# Seeking for a new reverb: Spaces vs B2?



## mwarsell (Jul 29, 2015)

Both sound and seem great, not sure which one to go for. For orchestral/hybrid music. Spaces seems easier to use, but not sure if I'm looking for ease of use. Tweakability soundsnice too. Ok one is IR, the other algorithmic, but I guess they could be compared anyway.

(If this thread is around already, pls just delete this and link me to it. Thanks)


----------



## einei (Jul 29, 2015)

I have spaces and I think its great for orchestral instruments for e.g the "so cal" IR sounds great. Also its very easy to use, has very few parameters which I quiet like because it forces you to really listen to the IR and not get lost in endless parameters. Now I think its definitely geared towards orchestral instruments and percussion. Of course it also has presets for vocals or more sound designy stuff. But i think it's strengths are the scoring stage and hall IR's. I don't own B2 but I want to get it for more drastic effect type of things. Curious to see what other people will say about the b2


----------



## Hannes (Jul 29, 2015)

Speaking of endless parameters :D I would also consider the Relab LX480 (an exact reproduction of the famous Lexicon 480L) - it's a very flexible and great sounding reverb, especially for orchestral music. You can even set all Early Reflections seperately! 
But if you want to get a convolution reverb I think Spaces would be a good choice - I heard a lot of good sounding examples with it.


----------



## Lemmonz (Jul 29, 2015)

Spaces is nice in it's simplicity and the range of reverbs it covers. Not so nice if you find yourself wanting to tweak reverb times, but they usually have a good range of timings in their presets (you probably know this). When using the IR's of real spaces, I find using both FR and RR presets together on separate aux's help render a more realistic (or at least more pleasing) sound. I own Spaces and use it quite frequently. Useful when working with libraries that were either recorded really dry, or multiple libraries recorded in vastly different spaces.

I've demoed B2 recently. It's a nice reverb with a million presets. If you like (or good at) digging through a bunch of presets to find the reverb you want, then you'll be good with this choice. I found it difficult to tweak and I like to tweak things. The 2 reverb engines is great but too much for wanting to tweak things quickly for the sound you have in mind (if the preset isn't doing it, or you don't like digging through all those options). It's a great option for more 'effect' oriented reverb sounds but also good for general reverb. Could be a good option if you like to get into complexity and tons of presets. I've heard some great stuff with it from others.

I recently decided to pick up ReLab LX480 RHall. Really great, tweakable reverb. It's that classic digital modulation reverb sound. I liked it better than the lexicon plugins I demoed against it. Has a nice set of options to tweak to get a reverb tail that just works. Definitely worth looking into. If you are working a lot in Pro Tools though, it's not AAX supported yet.

Spaces compared against B2/Relab is sort of apples and oranges. All great options though so just depends on what you need from it.


----------



## Resoded (Jul 29, 2015)

What do you want to achieve with the reverb? Which kinds of tracks do you want to use it on?


----------



## vicontrolu (Jul 30, 2015)

You should compare Spaces with Aether better.


----------



## muk (Jul 30, 2015)

Wouldn't Aether be the 2cAudio reverb to compare against Spaces? As much as I gathered B2 is more experimental, while Aether is geared towards 'real' sounding spaces.

Edit: vicontrolu beat me to it.


----------



## mwarsell (Jul 30, 2015)

Do you know if the Nick Phoenix demos of Spaces on their website uses real orchestra? Possibly? They sound amazing. I wish there would be a comparison of Aether or B2 of real orchestra. The 2CAudio demos aren't that great.


----------



## Hannes (Jul 30, 2015)

Btw there are Trial versions available for Spaces, B2 and also the ReLab LX480, so you could compare theme Live in your DAW with your own sounds  

That would make more sense, than just listening to demos - you could also try out if you like the interface, usability (etc...)

I think you can get great results with all these reverbs and it's more a matter of taste...


----------



## dannymc (Aug 25, 2015)

i've viewed a number of you-tube videos that have stated that the stock reverb space designer plugin with logic pro x is worth the €200 price tag alone. as a logic user this would be good news or are spaces and the B2 in a different league to this reverb altogether? what are peoples thoughts?


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 26, 2015)

Space Designer is fine but the IRs are very mediocre, not in the same league with what Nick accomplished with QL Spaces with all the vintage gear, massive speakers pumping out tons of air in the room, etc.


----------



## dannymc (Aug 26, 2015)

yeah i watched the Daniel James walk thru on QL spaces. the air just blew me away. i've really struggled to get anything as wide and airy sounding with space designer.


----------



## Guffy (Aug 26, 2015)

Personally i like B2 better than Spaces.
There's a ton of stuff you can do with it. It's like a sound design tool.
Really good if you're into making huge hybrid hits and impacts etc, but it also works really well for orchestral stuff.


