware reverb units were better than what was available on the software market.

I'm looking for a reverb at the moment, either software or hardware.

In your opinion, do you think there are any decreeable differences between software and hardware reverb these days?

Also, which reverb is your favourite (be it software or hardware)


Thanks.

- LL


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Dec 17, 2014)

Hardware reverbs, with their custom processors, were better in the days when nobody would have been interested in a reverb that took over an entire computer.

Computers are exponentially more powerful now, so that's no longer a factor. I think Altiverb is probably the first software "reverb" to change the equation.

Now, the high-end Lexicon or Bricasti reverbs may well kick every software reverb's arses, but that's because of the algorithms and engineering, not because they're hardware.

VSL's MIR, for example, is as good as anything out there....never mind that it's not exactly a reverb, etc. etc. You get the point!


----------



## jamwerks (Dec 17, 2014)

I read recently that Exponential Audio's (200$) plugs were used on The Hobbit film score, where they surely could use any HW or SW they wanted.


----------



## JohnG (Dec 17, 2014)

Agree with Nick. 

Most all of the great hardware reverbs of today are not really hardware at all, just external, dedicated computers with great algorithms in them.


----------



## Dryden.Chambers (Dec 17, 2014)

I was a holdout, but Vahalla VV, and then 2C Aether changed my mind. Out went the Lexi's, tides, kurz's, etc. Am still intrigued on what Christian at Spitfire says about the T.C. M6000. I have heard UA and TC are collaborating right now on something. Wonder if there will ever be a AU version ? And a UA/Eventide collaboration would be a dream come true. Surprisingly i have not used the UA 224, EMT, etc much yet.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Dec 17, 2014)

The hardware debate becomes interesting in the use of surround and challenging multi-channel environments. 

Exponential audio is a great sounding reverb, used on many films because it is going to be a hell of a lot more difficult to use hardware reverbs for multi-channel audio. 

Same with analogue v/s digital. For example MADI is used in so many surround set-ups. I think they have a huge MADI set-up at RCP as well because how else could you handle so many channels via analogue without a massive board but it will still not help achieve those track counts in certain conditions. 

I agree that computers are getting better and at this point, if you are a composer then really there are better things we can do with the music and software. I am continuously surprised by how much my software reverbs can deliver if I know what I am doing. 

I learn something all the time about them. 

Did you know Sherlock Holmes II was mixed completely ITB in Cubase? Sounded very good to my ears 

I have a theory but I am not sure if this is true or I am imagining things. But, I use more reverbs and different settings for a lot of instruments. Many times even the same instance instead of bussing many instruments to one reverb. For some reason, it sounds better to my ears when the reverb is not overloaded with 10 string patches going to the same instance. 

I guess it would have to do something with how hard and in how many frequency bands the reverb is being hit. There is just more control in DAW about these things, which is very very helpful with samples. A great recording in a great hall with an amazing engineer is a different story. The sound is already set, the way they want it. We are stuck with different samples with different needs. 

I have thought about it many times about getting hardware but with 2C Audio Breeze, Aether, B2, IRCAM SPAT, VSL Convolution & Hybrid, Exponential Audio and couple of other very digital sounding reverbs, I really feel that I could do more with my music and mixing abilities than the quality of the reverbs. Which is pretty high in these reverbs anyway!

In any case, I would rather give my tracks to a great engineer to mix it with their sensibilities. We need more time to compose always and hardware will slow your process down a little bit if you have been using software for a long time. It is a different world. 

Now, change the topic to hardware synths, compressors and other signal processors and suddenly those are more relevant to us. 

If you are recording your synth through a great front end or a compressor etc then that makes a difference to us. If you have a wonderful master buss compressor like API or something then that helps as well! It is also quick and simple enough to use. Because that will be some what towards the end of your process. 

If you wait to apply the reverbs till the end of the project (as you would have to), it will change the sound and you will loose objectivity, going around in circles and eventually using up much of your time that you would rather focus on the music. 

