# Software reverbs vs. hardware (continued from Bricasti thread)



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 21, 2017)

This is continuing the thread in the commercial announcement and I'll post in a minute. Just need to create the thread so I can post the link there...


----------



## guydoingmusic (Apr 21, 2017)

I would love to hear a side by side comparison between the Seventh Heaven and Bricasti. While I don't expect them to be identical by any means... I am curious how much difference there is in an actual mix.

When you think about it - all the money I've spent on this reverb and that reverb and this plugin... I could've purchased a Bricasti outright.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 21, 2017)

So. A digital reverb in a box has dedicated DSP.

In the late '90s through around 2004, one of the great topics of discussion was dedicated DSP vs. native processing (usually meaning that everything runs on computers rather than using Digidesign Pro Tools TDM).

There were a few arguments. The most convincing one is that dedicated chips were optimized for the task so they could do a better job. I'll come back to that.

The others were that they could use more horsepower for the task, they didn't have to compete with everything else running on a general-purpose computer, nobody would be interested in (for example) a reverb that took over an entire computer, dedicated chips guaranteed you could run x amount of processing without your computer system soiling the bed... all variations of "processing is limited resource on general-purpose computer."

Processing isn't unlimited today, but it's so far ahead of what we were using 15 years ago that it isn't funny. I have a pile of Pentium 4s in my garage to prove it.

But what about the first argument? Can dedicated DSP chips programmed with low-level machine language sound better?

I remember asking one of the engineers at Universal Audio when they first started producing plug-ins, and he said I was confusing the algorithms themselves with what they were running on. The algorithms were the same!

If he was right, the only difference you'll hear between a digital hardware box and a plug-in is the box's converters (unless you go in and out the boxes digitally, as I do in the PCM91 I have the good fortune to have).

Analog emulations are a totally different thing.

***
Bill, I think the movement you're talking about with the Lexicon is the same thing they always had: the Spin parameter. It's part of their secret sauce. Convolution can't do that, although you can chorus the end of the tail.


----------



## SpeakPianissimoAndCarry.. (Apr 21, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> So. A digital reverb in a box has dedicated DSP.
> 
> In the late '90s through around 2004, one of the great topics of discussion was dedicated DSP vs. native processing (usually meaning that everything runs on computers rather than using Digidesign Pro Tools TDM).
> 
> ...



Interesting topic Nick. Can the platform the algorithms run on make a difference? You would think, since it is all ones and zeros coming in at different delay times, it would not matter. I think that maybe it is possible that Apple and Microsoft do not include something in the operating system because Intel does not have it in the chipset that was in the original boxes' CPUs from these companies like Lexicon and Bricasti used so it could make the difference that you discuss.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 21, 2017)

I think that the only real difference with the dedicated DSP chips is the latency where those boxes typically need to be usable "live" and in the computer we can afford to have a delay (even if it's only 64 samples). I'm not sure if a general purpose processor will ever beat that as it's just not programmed to do so. Other than that, then there's no need. 

Having said that, people on here have said that the UA chips being used are very outdated and nowadays there's much more processing power available natively so we could easily run those plugins natively at a fraction of the % usage on those cards. In comparing to those older chips, perhaps our modern processors can offer a better performance even "live." 

Can Bricasti make a plugin that's the same as their hardware? Certainly. But then people would think it's ridiculous for them to charge thousands of dollars for a single plugin so why not keep it in a black box to make it seem less ridiculous.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 21, 2017)

I'm pretty sure there's just one latency for all plug-ins. The audio is given to them, they process it, and it's given back.

It's not likely to be any different for external processors - never mind that latency with a reverb = predelay.


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 21, 2017)

I agree. dsp in a box=plugin. 
I also remember 2004  
I had the same argument back then. 

The new slate digital video for the interface he really goes into this against UAD plugins and says dedicated dsp is very old school and that nowadays there is no reason for it technically. ( maybe needed for piracy issues)
but at least UAD pays licesing rights/split profit with the hardware emulations. but thats a whole other topic 

and of course, we all see this as operators of these "boxes" and not as the ones who program and build the hardware so our perception only goes as far as saying unit A sounds the same or similar as unit B and therefore the outcome is X.


----------



## RCsound (Apr 21, 2017)

I agree, nowadays dsp are dongles in a box and exactly the reason why i no longer support all those gigaenormous dongles inside the PC... the dsp cards are outdated inclusive for render farms.


----------



## jamwerks (Apr 21, 2017)

FWIW, I read on GS that an M7 has about the processing power of a UAD Octo & quad combined. That's for just one stereo instance but apparently there are 4 (?) engins going on in the background. And this year with Version 3 updates there will be new algorithms and 3 times the processing power.


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 21, 2017)

jamwerks said:


> FWIW, I read on GS that an M7 has about the processing power of a UAD Octo & quad combined. That's for just one stereo instance but apparently there are 4 (?) engins going on in the background. And this year with Version 3 updates there will be new algorithms and 3 times the processing power.



i have the quad and i dont get a lot plugin power. it max's out very fast. 

plus the ton of latency. which is why i dont use it a lot.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 21, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> I'm pretty sure there's just one latency for all plug-ins.



I'm not sure what you mean. Different plugins have different latencies in order to accommodate the processing needed and balance that with what's reasonable to tax the cpu.

At a buffer 128 samples at 48k the latency is about 2ms which is probably what you'd typically expect from a hardware box. How much can you actually run with such a low buffer? A normal processor will struggle to keep up with that since it has to be doing a tonne of other things. The dedicated DSP chip will be optimized for that so it can easily handle it while very few people can probably run big sessions at only 128. Go up to 1024 and you can basically do whatever you want. You can have as much processing power as you need. It's just a matter of how long it takes to do which is where those chips excel. Depending on the latency you want from the Bricasti plugin, you'd need a computer dedicated to it while at 1024 you might be able to run 20 instances on a single computer.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 21, 2017)

jamwerks said:


> FWIW, I read on GS that an M7 has about the processing power of a UAD Octo & quad combined.



But does that really mean much nowadays? How does a normal quad core processor compare to an octo card? 10x? 20x? I'd be curious to see.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 21, 2017)

I use an entire ADSP-21369 SHARC DSP chip for Phillips Bucket Brigade 12 tap delay that sounds as good as my MC5000 hardware algo.
I program it to be my Reverb even though it's not as realistic emulation of space as an M7 Bricasti.

The real benefit of FPGA and DSP Based FX is realtime parameter modulation.
Change the size of decay, gate the tails by sidechaining so regenerations don't muddy up a mix or solo.

But for static insert and forget FX there's plenty of Native plugs that work for recording.
Even if there's latency it's a Reverb.
Consider the latency a free pre delay.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 21, 2017)

> I'm not sure what you mean. Different plugins have different latencies in order to accommodate the processing needed and balance that with what's reasonable to tax the cpu.



I remember hearing the word "frames," meaning plug-ins are handed audio by the host for x number of frames and then they have to give it back. Maybe a developer can straighten this out, but these days the latency is normally compensated so they're all in sync.


----------



## wst3 (Apr 21, 2017)

We are, I'm afraid, mixing all sorts of things, and while mixing is good in a musical sense...

Latency is inherent in EVERY processor - general purpose computer, DSP co-processor, or dedicated hardware. It takes a finite amount of time to convert from analog to digital, it takes a little more time to do the calculations, and then it takes more time to convert back to analog (I too use digital I/O for my PCM-90, so that saves a little bit of time???) The faster the processor the shorter the time to do the calculations... except that if you give a programmer more horsepower they'll use it.

The code itself - like it or not, there are advantages to DSP chips, they have instructions (the most famous being multiply and accumulate) that are not present in general purpose processors, and they make it easier (and more efficient) two write DSP code. 

A Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) is even faster because it is, for all intents and purposes, a state machine, or at least it can be.

It is true that a typical general purpose computer can perform DSP tasks, it still won't be as efficient, which is one of the reasons some people like dedicated hardware, or even co-processors better.

I think it is probably true that any given signal process can be done on a general purpose computer, and if the programmer is really good it will sound the same, or maybe a better way to say that is any given process can be done on a general purpose computer, a DSP co-processor, or dedicated hardware with minimal if any audible difference. But you better be a pretty darned good programmer.

Now let's think about which projects will attract the best in the talent pool. I think some talented programmers will gravitate towards native programming because it is an interesting challenge. But I also think that more folks interested in DSP will gravitate towards DSP co-processors and dedicated hardware.

Another twist - all of my dedicated hardware has power supplies, analog stages, memory, clocks, and other sub-systems that make up the final package. And the sound is the sum of all those subsystems. Design a shoddy power supply and you will corrupt the audio, and the processing. Same goes for clocks (don't talk to me about clocks, they'll drive you crazy!). The analog stages are as important as any other section, and some companies still have a clue about how to design a proper analog stage... some do not.

There is a reason (beyond "what the market will support") why a Bricasti M7 commands $3000 when I can build a pretty fast computer and load it with UAD cards for less. Better parts, fantastic A/D and D/A, well designed analog stages, a well designed power supply, and however much processing power they needed to make it work. And that will continue to be worth the price to some and not to others.

There is nothing inherently wrong with native processing. I have lots of native plugins that I absolutely could not do without (well, I could, but you know what I mean!). I think the guys at SoundToys have some of the best processors available, regardless of platform. And they've clearly made the choice to pursue native processing, on multiple platforms no less.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a DSP co-processor, and I'd be just as lost without my UAD cards and Apollo interface.

There is nothing inherently wrong with dedicated hardware, I'm not giving up my PCM-90, and I'd buy an M7 in a second if I could justify the cost.

They are all different ways to get to (roughly) the same result. In April 2017 I believe the pecking order remains dedicated hardware, DSP co-processors, and general purpose computers. And we (the audio community) are not big enough for companies to add DSP co-processors to motherboards or (oh the beauty) the cpu.


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 21, 2017)

Ah...you left out the natural sound of the space.