----------



## Walid F. (Aug 27, 2015)

I use both. QL Spaces I use when I want a warm, "big stage" feel. When I really want to put something into a big space, or let it truly "be there" (hard to explain this... !). B2 is super for that really clean sound. I use it most of the time really, for that long and sweet tail, and that transparent clean sound. But QL Spaces is really simple to use, and sounds great, so why not go for that one. B2 is great too, and can do really messed up and funky FX. Can shape the sounds in endless ways and there are SO many patches to choose from..

Tough choice! But in the end it comes to what kind of sound you're after. Warm and "big"/"thick"? -> Spaces. Clean, transparent, tons of presets and sound shaping capabilities? -> B2. 

But Spaces can sound muddy at times. And B2 can sound metallic/thin. 

Good luck!

W.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 27, 2015)

Walid, compared to e.g. Altiverb, i don't think Spaces sounds muddy at all, especially if you use the included filters. I think it is exceptionally clean and the day I swapped out all my Altiverb instances for it, my mixes got noticeably less muddy.

But I have no experience with B2.


----------



## Walid F. (Aug 27, 2015)

Jay, it's simply how convolution works - you will always get a more "thick" sound, with a chance of getting muddy if you overdo it, if you go for convoluting with samples. Algorithmic processing is by nature a lot cleaner (since it purely deals with clean mathematical formulas) and hard to muddy up a mix with. I think QL Spaces is quite a clean convolution module, indeed, but we are comparing an algorithmic reverb with a convolution one! Doesn't really make any justice to scrutinize these two fantastic plugins against one another. It only comes down to personal taste and no objective conclusion can really be presented to the TS.

W.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Aug 27, 2015)

Walid F. said:


> Jay, it's simply how convolution works - you will always get a more "thick" sound, with a chance of getting muddy if you overdo it if you go for convoluting with samples. Algorithmic processing is by nature a lot cleaner (since it purely deals with clean mathematical formulas) and hard to muddy up a mix with. I think QL Spaces is quite a clean convolution module, indeed, but we are comparing an algorithmic reverb with a convolution one! Doesn't really make any justice to scrutinize these two fantastic plugins against one another. It only comes down to personal taste and no objective conclusion can really be presented to the TS.
> 
> W.



Sounds right. I almost always pair Spaces with the UAD EMT Plate 140 and the sound is glorious.


----------



## Walid F. (Aug 27, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> Sounds right. I almost always pair Spaces with the UAD EMT Plate 140 and the sound is glorious.


I think this is the perfect approach. Use QL spaces to put the sound into a stage/hall/room, and then using plates or any kind of long and pure tail for some sweet, full and rich sound!

W.


----------



## TintoL (Aug 27, 2015)

Hi Mwarsell,

I was in your same spot a while ago. I actually have both and use both at the same time in a single fx buss. I am not an expert because this is my "serious hobby". I am not sure if this is a good way to do it, but, I do can tell you what I see on them. Spaces is very light on the cpu compared to B2. B2 is a monster drain on a cpu and that is something you should consider if you are going with this reverb as your only option. Just one single instance of B2 using a single engine preset can get you loaded a good 20 to 30 % usage on an I7 which is my cpu. On the contrary you can add a good chunk of instances of spaces and your cpu can hold on a lot before starting to crack.

You are right about the simplicity of spaces. It's so simple to use that the experience is a joy. You want an instrument farther in the stage, just pull down the dry/wet knobe and you are done. I tried to use virtual sound stage to pull back instruments, it did a good job and is even lighter on the cpu, but you need a reverb in adition of it.

I use spaces to place my dry samples in the stage depth by adjusting the dry/wet knob with an almost unnoticeable tail. Then I add a send of b2.

B2 is a sumper involved reverb that can even work as a sound design stuff. I find the sound of b2 a bit more spacial in 3d than spaces. And that's why I use it for the tail exclusivelly. You can add ERs with B2 it's just that is soo heavy, that it doesn't makes sense to use it as an insert in every dry library you have unluess you have a dual cpu computer with very good cpu. Also, for the depth possitioning, I find spaces simplicity relaxing.

Hope that helps.


----------



## scottbuckley (Aug 27, 2015)

I've only been using Spaces for a week or so, but I've found Spaces to be a lovely experience. Some great presets, and it really surprised me how much easier it made mixing my orchestrations. I'm on a reasonably slender system as well, but Spaces didn't seem too CPU hungry (even with multiple instances), which I appreciate.

Never used B2, so I can't compare sadly. Sounds like B2 would be an anxiety hole I wouldn't want to go down, though


----------