Of course, a great engineer can do these things pretty quickly because its what they have been doing for years and they bring a nice objectivity to the sound.

Sorry for the long post!

Tanuj.


----------



## LoungeLizard96 (Dec 18, 2014)

Wow, what great replies, thanks everyone. Some very interesting stuff here than I wasn't aware of.
I'm going to go over and re-read.

No need to apologise for long posts, I love long posts! haha


The Exponential Audio stuff seems very good actually, just tried a trail.
Think I might have to burn another hole into my wallet.


----------



## LoungeLizard96 (Dec 18, 2014)

Is the EA stuff a step above something like Spaces? it looks allot more in depth, like has been said.

That necessarily equate better sounding though, I suppose.


----------



## muziksculp (Dec 18, 2014)

Regarding_ Exponential Audio_'s Reverbs, *R2* and *Pheonixverb*

Which one would you pick for Orchestral/Acoustic Music ? 

Pheonixverb costs more than R2, although they mention that R2 is more of a transparent reverb.


----------



## PJMorgan (Dec 18, 2014)

Phoenixverb is actually cheaper than R2:
Phoenixverb = $199 / R2 = $299

And it's the other way around, Phoenixverb is the more transparent, while R2 has a more vintage coloured sound.

I demoed Phoenixverb a lot last week before hitting the buy button, it's a very clean, natural sounding reverb that helps place the instruments in a room/hall without sort of sitting on top like some other reverbs can do.

I'd definitely recommend it for Orchestral/Acoustic music. I was using Breeze before which is a really great reverb but I couldn't get it to blend with the instruments as well as PV does. No matter the preset you choose Phoenixverb just sounds right. I didn't demo R2 but from what i've read, it's supposed to be a more vintage coloured version of PV, so R2 may be more suited to using with Synths & electronic or Hybrid music.

Phoenixverb is IMO a very impressive, natural sounding reverb with a tonne of very useful presets to get you started.


----------



## muziksculp (Dec 18, 2014)

PJMorgan @ Thu Dec 18 said:


> Phoenixverb is actually cheaper than R2:
> Phoenixverb = $199 / R2 = $299
> 
> And it's the other way around, Phoenixverb is the more transparent, while R2 has a more vintage coloured sound.
> ...



Thanks for the correction, and feedback. 

I'm thinking about getting Pheonixverb. at $199. it's not too big of an investment if the reverb quality is excellent. I also wonder if they will have a Holiday Sale ?


----------



## studioj (Dec 18, 2014)

I have used both quite a lot and have recently sold off many of my hardware verbs. But NOT because of sound quality. I have all the plugins mentioned here and to me none of them come close the affect a good hardware unit has on a source signal. Its a different beast. perhaps subtle to most though, and that is why I sold them...trading quality for convenience... 

I don't totally agree that it is just "programming" that makes the hardware units superior in sound... I think there are things that the realtime DSP chips in many high end verb units can do that typical plugins have difficulty achieving with any semblance of efficiency. But I'm not really qualified to speak on such things. If you are going for pure quality of sonics, then good hardware reverbs will lift your productions... how much so is subjective however.


----------



## muziksculp (Dec 18, 2014)

studioj @ Thu Dec 18 said:


> I have used both quite a lot and have recently sold off many of my hardware verbs. But NOT because of sound quality. I have all the plugins mentioned here and to me none of them come close the affect a good hardware unit has on a source signal. Its a different beast. perhaps subtle to most though, and that is why I sold them...trading quality for convenience...
> 
> I don't totally agree that it is just "programming" that makes the hardware units superior in sound... I think there are things that the realtime DSP chips in many high end verb units can do that typical plugins have difficulty achieving with any semblance of efficiency. But I'm not really qualified to speak on such things. If you are going for pure quality of sonics, then good hardware reverbs will lift your productions... how much so is subjective however.



imho. The *Bricasti M7* is the Rolls Royce of HW Reverb  

But... You get one instance of it ! 