Which could be followed by the emulation of space as in hardware.

Which could be followed by DSP/FPGA emulations of the emulation.
Then Native which is an emulation of the emulation squared...

So a big 8 x 12 Sewer or a 12' circular sewer gets lots of attention.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 21, 2017)

wst3 said:


> I'd buy an M7 in a second if I could justify the cost.



Wouldn't you rather get (or have the option to) an M7 plugin for $500 and trade off a couple of ms of latency? Most of us are probably already working with buffer sizes large enough to accommodate the trade off of the less efficient processing (using for a live setting would be a completely different beast). Assuming that you were to use such a box with just digital then there's no need for the A/D D/A, clocking, or power supply so all of that money would be invested into your interface. I'd much rather spend $10,000 on the best converters, clocking etc. and use the plugin with additional latency than spend $3000 to have that hardware locked to that processing.


----------



## Phillip (Apr 22, 2017)

M7 is great but still sounds like a digital reverb. So many other great ones - don't see anything special about Bricasti to justify the cost. Plugin for $500? I would go for $199.

Once fashion changes and sales start to decline, it will be released as a plugin. Just a matter of time.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 22, 2017)

gsilbers said:


> i have the quad and i dont get a lot plugin power. it max's out very fast.
> 
> plus the ton of latency. which is why i dont use it a lot.




You want to sell it bare? I need a second one.


----------



## wst3 (Apr 22, 2017)

chimuelo said:


> Ah...you left out the natural sound of the space.


You speak the truth!!!

I had spring reverb tanks on my guitar amps, of course, and I figured out how to patch into and out of them, of course, but I never really considered that 'reverb'. 

I walked into my first recording studio in the mid 1970s, they had a couple of spring reverbs that were quite different than what I was used to (a BX something or other and a rack mount, maybe MicMix?). One of the first projects they put me to work on was mounting a plate reverb. Oh my... what a glorious sound!

A couple years later, in college, I became friends with a studio owner who had a chamber. To this day I've never heard anything quite like it. My next studio will have a chamber!

If we're going to compare any artificial reverb to a chamber I think we're all going to be really sad...


----------



## wst3 (Apr 22, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Wouldn't you rather get (or have the option to) an M7 plugin for $500 and trade off a couple of ms of latency? <snip>


I can't say really. I've played with the plugin, and it is very nice. I have not auditioned the hardware, and I think I'd have to before I made such a choice.

Would I rather have a $500 plugin or a $3000 device? I think that's the wrong question. The right question (for me) is can I hear the difference. After that it comes down to finding the cash for the better <fill in the blank>.

I spent $1300 on a microphone preamplifier last year, I can absolutely hear the difference between it and every other preamplifier I own. $1300 well spent! Can I get really close to the same sound with the Apollo Twin and a plugin? Not really!

I'll gladly spend $1200 on a microphone if it makes an audible improvement to my recordings, but I won't spend $500 - or any amount - on one that doesn't. (yeah, I'm hunting for the elusive magic microphone<G>!)

I think sometimes we are too quick to worry about price. I don't know if a hardware M7 is worth six times the cost of the plugin, but I would have to hear them both before I made that choice.

By the same token, I am now comparing Seventh Heaven to the reverbs I do own, and trying to decide if it adds something to the mix (pun intended!) And that's an entirely different question. Sadly it leads directly to the question of hardware vs software - the universe can be cruel!


----------



## chimuelo (Apr 22, 2017)

I used my DSP Rack and an ancient Creamware A16 Ultra to run a small QSC KW Series PA Array and used high spec transformers to run mic signals into the project window.
It sounded so choppy but during soundcheck really punchy for hard edged music.

Next gig I brought 8 x FMR RNPs and was shocked at how the quality was so noticeable.
Lots of punch but smooth responsive audio.
That was a mix of SM58s and Heil PRs.

My last gig I had to bring RCFs x 3 per side and Dual 18 DBA Subs. A fantastic sounding array.
3 x new KSM8 vocal mics and the same FMRs.
I was shocked at how incredible my DSP Based FX sounded.
Totally agree about mic pres and mics used.
I'm hoping the 2 x Grace M801s next week don't sound even better or I'll be working for free the next 2 months.

Also noticed how much bigger the DSP FX on my keyboards sounded after sending ASIO through a Radial 8 Channel Tube Mixer.

Odd that they sound better because the signals are stronger/cleaner, which means less effect.

I'll be broke and happy the rest of 2017.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 22, 2017)

wst3 said:


> Would I rather have a $500 plugin or a $3000 device? I think that's the wrong question. The right question (for me) is can I hear the difference. After that it comes down to finding the cash for the better <fill in the blank>.



totally agree. Honestly, if you are devoting your full efforts to music or mixing, it seems often self-defeating to argue, "that would make my work better but it costs too much?"

Compared with my time, a few thousand dollars up or down -- doesn't matter.

An orchestra costs too much as well, but I loooove them.


----------



## benatural (Apr 22, 2017)

wst3 said:


> I spent $1300 on a microphone preamplifier last year, I can absolutely hear the difference between it and every other preamplifier I own. $1300 well spent! Can I get really close to the same sound with the Apollo Twin and a plugin? Not really!


I'm with you on this!

I recently took the plunge and bought a Bricasti Model 7-M (the one without a display) and I use it with Exponential Audio's M7 control plugin.

Its my first hardware reverb, so I can't compare to others. That said I can say the Bricasti is the best sounding reverb I've ever used. The best $3k I've ever gone in debt for!

That's coming from years of using 2c b2, Altiverb, Roomverb/Roomworks, IR-1, etc... It's not that I can't get a decent sound with a plugin, it's that I don't have to try so hard with the Bricasti. It's takes little to no effort to get a lush, believable, and transparent sound. 

Totally worth the investment for only two channels of verb.


----------



## clisma (Apr 22, 2017)

To all the ones who use HW reverbs, and I mean this sincerely: is the sound really so much better than the modeled counterparts to justify the slowdown in patching it in and bouncing stems/mix, etc.?

Every time I look at shelling out the cash for an external reverb, I'm reminded that under the stress of deadlines, I am thankful for every extra minute I can squeeze out, and usually find that the time is better spent revising the notes than the reverb.

Having said that, I admit to coveting an M7.


----------



## benatural (Apr 22, 2017)

In my opinion, yes absolutely. And for exactly the reason you mentioned. I don't worry about reverb anymore, and I used to spend a ton of time trying to dial in a reverb I was only partially satisfied with. The Bricasti ups production values for me with ease, and that is worth the money.

Regarding bouncing stems etc, I don't worry about it much. I send everything to the same verb and I think it sounds great.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 22, 2017)

wst3 said:


> Would I rather have a $500 plugin or a $3000 device? I think that's the wrong question. The right question (for me) is can I hear the difference. After that it comes down to finding the cash for the better <fill in the blank>.



I didn't mean one of the fake Bricasti emulations. I meant a plugin released by Bricasti using the exact same algorithm. That would sound exactly the same as using it via the digital I/O.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Apr 22, 2017)

clisma said:


> To all the ones who use HW reverbs, and I mean this sincerely: is the sound really so much better than the modeled counterparts to justify the slowdown in patching it in and bouncing stems/mix, etc.?
> 
> Every time I look at shelling out the cash for an external reverb, I'm reminded that under the stress of deadlines, I am thankful for every extra minute I can squeeze out, and usually find that the time is better spent revising the notes than the reverb.
> 
> Having said that, I admit to coveting an M7.



Yes, it does sound better and is worth it. As far as patching is concerned, simply create a preset in your DAW and then you have to patch it only once. Use the Exponential plugin for automating it - so it works just like a plugin. Then each time you open a new song it sits up salutes like a good soldier. The only drawback being you only have one instance of it. 



Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I didn't mean one of the fake Bricasti emulations. I meant a plugin released by Bricasti using the exact same algorithm. That would sound exactly the same as using it via the digital I/O.



Casey of Bricasti says that it cannot be done properly inside of a computer. The processing power is not there to do it. I'll take his word on it. I haven't heard any emulation of an M7 that is worth the money to purchase it. Admittedly I haven't heard or tried this new one, but even it doesn't claim to sound exactly like an M7. 

I have several hardware reverbs and many, many software reverbs. The software never sounds close enough to the hardware to be all that useful to me. This new one probably sounds interesting and of some value. But don't even begin to consider equivalence. With hardware you can feel the space and the sharpness of the signal. With software you hear the soft fuzz before the signal. 

Oh BTW, sometimes an M7 is not the right answer to the question, 'Hmmm, what reverb should I use here?'

.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 22, 2017)

Bill, analog stages are a different subject, and so is digital conversion.

I don't believe that the identical algorithm will sound different on a DSP chip and an Intel chip, at least not enough to make a difference in the real world (meaning you discount the vanishingly small difference between any two things, even ones that cancel out). Or let's put it this way: I'd have to hear it to believe it.

That's not saying every software version sounds the same as the hardware box, because there can be variables other than the raw algorithms. If the guy from Bricasti says he doesn't have enough power in an off-the-shelf computer to do the same thing, then of course it's not the same algorithm.

I'd love to hear the Lexicon plug-in version of the Lexicon PCM91 (which I believe is a variation of the 300, which is half a 480) next to the real thing. 

***

My Theory the Second, by Anne Elk (not an elk): the reverb algorithm - or for that matter the impulse response - is the most important thing, not whether it's hardware or software. VSL's MIR does what it does on computers, and their Vienna Suite reverb (superseded by something else now) sounds fab on things like flute regardless of what it runs on. I haven't found a reason to use anything other than East West's built-in reverbs on their stuff. And so on.


----------



## wst3 (Apr 22, 2017)

JohnG said:


> An orchestra costs too much as well, but I loooove them.


That quote (properly credited) is going on my wall!


----------



## wst3 (Apr 22, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> I didn't mean one of the fake Bricasti emulations. I meant a plugin released by Bricasti using the exact same algorithm. That would sound exactly the same as using it via the digital I/O.


