# Reverbs: Blending artifical sounds with natural recorded space samples



## Arksun (May 27, 2014)

I'm curious as to peoples thoughts and choices regarding reverbs for blending sounds together.

Specifically I mean when you're using say a sample library of instruments recorded in a well defined space (such as say Spitfire with the sound of Air Studio) with either another library recorded very dry, or artificial synth sounds.

Which types of reverb/s do you tend to find work best blending to the sound of a space of another samply library?

Ideally being able to use an impulse of the same building would probably be a good start, but thats not always possible as some places are understandably protective over anyone taking an impulse response.

I'm also curious about reverb blending, using reverb on already reverbed sounds to enhance the sound further without muddying things too much. I've dabbled with this a bit myself but would love to hears others thoughts on this, either using the same reverb plugin twice, or different reverbs working together.

I've found Valhalla Room can be good for adding short early reflections to help enhance the presence of sounds as an insert in conjunction with a main reverb send.


----------



## clarkus (May 27, 2014)

As long as we're talking Reverb, I have a related question.

I've been told from multiple sources not to put reverb on the Master fader of a mix.

But unless I'm mistaken, the engineers (and good ones) I've worked with have put reverb on individual inst's or groups, and then also put both reverb and compression on the entire track as they mixed it down, to "put everything in the same room."

Can anyone clarify this? Why and to what extent is it a bad idea to put reverb on the Master?


----------



## RiffWraith (May 27, 2014)

*re: reverb on the Master*

Most engineers would not do this. Be it film score, R&R, or whatever. Not that it _can't_ be done, but if you are talking console, reverb is almost always returned on chs (or small faders) which are pre master fader.

*re: putting both reverb and compression on the entire track to "put everything in the same room." * 

For the verb bit * with samples *, there are two schools of thought. The first is what you alluded to; the second is that each orchestral section gets it's own verb. I do the latter. In a perfect world, the first would be the way to go - however, when using samples recorded in different spaces, with different mics and different mic positions, and with some samples being drier than others, and others having shorter (or longer) tails, many people - like myself - feel that the end product is better served by getting each instrument/section sounding as good as possible on it's own. If you are, however, working with samples all recorded in the same space... let's say you are doing a track with only VSL... using one reverb - probably with different amounts for each section - might be the way to go.

For the verb bit * with a live session *, many times verb is added; at times it isn't. Typically, there is one verb used. Thought process being - everything was just recorded together in the same space; let's keep it that way. However, I can't vouch for every engineer who has recorded and mixed film scores; is it possible that sometimes, a different verb is used for each section after the fact? Sure it is.

For the compression bit - there are a gazillion and one "right" ways to do this. You can compress each ch, compress some chs, compress each section, compress some sections, compress the master fader, or any combo you can think of. What is the right way to go? Each project is different, and it therefore depends. In the days of mixing down to analog (2-track: music recording studio, and mag: film post studio), a compressor was almost always used on the master fader. Typically, a 33609, or SSL bus compressor. Nowadays, compressors are still used, tho they are not quite as necessary as they used to be, prior to dig. audio. 

*re: Which types of reverb/s do you tend to find work best blending to the sound of a space of another samply library? *

samply? :lol:

This largely depends as well; if you are using something dry (say, Hollywood Brass) that you want to match with something wet (say SF strings), the best way to go is try and find a reverb who's tail length matches SF's. So, load up a SF spic patch, and play one note forte. Then, route reverb to HB, and then load a HB stac patch, and play one note, forte, same pitch as the SF spic. Find a verb that decays for the same amount of time as the hall attached to the SF spic note. Then, try and EQ the verb itself as needed. That should get you pretty darn close.

Cheers.


----------



## Arksun (May 27, 2014)

Thanks Jeffrey. Yes, I've tended to work with algorithmic reverbs just because it gives me more fine control over things, but I'm thinking if I'm really going to go down the sample library rabbit hole I should consider using impulses to get a more natural sounding blend.

Using eq and getting tail length right might just work fine, but then its as much about the physical space being created through the reverb. Granted for a lot of end product consumers they may not notice it in the mix, I guess thats one downside of using a high end monitoring chain is things like the physical space of reverb being more clearly presented highlights difference issues more so you feel compelled to get a closer match and find the impulse of a building structure thats as similar to the adapted church space of say Air.