The current cream of the crop high-quality Software based Reverbs are quite impressive, given how much they cost compared to their HW relatives, and can do the job quite well. But, I agree that some HW units have that extra quality that only they can provide, another HW unit that's impressive is the Eventide H8000. Great for Ambient, and other unique effects. It has great Plates, and other Reverbs too.


----------



## kurtvanzo (Dec 18, 2014)

*+1 Altiverb*

I was patching in my Lexicon 300 (480L's $5k cousin) hardware unit for the longest time because everything software sounded bad by comparison. I tried many over the years to find one that could give a great sound to a solo instrument or voice and sounded real even when completely exposed. Then tried Altiverb and loved it- never looked back. Yes, it's $500 (try plugindiscount.com for a better price) but it's a 10th of the Lex unit (now wrapped up in a closet) and has many more rooms, the ability to tweak with many great sub-controls and an amazing GUI. Also they add new patches to the library constantly- wow. The Fox Scoring Stage is one of my favorites, but so many rooms to explore- from giant unique spaces to cars and bathrooms. Love it. Plus it's got a "similar" button that pulls up a grid of options that are close variations to what you current have selected, saved my butt many times. Clicking through rooms couldn't be easier or faster (a grid of pictures of each location) and can make your own IR's and load them in- those guys are brilliant. Like with my Lexicon, plop down the money and you'll never go back- it's well worth it.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 18, 2014)

*Re: +1 Altiverb*



kurtvanzo @ Fri Dec 19 said:


> I was patching in my Lexicon 300 (480L's $5k cousin) hardware unit for the longest time because everything software sounded bad by comparison. I tried many over the years to find one that could give a great sound to a solo instrument or voice and sounded real even when completely exposed. Then tried Altiverb and loved it- never looked back. Yes, it's $500 (try plugindiscount.com for a better price) but it's a 10th of the Lex unit (now wrapped up in a closet) and has many more rooms, the ability to tweak with many great sub-controls and an amazing GUI. Also they add new patches to the library constantly- wow. The Fox Scoring Stage is one of my favorites, but so many rooms to explore- from giant unique spaces to cars and bathrooms. Love it. Plus it's got a "similar" button that pulls up a grid of options that are close variations to what you current have selected, saved my butt many times. Clicking through rooms couldn't be easier or faster (a grid of pictures of each location) and can make your own IR's and load them in- those guys are brilliant. Like with my Lexicon, plop down the money and you'll never go back- it's well worth it.



Recent convert to Valhalla room, very happy.


----------



## PJMorgan (Dec 19, 2014)

muziksculp @ 19th December 2014 said:


> PJMorgan @ Thu Dec 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenixverb is actually cheaper than R2:
> ...



Sorry you just missed the Black Friday sale that ran until the 13th, I'm not sure when they'll have another sale. Don't just take my word for the quality, definitely demo it yourself before making your mind up.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 19, 2014)

Everybody raves about the bricasti m7. It's alright imo. Kind of sounds artificial to my ears. Better than most plugs. But, in all honesty, it's getting so close, and I swear, that the best reverb I've ever heard next to my beloved Lexicon 300 was the old Wizoo W2 reverb. The new VSL convo hybrid thingy comes close to it.

I think, that with the choices we have today as plugins, one can really get some good sounds. I've even heard of people using plugins instead of the old standards like the Lexicon 960 on big film scores. But the hardware, what it lacks in clarity sometimes, it makes up in depth of sound.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 19, 2014)

josejherring @ Fri Dec 19 said:


> (...) Kind of sounds artificial to my ears. (...)


Don’t know about that, but what I do know is that a Bricasti, or any other half-decent soft- or hardware reverb, won’t sound anywhere near as artificial and silly as any mock-up. 

The point needs revisiting it seems: there is something preposterously ridiculous about expecting/demanding realism from a reverb when one is going to use it in combination with the mud bath of sonic poverty and complete musical artificiality that is an orchestral mock-up. (That is also, in once long sentence, the main problem I have with bloated nonsense acronymed MIR. Or with the self-proclaimed ‘experts’ who insist that you need convolution-based early reflections and algorithmically generated tails to create good reverbs for a mock-up. Bwaagh.)

