# Waves IR-1 scoring stage impulses - multiple positions? Or alternatives...?



## Moderato Maestoso (Jun 7, 2013)

Hi guys,

I'm looking at getting the Waves IR-1 convolution reverb. A couple of questions though - are there any scoring stage impulses (Todd-AO springs to mind from my Altiverb days years ago), and if so, are they recorded in multiple positions?

If no, can people recommend a decent convo reverb with multi-position impulses that ISN'T Altiverb?

(Just to be clear, I'm not looking for multiple positions / surround in one instance. Ideally I would like 3 or 4 positions at different distances from the "listening" position, so I can create different depths for orchestral section ERs).

Thanks!

Martin


----------



## Dietz (Jun 7, 2013)

Waves' - actually Angelo Farina's - impulse responses from Todd-AO sound great, as long as you reduce the low-end quite a bit. Usually I employ a shelving EQ @ 200 Hz with -3 to -6dB, and an additional parametric dip around 250 to 300 Hz.

But mind you - these are only recordings from _one_ main position. 

There are dozens (hundreds?) of great IR-sets available for the Waves IR-series, but no other dedicated scoring stage, AFAIK.

... another "decent convo reverb with multi-position impulses that ISN'T Altiverb" would be MIR Pro, of course , but there you would get much more positions than the three or four you're asking for.

HTH,

/Dietz





.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jun 7, 2013)

Lol,

I recorded some 30+ long sine sweeps at Teldex in Berlin yesterday evening. For a commercial library and sample libraries from OrchestralTools.


----------



## Benji (Jun 7, 2013)

Peter Emanuel Roos @ 7/6/2013 said:


> Lol,
> 
> I recorded some 30+ long sine sweeps at Teldex in Berlin yesterday evening. For a commercial library and sample libraries from OrchestralTools.



Can we have more information on this??!!! Sounds awesome!


----------



## dgburns (Jun 7, 2013)

Teldex is such a great sounding room!


----------



## rgames (Jun 7, 2013)

I use Waves IR-1 and have used the Todd AO impulses. Agree w/ Dietz that they are BOOMY if you don't control the low end. My standard template right now uses the Disney Hall set.

Can't think of other scoring stages but there are plenty of others to cover what you want.

rgames


----------



## Moderato Maestoso (Jun 7, 2013)

Thanks for the info and replies guys!

M


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jun 8, 2013)

The de-convolution process tends to introduce infra-sonic "noise" (in the range of zero to, say 20/30 Hz). This must be carefully corrected, but is in most cases NOT done, probably because the IR makers don't care to read about the maths behind convolution theory. Boomy and boxy sounds are often a side-effect of the emitter (speaker/monitor), which adds resonation in the lower frequencies. Again something that MUST be corrected in the post-pro of the IRs. Again, most IR makers don't do this and/or are not aware of this and do not use calibration techniques.

My first real space recordings, at Smecky Studio in Prague, are affected by these same problems. The monitor was not good enough (more a PA speaker).

IR makers must analyze, analyze and analyze what they have recorded and de-convoluted! Use frequency spectra, compare with reference signals (white noise and other stuff) and then correct the IRs with serious EQ plugins.

Just sweeping and pulling the recs through some tool will never ever produce great IRs.

I am fanatic about this


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jun 8, 2013)

Benji @ Fri Jun 07 said:


> Peter Emanuel Roos @ 7/6/2013 said:
> 
> 
> > Lol,
> ...



This will only become a Samplicity library if I like the results very much 

The recordings went great and even the sweeps sounded great in this studio! We had a great monitor and took time to find a good output level with enough power but not overdriving the monitor.

My gut feeling tells me: I will like this!


----------



## Dietz (Jun 10, 2013)

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Sat Jun 08 said:


> The de-convolution process tends to introduce infra-sonic "noise" (in the range of zero to, say 20/30 Hz). This must be carefully corrected, but is in most cases NOT done, probably because the IR makers don't care to read about the maths behind convolution theory.




Personally I have yet to hear any professional IR set where this hasn't been taken care of. I'm sure that brilliant minds like the ones of Angelo Farina (Waves), Arjen van der Schoot (AltiVerb), Ralph Kessler (Pinguin) or Ernest Cholakis (Numerical Sound) are very aware of this (... and I know for sure that even the maybe not-so-brilliant VSL-MIR-guys are *cough, cough*  ...)




> [...] Boomy and boxy sounds are often a side-effect of the emitter (speaker/monitor), which adds resonation in the lower frequencies. Again something that MUST be corrected in the post-pro of the IRs. Again, most IR makers don't do this and/or are not aware of this and do not use calibration techniques.[...]




Yes, that's true. Actually it's not only about the emitter, but the whole recording signal chain. This is of little importance when sampling electronic systems, but as soon as you work in the "Real World", the art of inverse filtering becomes one of the crucial factors for the resulting IRs' quality.

Kind regards,

/Dietz


.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jun 10, 2013)

My first comment was mainly based on analyses of free IRs of reverb units with my own libraries. It looked to me like the creators of the free ones didn't bother to look at frequency spectra, noise patterns in the tail, DC-offsets, etc.
This should indeed not apply to the professional IR makers, who are also likely to read about the maths behind (de-)convolution.

Cheers!


----------



## José Herring (Feb 6, 2021)

Peter Emanuel Roos said:


> Lol,
> 
> I recorded some 30+ long sine sweeps at Teldex in Berlin yesterday evening. For a commercial library and sample libraries from OrchestralTools.




What ever happened to these? Did they get released?


----------