Come to think of it, I wonder if there's a short sharp percussive sound in Hans Zimmer Drums that could be turned into an impulse to get the Air Studios sound :D


----------



## RiffWraith (May 27, 2014)

Arksun @ Tue May 27 said:


> I've tended to work with algorithmic reverbs just because it gives me more fine control over things...



I have heard people say that before, but I don't agree. I disagree that algo verbs give you more control than convo verbs. It depends on a) the verb itself (sure, some algo verbs are superior to some convo verbs), and b) what the source is. A great verb should sound good on just about anything, but the sound of the verb is largely dependent on what is feeding it. I also don't agree that impulses will give you a more natural sounding blend. It may, but again - depends on the verb and what is feeding it.

If someone does agree that algo verbs give you more control than convo verbs, and you feel that you want to explain how, please do.



Arksun @ Tue May 27 said:


> Come to think of it, I wonder if there's a short sharp percussive sound in Hans Zimmer Drums that could be turned into an impulse to get the Air Studios sound :D



Theoretically you could, but:

1) IRs are best captured when you get the room/space responding to the full range of frequencies. This is why a burst and/or a sine sweep across the entire audible frequency range is typically used. If you use the tail from just a drum, you aren't getting that large frequency range.

2) Even if you were able to successfully make useable IRs in that fashion, I question whether or not you would be able to use them. You of course would not be able to sell them/redistribute them, but.... First off, from the SF front - although you are taking their recordings - for which you do not own, but own a license to use - and using them for a purpose other than what they were intended, that would probably be ok; saying no to that would be like saying you couldn't take their violin recordings that make up Mural, mangle them, and use them in a sound fx track. So, I dont think the problem lies there; it might lie with AIR. I know they will not allow anyone to take IRs of their room, but do they have a right to tell you - a SF license holder - that you can't make IRs of the tails that are baked into the SF recordings? Hmmmm... I can see successful arguments on both sides. That said, if you did that - there is no way anybody would ever know. Not that you would take that as encouragement, of course... 

Cheers.


----------



## Arksun (May 27, 2014)

RiffWraith @ Tue May 27 said:


> I also don't agree that impulses will give you a more natural sounding blend. It may, but again - depends on the verb and what is feeding it.



True enough. Was quite interesting watching Blakus 'making of' video and his use of 2C Audio B2 reverb, he really gets a wonderful sound out of that algorithmic reverb. I demoed their Aether reverb a while back and it didn't gel for me at all, but I'm tempted to demo the B2 one now....


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 27, 2014)

One thing to bear in mind is that it's perfectly legal to use several different reverbs in a mix, in fact it's normal to do that.


----------



## Den (May 28, 2014)

Arksun @ Wed May 28 said:


> RiffWraith @ Tue May 27 said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't agree that impulses will give you a more natural sounding blend. It may, but again - depends on the verb and what is feeding it.
> ...



B2 is the only reverb that don't have it's own sound. You can make it sound like anything!

Here is one attached preset to try.

https://soundcloud.com/dens-place/480-large-hall


B2 is the only plugin reverb that can sound like Bricasti.

https://soundcloud.com/dens-place/bricasti-shootout-1


----------



## Peter Alexander (May 29, 2014)

I used the B2 M7 Shootout as a comparison to a real Bricasti in Lecture 10 of Visual Orchestration 3. Great work, Den!


----------



## Den (May 29, 2014)

Peter Alexander @ Thu May 29 said:


> I used the B2 M7 Shootout as a comparison to a real Bricasti in Lecture 10 of Visual Orchestration 3. Great work, Den!



Thanks

I attached few more presets same style for sharing.

o-[][]-o


----------



## Arksun (May 29, 2014)

Den @ Thu May 29 said:


> B2 is the only plugin reverb that can sound like Bricasti.
> 
> https://soundcloud.com/dens-place/bricasti-shootout-1



The B2 sounds very smooth and rich in that example, its a nice sound for sure and shares the sense of richness with the Bricasti to a degree, but it doesn't sound like the Bricasti example after it in terms of soundstage, which has a much more defined sense of the sound being in a physically enclosed space.

