# Vienna Suite Convolution VS Altiverb



## ozmorphasis (Jun 7, 2009)

I need to get a solid reverb this summer, and have been using the demo of the vienna suite this past month. Does anyone think that VS Convolution is a reasonable solution without getting Altiverb, or should I just go ahead and get Altiverb? 

The included IR's are obviously limited to a small selection so far, and I also find the lack of control over the early reflections to be a bit limiting, but I've also never had the opportunity to compare it back to back with Altiverb in my own set up.

Since I do a lot of stuff that is not always cinematic, but rather more classical/concert in its aesthetic, realism is very important to me in addition to just 'nice' or 'flattering.'

Thanks as always for the collected wisdom.

O


----------



## JT3_Jon (Jun 7, 2009)

If you dont need any of the other parts of the Vienna suite (e.g. the EQ, Compressor, Limiter, Exciter, Panner, etc) then I would go with Altiverb. They are both around the same price (VSL Suite vs Altiverb) but Altiverb has WAY more impulse responses/rooms/FX than the current incarnation of VSL's Reverb. Though 3rd party impulse developers have already announced their development for the VSL reverb, Altiverb has been doing this for YEARS, and have created a wealth of great sounding IR's in the processes to which VSL may never catch up. 

However, if you like/need the other parts of the Vienna suite and are on a budget, the package is really a great deal and the reverb sounds very good! Unfortunately you cant currently purchase only the reverb, you must purchase the entire suite, so this may influence your decision. 

IMO, either way you cant go wrong. Its really a question of whether you are looking for just a reverb or an entire suite.


----------



## ozmorphasis (Jun 8, 2009)

THanks JT3_Jon!

I would love to get all of the plugs for the same price, but it is really more about getting a reverb that does the trick. People seem to be getting really good results using the Todd-a-o in Altiverb, so the track record is proven. However, I haven't yet heard a demo of a complicated orchestral mockup using the Vienna Suite Convolution that is selling me on it in the same way. I was just wondering if any of the die hard Altiverb users are finding close to equal footing using the VS.

Any more experiences to share? Perhaps it's still way too early after its release.


----------



## ramp (Jun 23, 2009)

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe convolution is convolution. Like comparing the 'sound' of one sampler to another. It's just a mathematical process.

The only differences between plugins are how stable, and how CPU efficient they are, provided that they produce 'true stereo' convolution, which involves 4 impulse response samples and 4 separate convolution processes to produce a stereo reverb.

IR's are freely available for download on the net, so I wouldn't buy one on the basis that it has a better IR library than another. 

Also watch out that if you're a PC user, Altiverb is notoriously poorly written for the PC.

-ramp


----------



## bluejay (Jun 23, 2009)

ramp @ Tue Jun 23 said:


> Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe convolution is convolution. Like comparing the 'sound' of one sampler to another. It's just a mathematical process.
> 
> The only differences between plugins are how stable, and how CPU efficient they are, provided that they produce 'true stereo' convolution, which involves 4 impulse response samples and 4 separate convolution processes to produce a stereo reverb.
> 
> ...



In my understanding, true convolution is way too computationally-intensive to carry out so the various products take shortcuts in their calculations. Therefore convolutions do sound different.

The free IRs on the net that haven't been illegally ripped off are generally much lower quality than the libraries available within commercial products.

Personally I'm enjoying using Vienna Suite convolution reverb but I'm not sure it will ever replace Altiverb for me. I did just create a track using only VS reverb but it wasn't a completely purist sound.

It is fairly easy to separate the ERs and tail btw.


----------



## ozmorphasis (Jun 23, 2009)

[/quote]It is fairly easy to separate the ERs and tail btw.[/quote]

How? All the methods I came up with were still a guess since there is no accurate info about when the Er's end and the tail starts.


Also, I agree completely about the IR's out there on the net. Everyone seems to go gaga googoo over the Todd-AO IR's in Altiverb. I can't use them since I don't own Altiverb. There is a version floating about, but it hardly gives the choices with various depths that you find in Altiverb's library.