There’s a similar thing going on with those poor deluded souls who maintain that UAD-plugins make all the difference in their mock-up mixes. No, they don’t. Whatever difference these plugins make to the sound of a mock-up can just as easily, and equally effectively, be accomplished with the stock plugins that ship with your DAW. The tragic irony here is that the *real* unique powers of these higher-end plugins (not just the UAD ones) — i.o.w.: the very characteristics which actually do set these plugins apart from your DAW’s stock plugins, and which I don’t deny are there — never even have a chance to work their magic in an orchestral mock-up. Because a mock-up simply doesn’t provide the required quality in sound (dynamics, depth, frequency contour, imaging, definition, …) to allow these plugins to shine in the unique way they were meant to shine. 

It is impossible to hear what is so special about, say, UAD’s masterful Manley Massive Passive emulation if all you do is send sample-based orchestral tracks through it. And even if you do hear ‘something’, and I don’t doubt that you will, it’ll be completely insignificant and futile in the context of the overall inferior sound, which is and remains an orchestral mock-up’s all-overriding sonic characteristic and its most ear-catching sonic feature.

Surely, no one really believes that you are actually going to be able to exploit the musical quality of, say, the Neve-ness in the UAD 1073, and exploit it to the music’s advantage, when used on a sampled strings section? Or that the singular musical appeal of the meticulously modeled analog circuitry in the Slate VMR can ever be a meaningful ingredient of your mix, when all you give it to work with is the pathetically farting sound of a sampled or modeled brass section? 

But, I hear someone object, aren’t Mr. Meyerson and several other distinguished engineers wildly enthusiastic UAD-users? That may be so, but Mr. Meyerson and his colleagues also work, most of the time anyway, with audio that is, sonically speaking, vastly superior to the lifeless sonic poo that comes oozing out of our sample-playback devices, and that we have to work with. And that’s precisely it: if you’re going to buy into UAD (or other such tools), make sure that you’re going to work with audio tracks that are capable of taking full advantage of UAD’s powers. Orchestral mock-ups, I fear, don’t even begin to qualify. (And I don’t just mean for reasons of crippled sound, but also for reasons of through-and-through fakeness in every single one of a mock-up’s aspects.)
And as such, Mr. Meyerson’s likes and dislikes, interesting though they may be in a generally informative sense, or his findings regarding which tools and production techniques help him to arrive at the best-sounding results, are of no real practical relevance to us (mock-up mixers) at all.

There was another thread somewhere around here the other day, in which someone wondered, not without some dismay it seemed, about the fact that the more serious plugin developers often use drum tracks to demo their products with, and never (virtual) orchestral tracks. Need that be a surprise? Isn’t the reason obvious? No self-respecting developer is ever going to make a complete fool of himself by demonstrating his quality plugins on the cluttered, porridgy sounds of a mock-up. The man would immediately become the laughingstock of the entire audio fraternity. And rightly so.
A well-recorded drum track, on the other hand, provides the perfect source material to demonstrate signal processors with: it’s as dynamic as recorded sound can get, it’s got plenty of energy across the entire frequency range (and this energy is naturally balanced), its stereo-image is solid and coherent — you can’t say any of these things about a mock-up, can you? — and its percussive character and strong transients are ideal to reveal the specific and unique qualities of compressors, EQ, limiters, stereo-tools and, yes, reverb.

Which last item brings me back to the topic at hand (I do apologize for the lengthy detour): simply get yourself a decent software reverb of whichever brand or design you feel most comfortable working with — convolution or algorithmic, it doesn’t make one bit of difference in a mock-up, and all of today’s software reverbs are more than up to the task of delivering what is required of them in a mock-up anyway —, don’t overthink its use (don’t expect things from it which a reverb was never intended to provide), and simply add it to your mix, in tasteful and musically intelligent doses. And be done with it. Don’t make reverb a problem. If it is, you’ve got a far more serious problem somewhere else.