Out of all the software ones available though its definitely one I'm going to check out and demo asap.


----------



## Den (May 29, 2014)

Arksun @ Thu May 29 said:


> Den @ Thu May 29 said:
> 
> 
> > B2 is the only plugin reverb that can sound like Bricasti.
> ...



I understand what you mean.
But that sample is second generation mp.3 and it is really bad damaged.
However I didn't spent too much time only one hour maybe more.
But there is so much options over sound in B2 that I didn't used, like output saturator on the info page. So you can shape the sound between two saturators and really match whatever you want. When I get a chance in some studio with M7 I will match exactly that sound, but I cannot do it with some mp.3 example thought.


----------



## maestro2be (May 29, 2014)

Den @ Thu May 29 said:


> Arksun @ Thu May 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Den @ Thu May 29 said:
> ...



When you can do that, I will buy the software. After I hear examples of it in say Boston Hall A and the Berlin Hall is nice also. Perhaps having a preset package that goes head to head with the ones in the Bricasti. This would save me a lot of money from having to buy several more M7's.

Maestro2be


----------



## Arksun (May 29, 2014)

Den @ Thu May 29 said:


> I understand what you mean.
> But that sample is second generation mp.3 and it is really bad damaged.
> However I didn't spent too much time only one hour maybe more.
> But there is so much options over sound in B2 that I didn't used, like output saturator on the info page. So you can shape the sound between two saturators and really match whatever you want. When I get a chance in some studio with M7 I will match exactly that sound, but I cannot do it with some mp.3 example thought.



If I was to describe the difference a bit more (and I'm only talking of difference, not that one is better than the other), the B2 example sounds more reverberating off a diffused back wall, and the Bricasti example as having a greater sense of corner and side wall reflections in addition to a back wall so if you close your eyes its like you can 'see' the shape of the hall you're in. 

I kinda like both equally though but in different ways. The more diffuse sound of the B2 version though helps reduce more of the ringing that is present in the Bricasti version so there's strengths and weaknesses in whatever diffuse or realistic wall reflection approach one takes towards picking a type of reverb sound. In the end its all in the tweaking and what works for the mix I guess


----------



## Den (May 29, 2014)

maestro2be @ Thu May 29 said:


> Den @ Thu May 29 said:
> 
> 
> > When you can do that, I will buy the software. After I hear examples of it in say Boston Hall A and the Berlin Hall is nice also. Perhaps having a preset package that goes head to head with the ones in the Bricasti. This would save me a lot of money from having to buy several more M7's.
> ...



I Don't know exactly. I will see.

But for you here is shootout preset: "Berlin Hall" attached.


----------



## clarkus (May 29, 2014)

As the Bricasti is 3700., I think I will be nosing around further down the food-chain.


----------



## Den (May 29, 2014)

Arksun @ Thu May 29 said:


> If I was to describe the difference a bit more (and I'm only talking of difference, not that one is better than the other), the B2 example sounds more reverberating off a diffused back wall, and the Bricasti example as having a greater sense of corner and side wall reflections in addition to a back wall so if you close your eyes its like you can 'see' the shape of the hall you're in.
> 
> I kinda like both equally though but in different ways. The more diffuse sound of the B2 version though helps reduce more of the ringing that is present in the Bricasti version so there's strengths and weaknesses in whatever diffuse or realistic wall reflection approach one takes towards picking a type of reverb sound. In the end its all in the tweaking and what works for the mix I guess



Do you have B2?

In this shootout example (Berlin Hall) I used TRI mode like type of reflections, and there is a lot of different modes too. Every mode will sound different with stereo difference if you need it.
I attached pict.
It is like too many possibilities to try.. CONTOUR parameter is directly connected with those modes. Every little change on CONTOUR level changes the reflections from left to right, however you like.( Random, Random-Exponential, Random-Bell, Exponential, Bell shaped, Triangular shaped, e.t.c.)
You can disperse early reflections how you can imagine by the way.
Very, very complex indeed. Never ending story.
:roll:


----------



## clarkus (May 29, 2014)

Arksun, as you led me into temptation, can you say more about

http://www.2caudio.com/products/b2#_overview

How complex / intuitive is the user interface?