I misunderstood, but, I think your premise is flawed, or at least assuming facts not yet in evidence.

If Bricasti developed the plugin (native or co-processor based) it would likely sound a LOT like the hardware, but even with digital I/O I don't think it would be exact. For my evidence I offer the various plugins developed by Eventide and Lexicon. I do think the Eventide plugins are worth the price, and in fact I think the Instant Phaser and Instant Flanger plugins are even cooler than the hardware (I still have the hardware.) But they are NOT exact copies. (ok, Instant Phaser and Flanger are not fair tests, but you get the idea.)

On the flipside I do not think the Lexicon plugins sound much like their hardware counterparts (PCM-90, LXP-1, LXP-5), and I really wanted them to!!


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 22, 2017)

Jack Weaver said:


> Casey of Bricasti says that it cannot be done properly inside of a computer. The processing power is not there to do it.



The processing power is irrelevant. You could do it all on paper if you wanted to (get the input bitstream of an audio file and write down the output bitstream) and get the exact same result. The only real exception would be if the Bricasti is doing some bad math but even then, if you knew what it's doing wrong, you could still do that yourself. It's all a question of time. At a buffer of 512 at 48k we're probably working at 5x the latency of those boxes. I doubt a modern processor can't do the same calculations with 5x the amount of time available. Even to just run 1 instance of the plugin. You could get a $1500 computer and dedicate it solely to the Bricasti plugin using VEP to get audio I/O to your main system so there would be no analog stage necessary.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 22, 2017)

wst3 said:


> I misunderstood, but, I think your premise is flawed, or at least assuming facts not yet in evidence.



Regardless of how amazing it may sound, any digital processing is just basic math. There's no voodoo that can be done. Unless you're dealing with some supercomputer that's able to spit out ridiculous processing in small amounts of time, then any "computer" (including a human) could do the same math and could get the exact same result. You just need to know the algorithm and how things like rounding behaves on that specific processor. From there you essentially just create a virtual machine. It's all a matter of time it takes to process. I don't know of any companies making hardware and software replicates that actually use the exact same processing. It's always modified to be decently usable (not too taxing or have high latency) on computers. Of course that'll never sound the same.

Edit: Any analog gear yes, it won't ever sound the same but that's a wholenother topic.


----------



## wst3 (Apr 22, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Bill, analog stages are a different subject, and so is digital conversion.


 All true... and all part of the final product!



> I don't believe that the identical algorithm will sound different on a DSP chip and an Intel chip, at least not enough to make a difference in the real world (meaning you discount the vanishingly small difference between any two things, even ones that cancel out). Or let's put it this way: I'd have to hear it to believe it.


Vanishingly small is probably an over-estimation... small is probably true, and whether or not it makes a difference to the listener is doubtful - or rather, if the listener objects to the way the reverb was implemented then the track is probably not very good! In the theatre we always say that if the patrons notice problems in the set design, or lighting design, or sound design then the production has bigger problems. That's not to suggest that the designers can't completely blow it... they can, but rather, the script and the performances are are the reason they came. (sucks for the designers<G>!)



> That's not saying every software version sounds the same as the hardware box, because there can be variables other than the raw algorithms. If the guy from Bricasti says he doesn't have enough power in an off-the-shelf computer to do the same thing, then of course it's not the same algorithm.


AND, if it uses different instructions to implement the algorithm it isn't the same algorithm - we are (were?) taught in Comp-Sci 101 that if the algorithm is correct that's all that matters, implementation is a non-issue. Plenty of examples that demonstrate that's not the case. The same thinking led to the idea that you didn't have to understand the problem to solve it... nuff said!



> I'd love to hear the Lexicon plug-in version of the Lexicon PCM91 (which I believe is a variation of the 300, which is half a 480) next to the real thing.


I've done that test with the PCM-90, they aren't all that close.


----------



## wst3 (Apr 22, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> The processing power is irrelevant.



No, the processing power matters quite a bit. It isn't voodoo, but it is important. You could do all of this on an IBM 1130 - in theory anyway - which had 256 instructions, I forget, but it was tiny set, the original Reduced Instruction Set<G>... but it would take forever, and I'm pretty sure you'd have to make compromises because you'd be writing to memory that didn't exist.

More processing power means better results, and there are purpose built devices that have processing power beyond what can be done with the standard - or at least readily available - Intel or AMD based computers, off the shelf or otherwise. Could you build a better motherboard? Sure! Could you build a better memory interface or better memory cards? Sure. Would it ever pay for itself? That's a question only the folks that do this stuff can answer!


----------



## wst3 (Apr 22, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Regardless of how amazing it may sound, any digital processing is just basic math. There's no voodoo that can be done. Unless you're dealing with some supercomputer that's able to spit out ridiculous processing in small amounts of time, then any "computer" (including a human) could do the same math and could get the exact same result. You just need to know the algorithm and how things like rounding behaves on that specific processor. From there you essentially just create a virtual machine. It's all a matter of time it takes to process. I don't know of any companies making hardware and software replicates that actually use the exact same processing. It's always modified to be decently usable (not too taxing or have high latency) on computers. Of course that'll never sound the same.



This is where I think people are missing the boat, it isn't the algorithm, it is the implementation of the algorithm. And that's dependent on how the instructions are executed, or even if the instructions exist.

Yes instructions per second matters, memory bandwidth matters, all that stuff matters, but it matters for the designer, not the user.

When I was a young lad computer clocks were measured in MHz (I'm not THAT old), and we used to sweat things like how long it took to de-bounce a contact closure - to the point where some of us (until a mentor set us straight) used to de-bounce contact closures in hardware. It is darned difficult to get one's head around just how fast these things operate - even back then, can't imagine starting out now.

Even so, it does take a finite amount of time to do anything, and you have to make 'adjustments' to account for that.

Same goes for precision and accuracy (not the same thing). The precision and accuracy available today is mind blowing. But all that really does is give you more possibilities!

[QUOTE="Gerhard Westphalen]Edit: Any analog gear yes, it won't ever sound the same but that's a wholenother topic.[/QUOTE]
We agree on that<G>!


----------



## agarner32 (Apr 22, 2017)

This is a very interesting thread and I've learned a lot from reading through each post. With all these opinions and technical talk, nobody has posted one piece of music. To me, most of the time words fall short when it comes to describing music.

I'd be interested in hearing some examples of say a Bricasti and X reverb on the same piece. I'd spend 3K on a Bricasti if I could really hear the difference in a blind test.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 22, 2017)

> Vanishingly small is probably an over-estimation...



I only put that in as a disclaimer, since you can do two digital transfers and hear a difference even though the files cancel.

Anyway, I certainly believe you about the Lexicon hardware vs. software if you've heard that, but in general I'm going to bet that there's enough processing power and speed and bandwidth or whatever in an Intel/AMD to run implement algorithms from machines that came out 20 years ago.


----------



## JFB (Apr 22, 2017)

I've had two hardware M7's since 2009. For the hell of it I demoed Seventh Heaven. It sounds very much like the hardware. However, it doesn't do the same _job_ as the hardware, at least to my ears. The reason I bought the M7's was because of my frustration in getting sample libraries recorded in different spaces to blend together as if they were recorded in the same space. I can send any number of sources, whether the source recordings are wet or dry, into the M7 and it blends everything flawlessly with no sonic conflicts, muddy buildups, etc. Every plugin reverb I've ever tried simply falls apart when feeding it multiple and diverse sources (this, of course, is subjective as there are countless satisfied users of plugin reverbs). While Seventh Heaven is the most musical convo I've ever tried it still has some of that static quality that's inherent in convolution reverb. I still have and use my old TC4000 - an outstanding reverb - but it can't do the blending job nearly as well as the M7. So I would say Seventh Heaven sounds "exactly the same, but totally different". It's a _precise_ digital representation of an M7, but not an _accurate_ one. I also have a hardware Dangerous Bax EQ and the Plugin Alliance plugin - same issues. The hardware lives on the mix bus - the plugin never will.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 22, 2017)

I don't mean to be argumentative but I simply don't understand how something can be "precise but not accurate." Ditto sound "exactly the same but totally different."


----------



## heisenberg (Apr 22, 2017)

JFB said:


> I've had two hardware M7's since 2009. For the hell of it I demoed Seventh Heaven. It sounds very much like the hardware... While Seventh Heaven is the most musical convo I've ever tried... I still have and use my old TC4000 - an outstanding reverb - but it can't do the blending job nearly as well as the M7. It's a _precise_ digital representation of an M7, but not an _accurate_ one.



Compelling post! I wonder how many will go for the real thing after reading this thread. The price doesn't seem so far off if you place it in the context of the above endorsement.


----------



## agarner32 (Apr 22, 2017)

I'm still perplexed as to why nobody has posted a demo. I'd love to hear the same piece with a Bricasti and another one of the reverbs that have been discussed.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 22, 2017)

Yeah, I'm curious what that really means (sounds precisely the same but exactly different). Is it the way the reverb responds to what you're feeding it?


----------



## heisenberg (Apr 22, 2017)

Here is a demo off the internetz.


----------



## benatural (Apr 22, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Yeah, I'm curious what that really means (sounds precisely the same but exactly different). Is it the way the reverb responds to what you're feeding it?


What kind of test would you guys want to hear to be able to make a useful comparison? I might be able to whip something together but I'm not sure what would be helpful.


----------



## agarner32 (Apr 22, 2017)

That would be very useful. I'd love to hear a piece with the Bricasti and one of the other reverbs that have been discussed.


----------



## re-peat (Apr 22, 2017)

Jack and I disagree on this, but I’ve always maintained and will keep doing so, that when samples (especially orchestral samples) make up the bulk of your sound sources, it doesn’t really matter what reverb you use in your mix, provided it’s a decent one of course, and … provided — and this is important — you know how to use reverb.