So, in closing, I’m of the opinion — or is conviction the word I’m looking for? —, and more so with every day that passes, that a lot of madness and nonsense with regard to the mixing and production of mock-ups can be avoided if only people were willing to recognize and accept what they actually are working with in the first place: _clumsy make-believe dressed in poor sound._ If you acknowledge that and make your mixing choices and decisions accordingly, the results of your efforts will — paradoxically perhaps, but true nonetheless — turn out sounding much better.

(Shouldn’t this thread be in the _Post Pro & Mixing Discussion_ section?)

_


----------



## Stiltzkin (Dec 19, 2014)

re-peat @ Fri Dec 19 said:


> Something long



Just fyi, he never mentioned he wasn't working with live orchestra.

And UAD has the advantage of not using up your CPU - which is why I find it's perfect for work with mockups, regardless of the quality and what can or cannot be achieved with a software plugin.


----------



## LoungeLizard96 (Dec 19, 2014)

josejherring @ Fri Dec 19 said:


> I think, that with the choices we have today as plugins, one can really get some good sounds. I've even heard of people using plugins instead of the old standards like the Lexicon 960 on big film scores. But the hardware, what it lacks in clarity sometimes, it makes up in depth of sound.




The EA plugins were used on the Hobbit apparently.

If it's good enough for a big film like them, then it's certainly good enough for me.


----------



## wst3 (Dec 19, 2014)

Jose - I'm another recovering Wizzo user. I installed in again on my current DAW, but thus far have received no word from the magical email address that used to provide authorizations. I vacillate between bummed and ticked off - I paid for a license I can no longer use because of a couple of corporate decisions.

The majority of the original Wizzo team has allegedly landed at a new company, and I remain hopeful (but not terribly optimistic) that they will create a new version of WizzoVerb!


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Dec 19, 2014)

re-peat @ Fri Dec 19 said:


> josejherring @ Fri Dec 19 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Kind of sounds artificial to my ears. (...)
> ...




Piet,

I more or less agree with you. When I got UAD, I was very fascinated by all the plugins. After all, I had some of the best emulations on the planet in my computer 

So, the first thing I did was - I put a Neve EQ on all the strings, removed the VSL EQ's and starting adding more UAD pluging to my mock up. I then removed all of them and put the original EQ's I used to use back on. To my surprise, except for a very, very select few, most of the these UAD plugins were not really doing anything that the old ones could not do. The exception for example was the Harrison 32C and Trident-A range. Certainly, to me they seem to add something that is nice and immediate. But, I suppose I could more or less get the same sound with any good stock EQ. I would have to work around a little bit.

In the end, to my surprise I started using UAD a lot more on synths, percussion and other such tracks, not much at all on orchestral elements. 

I still use Massive Passive on the master. I like the shine it adds but I agree its very subtle. On comparison, an engineer friend gets much better results with recorded material. But certainly, the 12-20K band is nice.

I would say the same thing about reverbs. I have so many of them, but I mostly use them for different effects on non-orchestral elements. For my orchestra, most any reverb does a good job - from the bunch I have.

However, I would have to disagree with you about using a Cubase Roomworks compared to VSL Hybrid or B2 etc for example. Roomworks doesn't sound that good to me, it sounds metallic. 

But I still like my UAD plugins. After all, there are many things outside of a mock-up section. Specially for hybrid scoring and well, we do record stuff. So, its not like everything ends up being samples. 

I like the new Manley compressor, it does work great on the master and also percussion. 

But I would hold off that money for a Bricasti unit if all I ever use is samples for sure!


Tanuj.


----------



## Tanuj Tiku (Dec 19, 2014)

Also, while MIR is a great development in technical arenas, I never jumped onto it. 

I have not heard any demos yet which demonstrate that it is that much better than the plugins that I use. I use VSL a lot still and I get a good sound out of the existing reverbs - mostly from VSL itself. 