I was considering spending 500. and change on an Altiverb, but have been holding back as I gather more wisdom from my betters.


----------



## clarkus (May 29, 2014)

According to a Nov. 2012 review from Sound on Sound vis a vis 2C Audio B2 

No 64-bit support on OS X as yet.


----------



## clarkus (May 29, 2014)

It's a bit dated (2010) but here is a "Top Ten Reverb Plug-Ins" review. Altiverb is here. Lexicon is here. Spaces is here. They haven't dealt with 2C Audio, maybe as it hadn't appeared yet.


----------



## Arksun (May 29, 2014)

Den @ Thu May 29 said:


> Do you have B2?
> 
> In this shootout example (Berlin Hall) I used TRI mode like type of reflections, and there is a lot of different modes too. Every mode will sound different with stereo difference if you need it.
> I attached pict.
> ...



Nope as I already stated earlier I've yet to try it out and was only making a comparison between your hour long reverb patch design to get close to that Bricasti sound. For some reason I'm having trouble with the windows installer, gonna try the trial version on my Mac Mini hopefully that will work!
I'm not quite sure what the rolling eyes smiley is for as I said I enjoyed both reverb examples equally in different ways and never questioned what the range of possibilities with B2 as a whole are. The Blakus video where he demonstrated its use on some brass in particular really impressed me.


----------



## milesito (May 29, 2014)

try the B2 demo...it's free...you'll likely be blown away...i also use spaces.. they sound very different but both are great


----------



## Sebastian (May 29, 2014)

I used your DRY example with one of my patch* " X - Bricasti M7 "* which comes from " *Air X Verb Vol.1 - 2Caudio B2 Preset Expansions " v1.3 *

https://soundcloud.com/ultimatexsounds/ ... i-m7-patch


@ Arksun 
Nice to see you here  
Check the " Air X Verb Vol.1 Preset Expansion" which is a " AIR - Lyndhurst Hall" recreations and more. This is what are you looking for  
The patches are very complex ..... But a lot of things going on there with this Dual-Engine Reverb.

And YES , B2 amazing reverb plug....if not the best. 


Official website : www.ultimatexsounds.com 
and the Topic at V.I 

http://vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.p ... 7ce59c4efa


----------



## clarkus (May 29, 2014)

Does it work on Logic Pro X 64-bit?

The example files sound terrific. 

The # of parameter choices worry me a bit. That's why I was asking about the user interface.


----------



## Arksun (May 29, 2014)

Sebastian @ Thu May 29 said:


> I used your DRY example with one of my patch* " X - Bricasti M7 "* which comes from " *Air X Verb Vol.1 - 2Caudio B2 Preset Expansions " v1.3 *
> 
> https://soundcloud.com/ultimatexsounds/ ... i-m7-patch
> 
> ...



Thanks Sebastian 

Your M7 patch again to me highlights the difference in sound between the B2 and the Bricasti, it still lacks that sense of well defined space and seperation with a less defined but warm rich diffused sound. But then the B2 isn't trying to be the Bricasti and it doesn't make it less good or useful in its own way.

I've yet to hear any plugin reverb that really does what Bricasti does (sadly), but then I haven't heard them all.

The example where you flip very quickly at random points between your Air Lyndhurst preset and the real thing is good work. There's still some slight difference of course but you've captured the essense of Lyndhurst well! 
My favourite example of yours is the air-x-verb-vol1-intro-dry-wet where you have two Lyndhurst presets stacked up, stunning example of enhancing the body of the sound right there. 

Just been demoing B2 myself, its certainly super deep with the amount of control, kinda wish there was a bit more control over the damping and eq though, but having so much control over the ER response in particular is quite something.

B2 does warm diffused rich dense well and I feel its primary strength is being a sound enhancer/thickener, would definitely work comfortably well with a second reverb layer, either B2 again or a different one altogether. I can't say its got me reaching for the credit card quite just yet though, for its price I expect fireworks over the other reverb plugins I've tried, need to spend a little more time with it but yeah, nice reverb.