Because sample-based performances inject a mix with so many sonic and musical problems and distractions to begin with — some of them very serious ones —, that the finer things which set a top-end hardware reverb apart from a decent software reverb (and I certainly don’t deny there *is* a difference) simply have no chance to shine in the way they can if given better source material.

It might very well be that a Bricasti gives you a much better ‘sense of the space’ and that it has a much sharper definition and whatnot, but someone still has to explain to me what value that has if what happens inside that gorgeous space is as musically unconvincing and sonically compromised as the antics of samplelibraries-posing-as-real-instruments invariably are.

Bring a few orchestral sample libraries from different developers together in a single mix, and you’re dealing with a spatial mess so problematic and inconsistent that it no longers makes one bit of meaningful difference whether you coat your mix with a Bricasti or a software reverb.

What good is a perfect ‘sense of space’, if, in that space, you have a combination of Cinesamples, 8dio and Kirk Hunter (yes, some people actually combine these things) doing its foul thing?
What possible good can a Bricasti contribute to a mix, if it has to weave its magic around a sampled or modeled piano, all of which, even the best ones, are still deeply flawed as convincing musical presences?
What joy is to be derived from listening to a Bricasti when the same mix also forces me to listen to the dead and synthetic sounds of a sampled string orchestra or the pathetic failings of sampled woodwinds?

Process expertly recorded material from good live players or singers with a Bricasti or with plugin, and yes, I fully agree that the Bricasti will deliver the better result — because with such fine and living source material, it will have a chance to make its superiority heard — but do the same thing with orchestral samples and all that quality that a Bricasti can bring to the mix is completely neutralized by the flaws (in sound and performance) of the samples.

Oh, before I forget: long live LiquidSonics Seventh Heaven.

_


----------



## JFB (Apr 22, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> Yeah, I'm curious what that really means (sounds precisely the same but exactly different). Is it the way the reverb responds to what you're feeding it?



Yeah, that's about right. It's kind of like guitarists who find playing into an amp sim frustrating - it _sounds_ like an amp but it doesn't _respond_ to their _playing_ like an amp. A good analogy for precision vs accuracy is a marksman making a tight shot group (precision) but the group is off the bullseye (accuracy). In the case of Seventh Heaven, Liquidsonics has _precisely_ replicated all the M7 presets and parameters; they even precisely matched the gain structure of the i/o (my M7's are connected via AES/EBU and the i/o levels were the same as the plugin). But it doesn't respond to or meld with the source in the way the M7 does (to my ears, anyway). 

From the LiquidSonics website: "LiquidSonics’ Seventh Heaven Professional is dedicated to the *reproduction* of the most sought after hardware reverberation tool of a generation – the Bricasti M7" (bold italics mine). I have a _reproduction_ of Van Gogh's Mulberry Tree on the wall, but...you get the drift.

I don't want to sound like I'm dissing Seventh Heaven - it's a great plugin reverb - probably one of the best. But you'll have to pry my M7's out of my cold dead hands! 

Again, this is just my opinion and as always, YMMV.


----------



## Phillip (Apr 23, 2017)

Agree. Digital reverb itself is an attempt at reproduction of a real space. Seventh heaven - reproduction of a reproduction? I guess so. 

The pendulum of fashion swung back to algorithmic reverbs and suddenly convolution has taken a back seat.

Unlimited reverb choices encourage endless pursuit of "realism" and distract from more important issues of composition and orchestration.

I don't want to be in this "Seventh Heaven"


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 23, 2017)

JFB said:


> It's kind of like guitarists who find playing into an amp sim frustrating - it _sounds_ like an amp but it doesn't _respond_ to their _playing_ like an amp.



Exactly.


----------



## jamwerks (Apr 23, 2017)

If you work in pop, you're recording vocals, guitars, drums, ect., all of which are mostly close mic'ed - "dry recordings". For such things there's nothing better than a real M7. But working with samples that already have the "room" baked-n (the tree & ambient mic's), the power and beauty of a real M7is much less important imo. You probably don't want to be using the early reflections anyway, and that's what a real M7 is so good at (e.g.melding with the source). And to work correctly, you'd need 3 or 4 instances, so that's over $10k for real M7's.

I've put Seventh Heaven in my template, and very happy. Now I have the control that I was missing in Reveberate. Guess I could say I'm in heaven...


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 23, 2017)

[QUOTE="JFB, post: 4080005, member: 2920" It's kind of like guitarists who find playing into an amp sim frustrating - it _sounds_ like an amp but it doesn't _respond_ to their _playing_ like an amp. A good analogy for precision vs accuracy is a marksman making a tight shot group (precision) but the group is off the bullseye (accuracy). In the case of Seventh Heaven, Liquidsonics has _precisely_ replicated all the M7 presets and parameters; they even precisely matched the gain structure of the i/o (my M7's are connected via AES/EBU and the i/o levels were the same as the plugin). But it doesn't respond to or meld with the source in the way the M7 does (to my ears, anyway).

[/QUOTE]

OK, now I get it. Thanks.


----------



## JohnG (Apr 23, 2017)

re-peat said:


> the pathetic failings of sampled woodwinds?



Not to mention the pathetic failings of so many compositions.



Phillip said:


> Unlimited reverb choices encourage endless pursuit of "realism" and distract from more important issues of composition and orchestration.



So true. It may seem tiresome == ok, it IS tiresome == but many would-be orchestral composers would do well to learn at least the "top ten" rules of thumb of traditional orchestration. They don't all work the same way with samples but they are better than the alternative.

The best way? You can use an orchestration book. Or why not study a few bars of John Williams' scores? The scores are at many libraries and don't even cost that much to buy. Much less than any good string or brass sample library. Williams may be regarded as traditional, but he is one of the most fabulous orchestrators I've ever heard, plus he distills down for us so many lessons from all the great composers whose works he's conducted. Four bars of his music is like a free master class.

Cheers,

John


----------



## JohnG (Apr 23, 2017)

PS -- I like hardware reverb too, although I realise that in fact it's really just software reverb in a box, with all the cumbersome in/out hassles of hardware.

That said, you can't survive with [only] one stereo channel (or even surround setup) of reverb in many situations anymore. People want full stems with separate reverb. But for composing, I love it.


----------



## whinecellar (Apr 23, 2017)

agarner32 said:


> I'm still perplexed as to why nobody has posted a demo. I'd love to hear the same piece with a Bricasti and another one of the reverbs that have been discussed.



Agreed. As a confessed reverb junkie, I've tried them all - except for a hardware M7. I've heard all the demos I can find on YouTube, etc., but I would *love* to hear a carefully-matched A/B of a few different sources through an M7 vs. the LiquidSonic and Slate Verbsuite, since both are the closest software options. Such a test should be done through digital I/O, gain & wet/dry ratio matched, and all other settings as close as possible. Maybe one pass at a normal wet/dry ratio, and one pass at full wet. Finally, downloadable full-res WAVs. If someone's willing, I'll pop the popcorn 

I want to believe the hardware is worth it. In the meantime, several of my well-heeled and decorated mix engineer friends have sold their M7's in favor of the Slate with its M7 library... and that says a lot to me. If the hardware made such an appreciable difference over the best ITB verbs, I'd drop $3500 on one in a heartbeat. I definitely plan on renting one to hear it for myself as soon as I can catch a break, but I kinda lean in @re-peat 's direction: I have my doubts that a $3500 hardware verb is that much better at creating the illusion of "realism" when it comes to largely sample-based work...


----------



## benatural (Apr 23, 2017)

Not to distill this great conversation too much, or to discount all of the excellent points being made, AND at the risk of being too hyperbolic... At the end of the day the limitations of samples and the quality of the reverb don't matter if the music doesn't resonate with your audience (assuming you're writing for one). If your music makes people feel something, if it tells a story that someone finds meaningful, who cares that your woodwind patches sound fake and your reverb is less than perfect? If your music resonates with folks, mission accomplished as far as I'm concerned.

Back to the topic at hand... I prefer my M7 for sample based work because I find it inspirational to work with. It makes the production value of my music sound good to me without too much fuss, and this allows me to focus on writing and not mixing. So at the end of the day it's worth it for that reason alone.

By the way I love where this thread is going. So many great points all around.


----------



## JFB (Apr 23, 2017)

Is it possible to upload 24bit/48k audio files directly to the forum? I have nothing on the internet to link to.


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 23, 2017)

I'd like to listen to an a/b comparison with one instrument and also on a whole mix.


----------



## clisma (Apr 23, 2017)

JFB said:


> Is it possible to upload 24bit/48k audio files directly to the forum? I have nothing on the internet to link to.


I'd be happy to host them on my server if you would like.


----------



## JFB (Apr 23, 2017)

clisma said:


> I'd be happy to host them on my server if you would like.



Great, thanks.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 23, 2017)

re-pete:



> Jack and I disagree on this, but I’ve always maintained and will keep doing so, that when samples (especially orchestral samples) make up the bulk of your sound sources, it doesn’t really matter what reverb you use in your mix, provided it’s a decent one of course, and … provided — and this is important — you know how to use reverb.



I understand what you're saying about spaces and samples, and often I agree, but I just find a really lush, warm, overall space satisfying to listen to.

The bigger issue is that it can be really hard to make the reverb stick to some individual instruments in a "suspension of disbelief" type of production (as opposed to orchestral simulation). I guess it's that the reverb is more exposed when it's not just overall glue.

Flute is the prime example of that for me, because its pure sound exaggerates the tendency of anything other than a really good reverb to sound synthy and metallic. Another one is very small rooms on drums. Anything but great reverb sounds like a tin can.


----------



## re-peat (Apr 24, 2017)

True, Nick. I never wanted to suggest that it makes no sense in investing in as good a reverb as one’s money can buy — I myself have the Relab LX480, all the UAD’s, the ExponentialAudio’s, Altiverb, LS’s Seventh Heaven, the Sonnox, the Waves Plates, a Lexicon and IrcamSPAT, and I wouldn’t want it any other way; which should give an indication as to how much I value a robust choice of decent reverbs and spatializers — but again, when it comes to orchestral samples, I strongly believe that there is a limit to what reverb can contribute or accomplish, and beyond that limit the quest for sonic beauty, let alone ‘realism’, simply becomes totally futile and absurd. If not self-delusional.