I think, it is may be a great mixing solution and something of a good front end to manage all your VSL samples, in a easy and structured manner. 

But for me VE Pro works just fine for that!


Tanuj.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 19, 2014)

One of the forum members and I had a long chat the other day. (I won't out him After I gave him some advice I suggested he go to my website and listen to a couple of pieces because if he did not like what he heard, he certainly should not give my opinions, which are entirely subjective, much weight.

He wrote me: "I listened to Diabolique and some other tracks before heading to work today. Aside from the composition work being engaging and enjoyable to listen to, I have to say, everything sounds soooooooo clear and pristine. Do you do any mastering on those tracks or much equing? "

And actually I do very little EQing. The way it sounds "so clear and pristine" has a lot to do with the reverbs I use, which is QL Spaces and the UAD Plate 140.

And no, the Logic Pro stock reverbs are not as good.


----------



## re-peat (Dec 19, 2014)

LoungeLizard96 @ Fri Dec 19 said:


> (...) The EA plugins were used on the Hobbit apparently. If it's good enough for a big film like them, then it's certainly good enough for me.


Same misunderstanding as the Meyerson-UAD thing, *Lounge*. The reason that “The Hobbit” sounds good — I don’t know if it does, having no interest in that sort of music whatsoever, but let’s assume that it does for the sake of this discussion — has got nothing to do with the presence of the Exponential Audio reverbs, but everything with the fact that the recorded material sounds authentic and good.
So, you may say _“If it’s good enough for a big film like that, it’s certainly good enough for me”_ all you want, but unfortunately — and this is precisely what _really_ should concern you — it doesn’t work the other way around: what’s good enough for you (and for most of us here), is alas not good enough (strictly sonically speaking) to ever feature among the tracks of The Hobbit’s soundtrack.
Only to say: don’t think that the sound quality of “The Hobbit” will suddenly come within your grasp once you’ve purchased the Exponential Audio reverbs. Cause it won’t. You’re also going to need a well-written-for, well-conducted, with-discipline-and-commitment-performing and expertly recorded real orchestra for that.

Having said that, the Exponentials (about which I first expressed my unreserved enthusiam two years ago almost to the day, on these very pages) are indeed terrific reverbs. And — thanks, Michael — somewhat better looking now than they did when first released.

---

*Tanuji*,

I’m a enthusiastic UAD-user myself, ever since the first day that UAD’s Powered Plug-ins v1 became available as it happens. (I’ve since moved on to a meanwhile decadently stuffed-with-authorisations UAD-2 card.) But like you, and as time went on, I used them less and less on orchestral samples, having discovered that they just aren’t afforded a chance to come into their own with such material.
Sensational on vocals, basses, drums, guitars, synths and any other manifestation of living sound though. ‘Living’ is the key word here, I believe: the more the source sound lives, the more the UAD’s can live.

As for reverbs: I’m not familiar with what Cubase has on offer, but I agree that there’s a certain quality threshold below which it is unwise to dip. And perhaps Roomworks is such a dipper. I’m not inclined to use Logic’s legacy reverbs (Silver, Gold and Platinum) either, if a certain illusion of professional quality is what I’m aiming for.

_


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 19, 2014)

+1 to 95% of what Piet just wrote., except that I have not tried the EA verbs so I cannot comment on them.


----------



## NYC Composer (Dec 19, 2014)

I recently moved from a combo of the stock Cubase 'verb "Reverence" and the UAD Plate 140 (which I stil love) to Valhalla Room and some Plate 140. I'm more pleased with the smoothness of the tails, and VR is surprisingly light on resources. Somewhat like Piet, I really like the Plate 140 on voices, exposed piano acoustic guitars, etc.

I think at $50, Valhalla Room is stupid cheap.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 19, 2014)

Roomworks is actually pretty good at what it was intended for. It can create a fairly convincing room with little cpu usage on a track level. So if you have something really dry you can use it to create a room, just a tad, like 25% wet. Then send it out to a better reverb for the hall.