One plugin reverb I'm definitely looking forward to is the all new one from ArtsAcoustic. They've been working on it for several years now, I just got a feeling its gonna be something quite special.


----------



## Arksun (May 29, 2014)

clarkus @ Thu May 29 said:


> Does it work on Logic Pro X 64-bit?
> 
> The example files sound terrific.
> 
> The # of parameter choices worry me a bit. That's why I was asking about the user interface.



Was just demoing the trial version of B2 right now in Logic X 64-bit / Mavericks, works flawlessly.


----------



## Den (May 29, 2014)

Arksun @ Thu May 29 said:


> Den @ Thu May 29 said:
> 
> 
> > Very, very complex indeed. Never ending story.
> ...



No, rolling eyes are not pointed at you in any sense.
It is like my feeling connected with those last sentence "never ending story".


----------



## Lex (May 29, 2014)

Did I miss it, or nobody mentioned Phoenixverb yet?
If you are going for natural/realistic spaces it's most certainly worth a try.

http://www.exponentialaudio.com/phoenixverb-stereo/

alex


----------



## Den (May 29, 2014)

Arksun @ Fri May 30 said:


> Your M7 patch again to me highlights the difference in sound between the B2 and the Bricasti, it still lacks that sense of well defined space and seperation with a less defined but warm rich diffused sound. But then the B2 isn't trying to be the Bricasti and it doesn't make it less good or useful in its own way.
> 
> I've yet to hear any plugin reverb that really does what Bricasti does (sadly), but then I haven't heard them all.
> 
> ...




On the Info page of B2 there is output saturator.
I f you need more softer sound, you can select one of the Soft modes or Sat modes with choice of output from 0db to +24db. The effect will be the strongest on the 0db. If you choose +6 or other it will be more subtle.

Also another detail is connected with ATTITUDE saturator routing mode, where you can select Pre EQ routing what will create different results also.


I just updated that Berlin Hall preset. More rich, more defined space.
You can download it again.


----------



## Arksun (May 30, 2014)

Alas the trial version of B2 only loads factory presets, but I've had a pretty good play with it now.

Have yet to demo Phoenixverb or Ircam Verb, though I would have to get an iLok first.

I'm pretty happy with Valhalla Room though, you can get a good sense of physical space from that and for its price its an absolute steal.


----------



## Den (May 30, 2014)

Arksun @ Fri May 30 said:


> Alas the trial version of B2 only loads factory presets, but I've had a pretty good play with it now.
> 
> Have yet to demo Phoenixverb or Ircam Verb, though I would have to get an iLok first.
> 
> I'm pretty happy with Valhalla Room though, you can get a good sense of physical space from that and for its price its an absolute steal.




You can put those presets that I posted directly in:Mac:
Library/Application Support/2CAudio/B2/Presets/Full/User/My Presets
directly.

It will work. 

Just adjust the output limiter mode to "Soft I" and Output Limiter Ceiling to +12
(Info Page)


----------



## Arksun (May 30, 2014)

Den @ Fri May 30 said:


> Arksun @ Fri May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Alas the trial version of B2 only loads factory presets, but I've had a pretty good play with it now.
> ...



Ahaaa, sneaky  Yeah that works!
Lovely preset, but again, not like Bricasti in terms of sense of physical space. B2 seems to be more about less defined more diffuse reverb 'wash' for the long tail. Can get a bit more sense of being in a walled space by turning the diffuse control right down but its not really an area B2 is made for imho, Valhalla Room does a better job in that specific department. I think I remember reading somewhere a post by 2C Audio saying Aether was more suited to recreating natural physical space, maybe I should give that one a go again, even though it didn't do it for me the first time I demoed it few years back.

Think I'll check out Samplicity websites free Bricasti impulses next!

http://www.samplicity.com/bricasti-m7-i ... responses/


----------



## Den (May 30, 2014)

Yes, but you also have Oversampling and Interpolation quality render options.

Try this preset to render with Obsession interpolation and Oversampling 4X.
Plugins are limited with CPU power in realtime, however this can be done by rendering offline. Only B2 offers such high quality reverb option.