To take that flute as an example: I don’t know of any good sampled or modeled solo flute. Doesn’t exist yet, in my opinion. (A few acceptable ones, yes, but not a single really good one.) So, in context of this discussion: process any of the available virtual solo flutes with a Bricasti and, listening to the result, my ear will always be first drawn to, and distracted by the clumsy artificiality of the flute — and its complete failing both as a flute impostor and a musical presence —, so much so that whatever sonic and spatial splendour the Bricasti may contribute to that combination ‘flute + reverb’ will be largely meaningless. And, as far as I’m concerned, wasted.

Put simply: is there anything more ridiculous and idiotic than sending the preposterous make-believe (and the mediocre sound) of, say, Chris Hein’s solo flutes or the 8dio Claire Flute or a VSL flute through a Bricasti?

And what I said about the flute applies, in my view, to all mock-orchestral instruments and sections.

With regard to that upper limit beyond which any search for realism becomes pointless (in the context of sample-based productions): in my experience, SPAT defines that limit. The limit of usefulness and genuinely meaningful quality that wisely applied spatialization can bring to a mock-up.

- - -

Small spaces? Yes, a tricky challenge with many reverbs, I very much agree.
As it is, I’m entirely happy, in some cases enthusiastic even, with the small spaces — or even the merest suggestion of air around an instrument — that some of my reverbs are able to suggest. The Relab, for example, is quite good at it, as are Altiverb and ExponentialAudio. And I also have to mention — in complete seriousness — that the most pleasant surprise which the LS Seventh Heaven had in store for me, was in fact its excellent rendering of small spaces. (I’m not totally sold on several of its larger spaces, and I don’t think I will be using it all that often for that kind of thing, but the smaller stuff which it does, is, to my ears, absolutely top quality.)

- - -

Talking about LiquidSonics: ever since I started using their Seventh Heaven product, jobs have begun pouring in with unprecedented frequency, the realism of my productions has increased beyond belief, and I even ran into a girl the other day who asked me if I wanted to come up to see her collection of Japanese stamps. That never happened to me before. I can’t express how happy I am.
The LiquidSonics Seventh Heaven *can be bought here for only £199*. Hurry before the price goes up!!

_


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 24, 2017)

re-peat said:


> True, Nick. I never wanted to suggest that it makes no sense in investing in as good a reverb as one’s money can buy — I myself have the Relab LX480, all the UAD’s, the ExponentialAudio’s, Altiverb, LS’s Seventh Heaven, the Sonnox, the Waves Plates, a Lexicon and IrcamSPAT, and I wouldn’t want it any other way; which should give an indication as to how much I value a robust choice of decent reverbs and spatializers — but again, when it comes to orchestral samples, I strongly believe that there is a limit to what reverb can contribute or accomplish, and beyond that limit the quest for sonic beauty, let alone ‘realism’, simply becomes totally futile and absurd. If not self-delusional.
> 
> To take that flute as an example: I don’t know of any good sampled or modeled solo flute. Doesn’t exist yet, in my opinion. (A few acceptable ones, yes, but not a single really good one.) So, in context of this discussion: process any of the available virtual solo flutes with a Bricasti and, listening to the result, my ear will always be first drawn to, and distracted by the clumsy artificiality of the flute — and its complete failing both as a flute impostor and a musical presence —, so much so that whatever sonic and spatial splendour the Bricasti may contribute to that combination ‘flute + reverb’ will be largely meaningless. And, as far as I’m concerned, wasted.
> 
> ...




Really interesting post and I have had my sights set on buying Altiverb and the Valhalla Reverbs. Perhaps I should seriously consider adding Seventh Heaven to the list as well then!

Edit: I've decided I'm just going to set up my Music Lab in a Cave and that way everything will have an even amount of Reverb all over it. At all times.


----------



## vewilya (Apr 24, 2017)

jononotbono said:


> Really interesting post and I have had my sights set on buying Altiverb and the Valhalla Reverbs. Perhaps I should seriously consider adding Seventh Heaven to the list as well then!


And check out Exponential Audio Reverbs! Nimbus, R2 & R4 are amazing really. At least to my ears...


----------



## Saxer (Apr 24, 2017)

re-peat said:


> ...and I even ran into a girl the other day who asked me if I wanted to come up to see her collection of Japanese stamps. That never happened to me before. I can’t express how happy I am.


Happened to mee too when using Altiverb... Look out! Her Japanese stamps are reproductions!


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 24, 2017)

re-peat said:


> Talking about LiquidSonics: ever since I started using their Seventh Heaven product, jobs have begun pouring in with unprecedented frequency, the realism of my productions has increased beyond belief, and I even ran into a girl the other day who asked me if I wanted to come up to see her collection of Japanese stamps. That never happened to me before. I can’t express how happy I am.
> The LiquidSonics Seventh Heaven *can be bought here for only £199*. Hurry before the price goes up!!



You are wicked, Piet


----------



## JohnG (Apr 24, 2017)

re-peat said:


> I don’t know of any good sampled or modeled solo flute.



They are, indeed, hard to wrestle to the ground. I think possibly I had better luck with some simpler, less "vivid" sampled flutes of yesteryear than some more recent examples. The recent ones sound better but somehow don't really work when you start to write, or at least when you start to mix.

One exception for me is Spitfire's alto flute -- the legato version -- which I enjoy.


----------



## gjelul (Apr 24, 2017)

whinecellar said:


> Agreed. As a confessed reverb junkie, I've tried them all - except for a hardware M7. I've heard all the demos I can find on YouTube, etc., but I would *love* to hear a carefully-matched A/B of a few different sources through an M7 vs. the LiquidSonic and Slate Verbsuite, since both are the closest software options. Such a test should be done through digital I/O, gain & wet/dry ratio matched, and all other settings as close as possible. Maybe one pass at a normal wet/dry ratio, and one pass at full wet. Finally, downloadable full-res WAVs. If someone's willing, I'll pop the popcorn
> 
> I want to believe the hardware is worth it. In the meantime, several of my well-heeled and decorated mix engineer friends have sold their M7's in favor of the Slate with its M7 library... and that says a lot to me. If the hardware made such an appreciable difference over the best ITB verbs, I'd drop $3500 on one in a heartbeat. I definitely plan on renting one to hear it for myself as soon as I can catch a break, but I kinda lean in @re-peat 's direction: I have my doubts that a $3500 hardware verb is that much better at creating the illusion of "realism" when it comes to largely sample-based work...



80% samples - 20% real instruments here. I think the Lexicon PCM96 (surround) is a 'better deal' in terms of adding and helping the samples come all together. Would I like to have an M7? Definitely, but over 3K for something just stereo and for use on 20% of what I do doesn't make sense at this time.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 24, 2017)

re-pete, I agree with what you're saying about realism in samples (leaving aside CH's flute, which I haven't heard, and also VSL's MIR - which I have heard). Is it a coincidence that I ran into that same super-freaky woman? Not the kind of girl you take home to Muth-ah.

But we're talking about two different things: sound quality and realism. When you're using a discrete reverb on one instrument - as is normal in the "suspension of disbelief" kinds of production I mentioned - it becomes part of the sound of the instrument and attracts more attention than when you're using an overall hall or large space. Metallic sparkles sound like arse on a sampled flute or a real one, or for that matter on a related synth sound.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 24, 2017)

...which is not to say that you need a $5000 Italian reverb to sound good!


----------



## Jack Weaver (Apr 24, 2017)

Nick Batzdorf said:


> But we're talking about two different things: sound quality and realism. When you're using a discrete reverb on one instrument - as is normal in the "suspension of disbelief" kinds of production I mentioned - it becomes part of the sound of the instrument and attracts more attention than when you're using an overall hall or large space. Metallic sparkles sound like arse on a sampled flute or a real one, or for that matter on a related synth sound.


This.

Since my name and opinion was invoked a couple times I thought I'd explain a little more. To a large degree, the work process is the thing that separates how I describe my thoughts about reverb from how Piet describes it. I tend to hardly ever use an overall reverb. I read here about people doing that and I just shudder. (C'mon people, get with it. It's no longer 1955. You have more tools now.) I use multiple, multiple instances in one orchestral mix. With so many differing types of ambience being enforced, uh... available from all the popular libraries each one needs a little different, loving touch. So I ended up having several hardware and software options. Many times the $50 option is more effective than the $5000 solution. A major clue here: in my own compositions I use almost no reverb. I craft it from what I originally hear in the various mic positions. The drawback is that I use a huge amount of memory for the samples.

I'd bet that if Piet and I were in the same control room working together on a project we'd find some great sounds that we'd (usually) agree on. Only a few thousand miles of land and water separate that from happening. I think there is a lot of agreement and flexibility in our ideas of beauty.

Yes, ultimately we are so often putting lipstick on a pig - to a degree. Likewise other times samples so very much exceed what might be done otherwise with 'real' players.

Professionally, there is nothing I want more than better samples. Then of course my reverbs would sparkle, sparkle I tell you!

.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 24, 2017)

Jack Weaver said:


> =e. Likewise other times samples so very much exceed what might be done otherwise with 'real' players.



Never heard even a single example of this, except where samples deliberately are not trying to sound like the real thing.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 24, 2017)

Jay, I think Jack means you can exaggerate with samples - make them play tighter than a real orchestra would, etc.

They may sound like the real thing, only enhanced.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 24, 2017)

No, they will sound sort of like the real thing but less human.


----------



## re-peat (Apr 24, 2017)

*Nick,*

A little over five years ago, when, in one of V.I.’s classic threads, we were discussing much the same thing as we’re doing now, I had to point out that exact same difference to several someones — the difference between sound quality and realism — in precisely the same way as you’re pointing it out now to me. Only to say: yes, I’m very much aware of that difference, and no, I don’t think I’m getting the two confused here.