Having grown up in concert halls even the best verbs sound fake to me. The verbs that reminded me most of a concert hall experience are the lexi 480 and lexi 960. Though people have kind of moved away from them into the Bricasti.

I've used a lot UAD Plate 140. I find it works a lot better for me on live recordings than on sample mockups.

I agree with Piet about sample mockups though. I've very successful gotten even the most dry live recordings into a good room using just about any reverb, where as in sample mockups everything just turns to mush rather rapidly when adding reverb. It's such a tricky thing. I've almost gotten apathetic about reverb for the sample mock up, often times, only applying the tiniest amount because I'm sick of the boom, boom, thud sound.


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Dec 19, 2014)

Back to the original question, if it's in the budget, get a bricasti and don't look back. It really is a remarkable piece of gear. Best thing you can do is try one out if at all possible. If you want, we could use mine for a verb shootout 

I do love the lex plugins as well. PCM/Relab both offer something unique and very usable. 

At the end of the day, a handful of my favorite mixes all made use of different verbs be it a bricasti, tc6000, or 480l or a combo of all etc. No piece of gear will make a mix.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 19, 2014)

I'd love to do a shoot out with the Bricasti. I'm trying to get convinced. 

Should we use live material or a mockup?


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 19, 2014)

+ 1 for a shootout. If anybody invests a samples bed I would throw in a live violin track so we can have both.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 19, 2014)

I really want to do this. I'd be willing to work on it. I think, that people are really going to be shocked at the outcome


----------



## jamwerks (Dec 19, 2014)

After recently hearing again an M7 on orchestral samples, I've decided to take the plunge. I would also be interested in a shoot out between TC VSS4 and plugs (B2, Phoenix, etc.), wondering if a TC Reverb 4000 is worth having along side the Bricasti. 4000's can be had now for less than 1k€, and used around 600€.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 19, 2014)

TC verb is a good verb. It sounds a little dated to me though. It has a really definite color that reminds me a lot of the old SPx90 from Yamaha. That being said though. I did a live date with a classic rock band "America" accompanied by orchestra for an outdoor concert. The engineer put the SPX 90 on the orchestra. It sounded really, really good. I was shocked when I asked and he told me what reverb he was using.


----------



## José Herring (Dec 19, 2014)

I have a track ready to go. I'm going to print the stems dry and use every reverb I have on it. One reverb at a time in a send type configuration. Perhaps somebody with the Bricasti can take the stems and do the same.

I'll post the stems for anybody to make use of. Hannes if you want to find a part in there to play add it if you wish to the stems.


----------



## Hannes_F (Dec 19, 2014)

Cool, let it roll.


----------



## LoungeLizard96 (Dec 19, 2014)

re-peat @ Fri Dec 19 said:


> LoungeLizard96 @ Fri Dec 19 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) The EA plugins were used on the Hobbit apparently. If it's good enough for a big film like them, then it's certainly good enough for me.
> ...




I'm well aware of that.

Having not mentioned the rest of the recording once, I presumed people didn't think I'd think purchasing a software reverb was going to enhance my music massively, and totally transform it.

All I was commenting on was the fact that it was interesting they used this reverb for this film.
LOTR and the Hobbit films being praised heavily for their music and the composer, Howard Shore.
I was simply commenting on the fact that the post production team know what they're doing, and would pick, based on their experience, the best reverb they could.
With that in mind, it's likely the EA reverbs are very good, if such praised, experienced composers and engineers picked them out of the bunch as the reverb for their finished product.

I think it's quite obvious to any musician, that one aspect isn't going to transform your production.


----------



## chimuelo (Dec 20, 2014)

I have never found a Native or DSP reverb yet that I like for Piano and Percussion.
Many of them have great tails and excellent editing options for shaping, but none of them can capture and shape the audio immediately.
They are basically a ducking reverb/tail maker due to the latency of processing.
That's why when I see a Native effect with pre delay I smurk, as it already has a built in pre-delay.