But the easy way is to put ATTITUDE on FAT mode @ 30 and you'll get more depth.
If you need more, just push it more.

Cheers


----------



## clarkus (May 30, 2014)

Arksun, you say "B2 seems to be more about less defined more diffuse reverb 'wash' for the long tail."

Can someone argue with this if you think it's untrue? I'm interested in the B2 and Den says "offers such high quality reverb option."

Is this dependent on knowing how to tweak the hell out of it?

The demo files folks have posted here certainly sound excellent but I don't know how much trouble it was to dial that in.

I am composing a lot of Dark Drama cues with electric & sampled instruments, only some tracking of acoustic sound sources. Altiverb is tempting me but seems built mainly to drop your instruments into a modeled hall. I get the impression the B2 is giving me a wider array of options, but I don't know at what cost as far as the user-interface, meaning I am I going to have to back to school to run this thing?

So, again, I'm asking about the interface. VCan anyone weight in on this? 

Also what's the CPU usage like on this puppy? I head rumors it's intense.

Apparently the demo comes with a limited selection of presets, so a review from the owners would be so appreciated.

Really appreciated!

I need to buy a reverb.


----------



## Arksun (May 30, 2014)

In the end we all appreciate different aspects of the sound of a reverb, we hear differently and we listen out for different things that we look for. There is no way I can answer the question for you then other than to say that the trial version of 2CAudio plugins are great because there's no noise or fade outs, you can use it fully functioning (apart from saving presets and part of project) for half an hour, at which point you have to reload it, up to a maximum of 80 hours total trial usage. So you've got plenty of time to check it for yourself and learn all it's ways before making the decision to buy or not.

My personal opinion on B2?, yes it's highly tweakable and has a lush sound that many will absolutely love, but no, I don't consider it some ultimate reverb that can cover the sound of all others. There is this particular 2C audio flavour of sound that runs through it that you're either going to like or not.

The built in distortion and compressor is a nice touch and you can even disable the reverb part altogether and just use it as a distortion and compressor plugin! So it offers a fair bit for the price, check it out (and check out Valhalla Room and VintageVerb too)


----------



## clarkus (May 30, 2014)

I appreciate that overview very much. I'll be checking it out.

While I'm doing that, if you have time for a follow-up question, I wonder if you see Altiverb as a reverb with less colored sound if it's own. Or to ask this another way, is it more versatile than the B2?

Same question with Valhalla & VintageVerb (sorry, I guess that's 3 follow-up questions).

This is in the context of not being able to buy 3 or 4 Reverbs right now. I'm looking for a good choice that will upgrade me from SoundDesigner but won't make me wish in a month that I had a more versatile option.

I didn't realize you get a compressor bundled in with the b2. Missed that somehow. I have to say this adds to my temptation.

Okay. Time to download my demo.


----------



## Den (May 31, 2014)

clarkus @ Sat May 31 said:


> Arksun, you say "B2 seems to be more about less defined more diffuse reverb 'wash' for the long tail."
> 
> Can someone argue with this if you think it's untrue? I'm interested in the B2 and Den says "offers such high quality reverb option."
> 
> ...




This is the most flexible reverb that exists, if you go further to investigate it.
Very simple:
B2 has Size and Time like first parameters. It is very simple.
Another parameter is the main one. The Range. If you go less, the space will be more simple, I mean less walls less complex. If you go higher reverb becoming more smooth and more dark too. With this parameter you have Random parameter that creates more random behavior of delay lines. If you go less it will be more clean reverb or more will create that rich effect.
Curve is Geometry of the space. I using it on -50 like most of the expansive hardware. That sense of space is very well pronounced.
Contour parameter is connected with modes like Exponential or Random. It defines how reflections will be distributed in the all picture.

Density is well known parameter.
Diffuse is also well known parameter with sub menu option 4 modes. Extreme is the most powerful mode and you don't need oversampling with this mode.
Modulation is also very flexible on both Range and Depth.

Last two are EQ filtering with selectable vast amount of filters. Check Air filters, they sounds awesome. 
Damp is also very well known parameter with big list of selectable filters.