Everything I said before has nothing to do with realism (or perceived realism) *as such*, but everything with the *discrepancy*, in one and the same mix, between, on the one hand, the failing of one ingredient — the virtual instrument, which not only fails in its impersonating and expressive duties (a musical failing) but, more relevant, is also a bringer of compromised sound (a sonic failing) — and, on the other, the stunning aesthetic and sonic infallibility of another ingredient (the Bricasti reverb).
A combination as ill-matched as that of those two simply doesn’t make much sense to me. And you’ll have to forgive me, but I’m just not ready to believe that a blend of the two will result in the Bricasti imparting some of its appeal, musical integrity and magic onto the weaker and much-less-alive other half of the sketch.

Realism in a mock-up is only important to me (and to this discussion, I believe) to the degree in which it CAN’T be achieved. Because that failed intention results inevitably in a constant distraction, and it is precisely the presence of that chronic distraction in a mix which makes me say what I’ve been saying all along. Not the absence of realism as such, but the distraction which it causes, given the unignorable fact that realism is obviously the aim and intention of the thing we know as ‘a mock-up’.

A mix, to me, is only as convincing as its least convincing ingredient, and since the most prominent ingredients in a mock-up — its sounds and performances — usually can’t pride themselves on a very high quality, neither in the musical nor the sonic department (especially not in a typical orchestral mock-up), I keep failing to see much point in adding a Bricasti to that already doomed production as well. I mean, what can it possibly do? Can a Bricasti raise, say, a SampleModeling brass section, or the Efimov Nylon, or the VI Dimension Strings to a whole new level of musical and sonical strength and authenticity in ways which a decent software reverb can’t? I really don’t think so. And if I’m wrong, I sure would like to hear my being wrong proven with an audio example.

The moment we decide to use sampled or modeled instruments (in an impersonating role) in a mix, we have two serious problems to begin with: problems of believabilty and problems of sonic quality. And no matter which type of spatialization we throw at these problems ― good, bad, cheap, expensive, convolution, algorithmic, whatever … ― they won’t go away. They just won’t. Because they are 100% intrinsic to the source sounds. Imprinted in every bit and byte of every sample and/or modeling algorithm.
And we have to accept that, I believe. And I do. But to me, that also means that there is little satisfaction to be derived from placing these instruments in a high-end, perfectly defined, almost tangible, sonically luxurious Bricasti-space. Because the attention-grabbing sounds of my mix will always be the problematic ones: never the perfectly sculpted space, but always the musically inept and sonically inferior charade happening inside it.

- - - -

*Jack,*

I agree with just about everything you’re saying — and I am a keen mixer of different reverbs in one and the same production myself — but I fear your broad-minded and creative views on the use of reverb plus the ability to see mock-realism for what it really is, is not the sort of path that most people here are ready or capable to follow. Recalling hundreds of similar discussions and threads over the past many years: most of the time people simply want reverb to add realism to their mock-ups. As misguided as that has always struck me as, it is still, and probably will remain, the Grail for many here.
So again, personally, I think you’re right and I honestly hope that what you’re saying enlightens a whole lot of people and inspires them to explore new avenues, but I can’t say I’m very optimistic in that regard. Not after twelve years of completely unsuccessfully suggesting those same avenues myself.

- - - -

I also want to add that my thoughts and opinions on all these things (and most other things as well) are nowhere near as fixed and ‘carved in the stone of me-thinking-I’m-right’ as they may appear when written out. That’s the problem with the written word: it often transforms and reduces what is a flexible, pleasantly fluttering and free-ranging viewpoint into something more akin to a rigid and fanatic conviction from which one doesn’t appear to be prepared to stray. I simply want to have it on record that that is not the case here.
So, please imagine plenty of maybe’s, possibly’s, alternatively’s and perhapses, and it’ll be indeed much closer to what I would be saying if we were sitting face to face.

Oh, and, *everybody*, don’t forget, help make the world a better and sexier place by purchasing the *LiquidSonics Seventh Heaven*.

_


----------



## Shad0wLandsUK (Apr 24, 2017)

vewilya said:


> And check out Exponential Audio Reverbs! Nimbus, R2 & R4 are amazing really. At least to my ears...


If you have a Focusrite device you should be able to get Exponential Audio R2 as part of their plugin collective deal, as I did  for FREE

If you have any hardware registered with Focusrite


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 25, 2017)

Not surprisingly, I m pretty much with re-peat on this. I have written ad nauseum that people should worry less about making it sound real and more about making it sound good, with the understanding that good with samples will almost certainly be less good than with great players. Not what people want to hear, I know, but I think Piet is correct.

That said, I and many others are pretty much stuck with samples nowadays and it behooves us to make them sound as good as possible to our own ears and if we are hired, to our clients. Many years ago I composed a low, low budget dreadful sample based score for a low, low budget dreadful film. I think my arsenal at the time consisted of a Korg M1, EMU Proteus Orchestral Plus. Kurzweil 1000 PX, and a Yamaha RX 15 drum machine. My engineer at the time was Avi Kipper. He rented a Lexicon 480L and an API lunchbox, and turned off all the FX in my modules.

Di they make the samples sound more real? Not much. Did they make them sound good? Not really. Did they make them sound better under his usage? Absolutely.

So now with my sample based compositions I use a bunch of software reverbs. Again, they do make them sound better to my ears and my clients seem happy. I have even received compliments from other composers on the sound of the verbs I choose and one person here thought I was using a hardware verb.

So for me it comes down to this: if I pay the dough and I get this new Liquidsonics Bricasti plug-in, or if I spend the _big_ amount of dough to get the Bricasti, how much better will it sound? 2% ? 5% ? 10% ? 20 %? And will my clients hear the difference?

If it is 2 or 5 % I am not spending more than $200. Period. If the plug-in made it 10%, I would buy the plug-in. To spend the dough for a Bricasti, it would have to do 20 % or more, both to my ears and to my clients.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 25, 2017)

Shad0wLandsUK said:


> If you have a Focusrite device you should be able to get Exponential Audio R2 as part of their plugin collective deal, as I did  for FREE
> 
> If you have any hardware registered with Focusrite


Can't believe I almost missed that deal. Thanks for pointing it out! I've been planning to get the R2 for a while.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Apr 25, 2017)

re-pete, I don't disagree with you. But I do like nice reverbs better than nasty ones. Several thousand dollars better? No.

Jay, I've done far cheaper stuff than you have, so it would behoove you to agree with me at all times about everything.


----------



## Jeff Tymoschuk (Apr 25, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Can't believe I almost missed that deal. Thanks for pointing it out! I've been planning to get the R2 for a while.



Same here!


----------



## clisma (Apr 28, 2017)

@JFB was kind enough to prepare and provide these files for comparison between the hardware Bricasti M7 and Liquidsonicy 7th Heaven. Here is his walkthrough for the setup:

_"The audio was recorded to make the comparison blind.

1) The send and return gains on Seventh Heaven and Bricasti M7 were identical. The M7 was connected digitally via AES into my Lynx AES16e.

2) The files called "Epic" and "Tchaikovsky" use the Halls1 "Large Hall" preset

3) The drum loops have the reverb preset in the filename. One was Superior Drummer 2 Avatar Kit Overheads-only sent to reverb with all the ambient mic samples muted. The other is a dry Stylus RMX loop called "101-Justify Combo" - the entire loop is processed. The reverb used changes back and forth every two measures. The way I set this up was to duplicate the the instrument channels in Cubase and send one to the plugin and one to the hardware.

4) The Synth file is going through the Spaces2 "Concert Wave" preset, a very long modulating effect-type reverb."
_
Below are all the files (note that these are .wav so you may want to download and audition offline). I will refrain from posting the key to which is which, and will let @JFB do this once you guys have all had a good crack at it. Also, I would like to thank JSB sincerely for taking the time to do this!

http://www.download.lukelife.com/Epic_Dry.wav

http://www.download.lukelife.com/Epic_A.wav

http://www.download.lukelife.com/Epic_B.wav

---

http://www.download.lukelife.com/Tchaikovsky_Dry.wav

http://www.download.lukelife.com/Tchaikovsky_A.wav

http://www.download.lukelife.com/Tchaikovsky_B.wav

---

http://www.download.lukelife.com/StylusRMX_loop_Dry.wav

http://www.download.lukelife.com/StylusRMX_loop_Rooms2_01_Music_Club.wav

---

http://www.download.lukelife.com/SupDrmer2_AvatarKit_Dry.wav

http://www.download.lukelife.com/SupDrmer2_AvatarKit_Rooms2_01_Music_Club.wav

---

http://www.download.lukelife.com/Synth_Dry.wav

http://www.download.lukelife.com/Synth_A.wav

http://www.download.lukelife.com/Synth_B.wav


----------



## whinecellar (Apr 28, 2017)

Can't WAIT to give this a listen - many thanks in advance!


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 28, 2017)

clisma said:


> @JFB was kind enough to prepare and provide these files for comparison between the hardware Bricasti M7 and Liquidsonicy 7th Heaven. Here is his walkthrough for the setup:
> 
> _"The audio was recorded to make the comparison blind.
> 
> ...



Thanks a lot for sharing!

They do sound very different (which is disappointing if they had the exact same settings). I found in the Tchaikovsky that the reverb in A felt a lot more glued and subtle. B felt wetter and the reverb felt more distinct. No clue which is which and which might be considered better. Very curious to see. On the synth I felt that it was reversed with the A/B.

Can any Bricasti owners confirm that the Bricasti secret sauce which the plugins lack is showcased in these demos (so I can get a reference of what the difference is exactly)? I guess if it is the case, then there should be no problems picking out which is which.


----------



## gsilbers (Apr 28, 2017)

im going with B as the hardware.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 28, 2017)

gsilbers said:


> im going with B as the hardware.