I like the VS stuff (Konzerthaus), but it's a bit limiting I find still.

Again, I'd love to hear a success story from someone that normally uses Altiverb, but has since found VS to be just as good or better. Until then, I'm kinda stuck thinking that I DO need to buy Altiverb soon. 

Also, so far several reports claim that CPU usage is worse for VS than with similar number of instances of Altiverb. Since we all use fairly large templates/projects, that is a huge factor to consider.

I would love to hear more reports. 

BlueJay, any interest in posting some Mp3's of your projects using VS?

O


----------



## tripit (Jul 2, 2009)

I've been using TO in Altiverb since it came out, and pretty much that has been my main stage verb. But, it has a tendency to get muddy very quick. I eq out a lot of the bottom. I just got VSL about a month ago and have slowly been integrating it into the sound. As I've been using it, I find myself using it more and more, and less of the TO. It's not muddy at all, very clear and while I miss some of the character that TO brings, I think that in bigger mixes, the VSL works better overall. Also, the fact that I have it on 3 machines instead of 1 for altiverb gives me more flexibility. 
With VSL I've found myself using the Mozartsaal a lot, also working with the predelay and levels. 
VSL has said that they plan to bring in a lot more IR choices in the future. And maybe someone will come up with a version of TO for it as well.


----------



## koolkeys (Jul 3, 2009)

ozmorphasis @ Tue Jun 23 said:


> How? All the methods I came up with were still a guess since there is no accurate info about when the Er's end and the tail starts.


This is part of why Altiverb is better. Not only is it's library superb, but each factory impulse contains extra information to let the Altiverb engine have more flexibility. 

I don't know ALL of the extra information the Altiverb factory library contains, but I do know that it is there.

Brent


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jul 3, 2009)

I seriously dare to doubt this...

This would mean than "humans" would have had to inspect each IR in an editor and "decide" where the ERs turn into the tail.

It is much easier to this based on some mathematical measures (like Waves IR1 does - maybe it can be determined by patterns or speed of zero crossings) than to apply such a subjective and elaborate task manually.


----------



## bluejay (Jul 3, 2009)

Hi, just saw this thread again. So far, I've only done one track using just the VS reverb and as it is a commercial track I can't post it here. Also I wasn't going for a purist orchestral sound either ... I've made everything way brighter and closer sounding than normal.

If you can bear that in mind then perhaps this clip http://www.jamessemple.com/dol/rampageclip.mp3 might be useful.

I agree that the ER/Tail separation is guesswork but it's worked fine for me so far.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jul 3, 2009)

If you open an IR in an editor like SoundForge it is actually quite easy to see and for normal halls it occurs typically in the range of 120-180 msec (also based on the psychophysics of localization).


----------



## ozmorphasis (Jul 3, 2009)

Thanks for the continued observations and thoughts guys. People developed the workflow of using individual ER instances in Altiverb, and then a tail for the sum mainly because that is what gave great results given the tool at hand. 

I don't want to make it sound like you can't get just as good of a result using the slightly different parameter controls in VS. 

BUT...I'm still waiting to see/hear examples of mockups using VS that compete with what I have heard from people using Altiverb. I've gotten some pretty cool results using the VS demo, but since I don't have Altiverb, I can't really A/B it. And, unlike hardware, I can't buy both and then return the one that I don't like as much.

Peter, regardless of the method employed, Altiverb does give you (supposed) discrete control over the tail vs ER. Are you saying that this is based on the math in the case of Altiverb, but must be subjectively decided in VS?


Bluejay, thanks for posting the clip. Good stuff. I remember hearing somthing by you a while back. I think it was in a thread about fast legato for strings...or something like that. I remember liking the spatial aspect of that track better than this clip...if memory is serving me right. Can you tell me what the reverb setting were for the two clips? 

O


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jul 3, 2009)

Yep, that was what I was suggesting. Waves IR1 has a similar approach and shows the ER section vs the tail for IRs that really don't hold any info about it (like mine  )


----------