For tails Native and DSP ITB offerings are fine, but I have 6 different hardware reverbs now and no matter how old the units are each of them treats the audio inside on a dedicated chip with it's own OS and RAM.
Recent purchases of SPX90s and DEP-5s are too much fun as they are 16bit and 12bit, each with different sounding algos and treatments.

Thanks to recent converter boxes these old units can use ADAT and AES/EBU, and they are cheap.
The only repair work I have ever needed was a new battery to retain the presets.
Actually these pawn brokers drop their prices when you ask them which preset shows up on xxx spot, and if there is none, you tell them the battery is dead and ask them to replace it before you pay, they usually drop the price down to 100 bucks...!!!
DEP-5s were expensive back in the 80's but now are dirt cheap.

Hardware just has a totally different sound due it's RISC nature.
But get a Native Tail maker or 2 and combine them for really exotic treatments.

Still shocked to see so many Intel Chips inside these units...


----------



## eric aron (Dec 22, 2014)

re-peat @ Fri Dec 19 said:


> josejherring @ Fri Dec 19 said:
> 
> 
> > (...) Kind of sounds artificial to my ears. (...)
> ...



i second every word. always happy to read Piet’s posts, having in this department the same views and ethics, but unable to express it in such detailed and subtle way due to my limited English level

i wish to add that i extend his observation for everything, libraries, vst’s, developers reputation (as the recent ugly monster East West topic).. i see often in this forum turn in round discussions about such insignificant technical details, instead of deeper topics on what should be the core of all discussion : music itself

we are not here to serve the tools, but music

cutting hairs in 4 about this or that reverb plug in, hardware, or string library, or any gear, is belonging to some unconscious escaping from the process of music making

there are now enough good tools to write and produce beautiful music. even among the cheap ones

laziness, lack of musical education, poor ear training, no practice of real instrument, are the contribution to windy discussions that are just turning around the essential

i can understand that most of people here are involved in media music, having thus less ethical positioning due to the needed adaptation to the entity itself, and some kind of obligation to follow the gear trends to be “up to date with the latest Sound”

but this should not prevent, unless everyone wants this pitiful world to collapse more into mediocrity, to keep at least an ounce of free thinking and courage, and dare to dive to the circle center

i comply to passionate talks about gear, as this belongs to our techies nature, and to a sane amazed curiosity. but, once the fun put out, i really dont care if Bricasti will be better for my mixes than the plugin i use everyday with very good results. because in the end, there will be music, or not. and this result will come because i wrote something inspired and well crafted, or not, and no because i used M7 or Uad instead of Valhalla or Pcm

i understand there are different levels of skills and inspiration, and inherently to this the more beginner level someone is, the most he will be inclined towards outside tapestries instead of inside qualities; the world is so filled with tempting masks you just have to purchase to get ready for the ride.
but which mask is the better?

every week we have a new stunning miraculous offer from a new developer, claiming the panacea with his latest product. and here we are on the same endless loop, like the laboratory mouse running his merry go round cage. how many plug in, synths, libraries will you wish to have for the always going forward condition to produce "good" music?

this extreme sophistication in the details chasing is so rarely reflected in the final musical result .. after all these pages of clever talks and requirements.. i should hear music masterpieces.. but this is far from the case

and if you like a Moog, buy a Moog, don’t loose time searching it through a cheap vst emulation
if you like real strings, hire an orchestra, stop talking hours about the results libraries can’t give
if you like reverb, go to a church or concert hall with microphones
if you don’t like a Dev, don’t buy his stuff
if you can’t afford all above, find the tools adapted to your purse, and start at once your Composer duty. beauty doesn’t care about high end


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Dec 22, 2014)

Well Eric, this IS VI Control. Isn't discussing "how many plug in, synths, libraries will you wish to have for the always going forward condition to produce "good" music? " kind of its mission statement?

It isn't "Great Timeless Music" Control.


----------