Is the A/B the same for all pairs?


----------



## wbacer (Apr 28, 2017)

benatural said:


> I'm with you on this!
> 
> I recently took the plunge and bought a Bricasti Model 7-M (the one without a display) and I use it with Exponential Audio's M7 control plugin.
> 
> ...



I did exactly the same thing. Found a Bricasti Model 7-M (the one without a display) on sale as a demo. It was delivered with a broken on/off knob so I sent it back. The place I bought it from gave me a brand new one at no extra charge. None of the software reverbs that I have come close, it just sounds amazing right out of the box. Exponential Audio's M7 control plugin works like a charm.


----------



## MarcelM (Apr 28, 2017)

gsilbers said:


> im going with B as the hardware.


+1


----------



## JFB (Apr 28, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Is the A/B the same for all pairs?



Yes.


----------



## JFB (Apr 28, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Thanks a lot for sharing!
> 
> They do sound very different (which is disappointing if they had the exact same settings). I found in the Tchaikovsky that the reverb in A felt a lot more glued and subtle. B felt wetter and the reverb felt more distinct. No clue which is which and which might be considered better. Very curious to see. On the synth I felt that it was reversed with the A/B.
> 
> Can any Bricasti owners confirm that the Bricasti secret sauce which the plugins lack is showcased in these demos (so I can get a reference of what the difference is exactly)? I guess if it is the case, then there should be no problems picking out which is which.



After I reveal which is which, I'll point out some attributes to listen for.


----------



## JFB (Apr 28, 2017)

benatural said:


> It's not that I can't get a decent sound with a plugin, it's that I don't have to try so hard with the Bricasti. It's takes little to no effort to get a lush, believable, and transparent sound.



My experience exactly. This is 100% of the reason why I bought mine. For eight years now reverb has been a non-issue.


----------



## NYC Composer (Apr 29, 2017)

jononotbono said:


> Really interesting post and I have had my sights set on buying Altiverb and the Valhalla Reverbs. Perhaps I should seriously consider adding Seventh Heaven to the list as well then!
> 
> Edit: I've decided I'm just going to set up my Music Lab in a Cave and that way everything will have an even amount of Reverb all over it. At all times.


Don't forget your bathroom! Never waste a good reverberant bit of porcelain.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 29, 2017)

jononotbono said:


> Really interesting post and I have had my sights set on buying Altiverb and the Valhalla Reverbs. Perhaps I should seriously consider adding Seventh Heaven to the list as well then!



Are you still a student? You can get Seventh Heaven with their 30% discount on top of the intro price. I don't know of any other companies that do that. No brainer. I got it after having barely tested it.


----------



## jononotbono (Apr 29, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> Are you still a student? You can get Seventh Heaven with their 30% discount on top of the intro price. I don't know of any other companies that do that. No brainer. I got it after having barely tested it.



Yeah I'm still a student. My focus isn't really on Reverb. It hasn't been for quite some time. It's trying to write music and at the minute, I have a few Reverbs and no one (outside of the Composer community) ever knows whether I even used Reverb or not. Nobody knows anything except whether they like or hate the music. Including most musicians (with their supposedly critical ears). So, I will definitely buy it, as I will with many others because to not equip myself with every great tool, especially whilst as a Student and therefore being able to use the Edu discounts on various products would be utterly foolish. It's just that money is always better spent on Instruments and (Virtual and Real) Synths at the time of which I usually only buy things when I need them for either my studies or for real work... With the exception of the odd random sale (Venus comes to mind) where I get sucked in like everyone else. Altiverb has been on my "to buy list" for a while but again, that sudden Spitfire deal comes up and I'm afraid it takes priority (especially where I am not wealthy). I can't wait to buy it but the question is "Will it change my world?". Probably not at the moment. Thanks for pointing out the discount. I had no idea!


----------



## OleJoergensen (Apr 29, 2017)

[email protected] Thank you for sharing the demoes. I think both sound quite good but different. A- has more hall sound, B- sounds more clear, transparent and calm. I think B is the hardware.


----------



## re-peat (Apr 29, 2017)

Sadly, that comparison isn't very illuminating, I find. (Other than that I couldn't have wished for a better example than the Tchaikovsky (as well as that sonically congested Epic excerpt) to illustrate the point which I made on the previous pages of this thread: start with bad sound, and it doesn’t make one bit of difference whether you use a Bricasti or a plugin: the result will always sound bad.
Whatever the Bricasti is contributing to those mixes that the SeventhHeaven is, allegedly, unable to contribute, it is completely torpedoed by the dominance (in the end result) of the weak sound of the source track.

Those two drum examples don’t really sell whatever reverb was used on them either, I have to say. Just about any decent software reverb can give you a result like that.

The only comparison I found marginally interesting — only marginally though — is the one with the synth patch, but even here: it's certainly no compelling evidence in the case for the Bricasti being the vastly superior of the two.

And the thing is: I'm totally convinced that the hardware *is* superior, in just about every respect in which one reverb can be superior to another, but it needs far-far-far better quality source material than what these weak examples and comparisons have to offer (and certainly no full mixes with some reverb poured over them) for that difference to become a meaningful one.

_


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 29, 2017)

I don't think anyone doubts that the hardware is superior. The pertinent question is, if you add to a bunch of samples, is it $3000 + worth of superior to the end result over the plug-in version or other reverb plug-in. That isn't chump change.


----------



## wst3 (Apr 29, 2017)

here's a thought (and that's all it is)... could it be that hardware devices tend to lend themselves more to tweaking because all the knobs are right there in your face? It is different and using a control surface can help to bridge the gap, but is still isn't the same.

Is that the only difference? I don't think so, but I think it matters. At least for an old fart like me it seems to have an impact.

Still need to go to the studio and listen to the example files, but I spent a lot of time last night playing with compressors, and other than the UAD 1176 and UAD dBX 160 it remains a bit of a struggle to get compressors to behave the way I'd like them to. Check that - it is a challenge to get emulations of compressors to behave the way I'd like them to! Others, like the UA Precision series, or Waves C-series make a lot more sense to me, within the confines of a screen based user interface.


----------



## clisma (Apr 29, 2017)

wst3 said:


> here's a thought (and that's all it is)... could it be that hardware devices tend to lend themselves more to tweaking because all the knobs are right there in your face? It is different and using a control surface can help to bridge the gap, but is still isn't the same.
> 
> Is that the only difference? I don't think so, but I think it matters. At least for an old fart like me it seems to have an impact.
> 
> Still need to go to the studio and listen to the example files, but I spent a lot of time last night playing with compressors, and other than the UAD 1176 and UAD dBX 160 it remains a bit of a struggle to get compressors to behave the way I'd like them to. Check that - it is a challenge to get emulations of compressors to behave the way I'd like them to! Others, like the UA Precision series, or Waves C-series make a lot more sense to me, within the confines of a screen based user interface.


I think there's something to that, yes. But in this case, I keep hearing that it's a case of setting it up and almost forgetting about it. As in, reverb has become a non-issue. Others with the hardware can probably explain this further.


----------



## JFB (Apr 29, 2017)

Ashermusic said:


> I don't think anyone doubts that the hardware is superior. The pertinent question is, if you add to a bunch of samples, is it $3000 + worth of superior to the end result over the plug-in version or other reverb plug-in. That isn't chump change.



For me the $3000+ of superior is not about the end result. It's about the _getting_ to the end result. I find it much easier to get there with the hardware.

I could meet, even exceed the needs of the client with only plugins and half what I have invested in sample libraries; but it would mean a lot more time spent on things not directly related to writing. So whether or not the client/listener, etc. will notice the difference has no bearing on my decision to spend the big bucks because they're not doing the work.

Regarding the conviction held by some that spending big on a Bricasti M7 when only using samples is just turd-polishing - to each his own, I suppose. If I thought the results one can get with samples was an exercise in sonic futility I would have quit 20 years ago.


----------



## Ashermusic (Apr 29, 2017)

JFB said:


> For me the $3000+ of superior is not about the end result. It's about the _getting_ to the end result. I find it much easier to get there with the hardware.
> 
> I could meet, even exceed the needs of the client with only plugins and half what I have invested in sample libraries; but it would mean a lot more time spent on things not directly related to writing. So whether or not the client/listener, etc. will notice the difference has no bearing on my decision to spend the big bucks because they're not doing the work.
> 
> Regarding the conviction held by some that spending big on a Bricasti M7 when only using samples is just turd-polishing - to each his own, I suppose. If I thought the results one can get with samples was an exercise in sonic futility I would have quit 20 years ago.



Well you value your time spent more than your dough and I totally respect that, but at this point of my life and career, I will put in the time.

And yes, _artistically_, I _do_ believe that samples largely are an exercise in futility, but the reality of the need to make use of them means we must soldier on and do the best we can with them.


----------



## Gerhard Westphalen (Apr 29, 2017)

wst3 said:


> here's a thought (and that's all it is)... could it be that hardware devices tend to lend themselves more to tweaking because all the knobs are right there in your face? It is different and using a control surface can help to bridge the gap, but is still isn't the same.



If I'm not mistaken, a huge number of people using the M7 are using the control app for it so they're treating it just like a plugin. Having a single knob on the unit would mean that you have to keep jumping around in menus to find the parameter you want. Having owned a couple of synths like that, I find it very frustrating to have to keep doing that and just ended up never using those synths beyond the preset sounds.


----------



## Anders Wall (Apr 29, 2017)

Gerhard Westphalen said:


> If I'm not mistaken, a huge number of people using the M7 are using the control app...


You are misstaken.
Some might, but most studios I've worked in that had m7m also had the m10.
Best,
/Anders


----------



## JFB (Apr 29, 2017)

wst3 said:


> here's a thought (and that's all it is)
> ...for an old fart like me it seems to have an impact...
> 
> Still need to go to the studio and listen to the example files, but I spent a lot of time last night playing with compressors, and other than the UAD 1176 and UAD dBX 160 it remains a bit of a struggle to get compressors to behave the way I'd like them to. Check that - it is a challenge to get emulations of compressors to behave the way I'd like them to! Others, like the UA Precision series, or Waves C-series make a lot more sense to me, within the confines of a screen based user interface.



I'm an old fart, too (if 52 is an old fart)...

I think it helps to look at analog vs digital as totally different systems. The thing with compressors is the gain detectors can't track as accurately (certainly at extreme settings) as analog because they would need an essentially infinite sample rate, which is the case with analog (as in the range of voltage/amplitude between any two values in an analog circuit is infinite). Plugin compressors (at least within my knowledge/experience) have difficulty with very short release times with complex audio without producing intermodulation distortion, primarily in the bass region. As a test, try running a bass track through a plugin compressor, smash it to death with a release time of 10ms and it will probably sound like it's going through a distortion effect. Or to really freak it out, set the attack time faster than the release. Now with my Dangerous Music hardware compressor through which I run mixes, I can pancake-flatten the audio with a 1ms release and I can't get it to produce IM distortion (audible, at least). Of course I don't do this in practice, but for mixbus duty I prefer analog over digital. This is the same issue when using audio-rate modulation in a synth plugin, as in modulating the OSC pitch with an LFO speed of 100hz vs doing this with an all-analog modular.

I have no experience with UAD so I can't speak to how their compressors in a DSP/native-plugin hybrid system might work differently than a straight native plugin.


----------



## prodigalson (Apr 29, 2017)

Any word on the comparison answer? My money's on B being the hardware.


----------



## JFB (Apr 29, 2017)

prodigalson said:


> Any word on the comparison answer? My money's on B being the hardware.



I'll give it another day and then give the answer.


----------



## wst3 (Apr 30, 2017)

JFB said:


> I'm an old fart, too (if 52 is an old fart)...
> 
> I think it helps to look at analog vs digital as totally different systems. <snip> Now with my Dangerous Music hardware compressor through which I run mixes, I can pancake-flatten the audio with a 1ms release and I can't get it to produce IM distortion (audible, at least). Of course I don't do this in practice, but for mixbus duty I prefer analog over digital. This is the same issue when using audio-rate modulation in a synth plugin, as in modulating the OSC pitch with an LFO speed of 100hz vs doing this with an all-analog modular.
> 
> I have no experience with UAD so I can't speak to how their compressors in a DSP/native-plugin hybrid system might work differently than a straight native plugin.



First of all, 52 is still a pup<G>!

I think your examples are excellent, and I can't think of a plug-in compressor that can pass that test, although I gave up torturing them a long time ago, perhaps the code has improved?

I can provide one counter-example for the synth test - I tried audio rate modulation on the TimewARP 2600 and it worked. Not a trick I pull out every day, but nice to have. It doesn't sound EXACTLY like the hardware, but it's awfully close, and more to the point, it works.

So now I will have to go test my UAD compressors, because I'm curious. 

I will suggest that for normal operation the UAD plugins behave an awful lot like I'd expect their hardware counterparts to behave. At least for the devices I've used.


----------



## Silence-is-Golden (May 1, 2017)

seen from Anders Wall of Sound at the "other" forum (thanks for posting it) :

"Save 20% with LiquidSonics
in the May Day Flash Sale!

Welcome to Spring! In the UK it's traditional to go a little crazy on 1 May dancing around the may pole and crowning May Queens on village greens all around the country.
This year LiquidSonics is getting into the spirit and celebrating with 20% off everything in the LiquidSonics store for one day only. That's including the brand new Seventh Heaven and Seventh Heaven Professional!
Check-out using coupon may-day-discount today, 1 May.

Visit the LiquidSonics Store for 20% Off


Seventh Heaven Professional's Reverberate 2 User Discount Increased

We introduced Seventh Heaven Professional at £249 with a £199 introductory price offer. Reverberate 2 customers could previously get an extra £20 off, but this week we increased the offer to an extra £50 off until 14 May.
You can even use the bank holiday sale 20% off coupon in addition to the Reverberate 2 user coupon for some great savings today!"



I could not let this 1 day price drop go by.
As I currently don't need all the extra's from the professional version it is a good price for a soft bricasti.
Plus: from now on all my mixes automatically sound better! I can use whatever bad samplepool/ plugin, mess up phasing, special placement, use the cheapest softsynths and it will still sound gorgeous! :D


----------



## Phillip (May 1, 2017)

200 pounds here, 150 dollars there etc etc. Then after about 15 "plugin offers" you've spent an equivalent of hardware Bricasti...


----------



## JFB (May 1, 2017)

So it looks like the comparative listening part of this thread has played out, so here's the answer:

A = Plugin (Seventh Heaven Pro)
B = Hardware (Bricasti M7)

Same with the drum loop repeating 4 bar cycle - 1st two bars is plugin, 2nd two is hardware.

Everyone pretty much guessed correctly. I'd be curious to know what differences were heard, especially since I tried to make it difficult to hear the difference. And is the difference meaningful or just "6 of one, half dozen of the other"?


----------



## clisma (May 1, 2017)

What consistently seemed better to me in the examples with the hardware was its transparency and subtlety, its ability to meld with the source in a way the software didn't always do. While the results can be argued with, and I'm certainly firmly in the camp of "close enough for rock'n'roll," there clearly is a difference. @JFB your description and comments abou the software having an accurate profile without being "it" make sense.


----------



## chimuelo (May 1, 2017)

Well I'm definitely noticing Omnispheres EZ Verb was perfect for just a splash, Filters tweaked the decay perfectly, but like every soft verb I tried it turns into muffled weakness on a line array of powered cabinets.
Not so.
Spring and Pro Reverb were weak, but surprisingly cheap little old EZ Verb was perfect for a splash when you don't want it on your main Auxillery Reverb.

Great little effect, noticeable tight pre Delay, great roll off.

Very first time I got hardware quality out of a software Reverb other than DSP accelerated Algos.
FWIW those of us with Keyscape inside of Omnisphere, stick this in a slot with the C7 or Wing Upright, disable Keyscapes Weak stuff.

Nice...


----------



## prodigalson (May 1, 2017)

JFB said:


> So it looks like the comparative listening part of this thread has played out, so here's the answer:
> 
> A = Plugin (Seventh Heaven Pro)
> B = Hardware (Bricasti M7)
> ...



I only listened to the Tchaikovsky example but to me just immediately the hardware had more life and a more 3d soundstage. It didn't color the sound as much as the plugin and was much more transparent. I guess you do get what you pay for.


----------



## Saxer (May 2, 2017)

Doesn't really fit here but I didn't want to create another thread:
Eventide reverb for 47$ until May 7th
https://www.eventideaudio.com/promo/reverb_sale


----------



## benatural (May 2, 2017)

What I noticed with the software verb were what seemed to be clusters of frequency build up in the that you just don't hear on the Bricasti. In my experience you don't get that kind of thing at all with the hardware. It's not easy to shell out that kind of cash, but it's been worth it.


----------



## emid (May 4, 2017)

Here is a video of someone showing a mock up with Lexicon PCM 92 unit.


----------



## shomynik (May 27, 2017)

I can't believe I missed this thread, the audio file links are all dead.  Any chance someone sharing them?


----------



## Tonysound (Jul 28, 2017)

shomynik said:


> I can't believe I missed this thread, the audio file links are all dead.  Any chance someone sharing them?


Bump


----------



## jurek zagorski (May 21, 2018)

any chance for the links?


----------



## shomynik (May 21, 2018)

jurek zagorski said:


> any chance for the links?



Here you go mate, there are a couple of M7 shootouts in there :


----------



## thorwald (Jan 4, 2022)

shomynik said:


> Here you go mate, there are a couple of M7 shootouts in there :



Huge thanks for this. I can definitely tell that the tail on the drum track is smoother, and there is really less buildup with the hardware M7. It's almost like it's audible where the impulse switches happen with Seventh Heaven, and to me the tail is perceivably darker than the hardware version.

To the credit of Seventh Heaven, the tail is super smooth as well, and it's one of the reverbs where the reverb melts into the audio, just not as much as with the hardware, which is more open and transparent. I've never seen what Seventh Heaven does anywhere else in software though, which absolutely justifies its price. Cinematic Rooms comes very close, though because it has a wider spatial sound, it's prone to more frequency buildups, which I'm not particularly keen on.

Just my two cents.

Also, since Christmas is coming up in 11 months, donations by any kind soul are gladly appreciated, we have $4000 to go 😀 Preset switching is a lot easier on the hardware too.


----------



## AudioLoco (Jan 5, 2022)

Weiss did a 1:1 port of their digital hardware for example.

Also, a couple of ms of latency in a reverb/delay processor are really not that important IMHO. 
We are not talking about EQ or compression (generally about insert processors) that need to stay tight for many reasons including phase coherence.
I think digital hardware is on its last legs, and especially in UAD's case it is just about being an anti piracy dongle (which I understand from the company point of view).
It's kind of peculiar there is only one last HW standing (where *most* people agree on its superiority), 
the Bricasti M7. But I believe it is because of financial/market calculations, not tech porting reasons.


----------



## shomynik (Jan 12, 2022)

benatural said:


> What I noticed with the software verb were what seemed to be clusters of frequency build up in the that you just don't hear on the Bricasti. In my experience you don't get that kind of thing at all with the hardware. It's not easy to shell out that kind of cash, but it's been worth it.


Yeah, seems most noticable in lowend and lowmid. Software algos are just...messy. One has to work a lot to make them sound at least passable...or use them very little in relation to dry signal. Really good clean IRs work better for me if I want to go 50-100%.


----------



## JFB (Jan 12, 2022)

Interesting to see this thread resurrected. Still using my M7s for same reasons now as 2017 (and 2009 when I bought them). The only change is I added the Reverb Foundry M7 Link controller plugin and made an External Instrument setup for each in Cubase and now they have all the editing/recall convenience of plugins.


----------