On the end is saturation Attitude parameter with many types of sounds with percentage control.

That is all about controls. 
There is another mode dual engine setup where you can blend two reverbs to produce more dense reverb.
Cascade slider connects two engine in Serial or Parallel or between them.

It is really quite simple when you know the basics.
There is four expansions for B2 plus more independent expansions.

Last night I mixed one song with those new presets and I was stunned with detail in reverb in the mix. Somehow it can give that very smooth and dense background that will not push source to background (Vocal).

This was my dream to make.


----------



## Den (May 31, 2014)

clarkus @ Sat May 31 said:


> While I'm doing that, if you have time for a follow-up question, I wonder if you see Altiverb as a reverb with less colored sound if it's own. Or to ask this another way, is it more versatile than the B2?



Impulse response reverbs are less powerful than algorithmic reverbs.
I could never reach that soft response in the high's. You can have only strong mid's in response without many frequency control over it, and that is all. My own experience with sampled reverbs is over.

Also you need to know when you sample something in specific sample rate you have a problem. See the graph.


----------



## clarkus (May 31, 2014)

I appreciate all the info, I really do!

"Term: Delta Sigma audio encoding (DSD)
Definition:
Process for sampling an input signal. In the realm of digital content, this approach is generally seen as applied to sound, where it is often described as "oversampling." The delta-sigma (some say "sigma delta") converter digitizes the audio signal with a very low bit depth (generally 1-bit) but a very high sampling rate. The oversampling and subsequent digital processing reduce aliasing and other distortion or noise, potentially to a greater degree than LPCM encoding. Meanwhile, delta-sigma elements are a normal part of the pulse code modulation (PCM) encoding process. One-bit delta sigma modulation for sound is almost exclusively disseminated to endusers on the tangible media format called Super Audio CDs (SACDs), developed by SONY in association with Philips, where the prevalent term is Direct Stream Digital."

Now that we have that out of the way, what does the graph tell me about this reverb? Sorry to be obtuse.


----------



## Den (May 31, 2014)

clarkus @ Sat May 31 said:


> I appreciate all the info, I really do!
> Direct Stream Digital."



Only way to go..

http://www.superaudiocenter.com/Products.htm


----------



## clarkus (May 31, 2014)

Well, by definition it's not the ONLY way to go. But I hear your enthusiasm.

Is this what you use in lieu of Logic, Cubase. etc?


----------



## Den (May 31, 2014)

clarkus @ Sat May 31 said:


> Well, by definition it's not the ONLY way to go. But I hear your enthusiasm.
> 
> Is this what you use in lieu of Logic, Cubase. etc?




No, this is separate system for acoustical recordings. In the high end studios still using tapes and some studios using Pro Tools on higher sample rate later, but Tape is still superior. Some studios have DSD systems.
Customers deciding anyway.
Another option:
http://www.merging.com/products/pyramix/dsd-dxd


----------



## Den (May 31, 2014)

However I don't care too much about simulations, because I like to design my own reverb spaces like this one:
Single engine preset B2 no oversampling, "Bell" mode on Contour parameter.
Left -Right dispersion of reflections in Bell mode.

https://soundcloud.com/dens-place/b2-deneb-hall-2


----------



## clarkus (May 31, 2014)

I've got a couple questions about the B2, Den. Hope you don't mind & have the time.

I appreciated your detailed note about the different parameters. It appears its full potential is not tapped by simply employing presets, but are there presets, as a place to start?

Or (alternately) documentation of useful setting for the various parameters (i.e. "Here is a useful reverb for drums / here is one for acoustic gtr. / here are some emulations of halls, etc")

Or is the user dialing everything in?

Also, is the compressor a separate plug-in, or part of the interface, and I wonder what your opinion is that?

Still not clear on CPU usage, if several instances are going to tax my MacBook Pro. Perhaps you could offer an opinion on that?

Do you work for the company? Are you a developer? 

Thanks. Glad to be getting guidance.


----------



## Andrew Souter (May 31, 2014)

Hi,



clarkus @ Sat May 31 said:


> Or (alternately) documentation of useful setting for the various parameters (i.e. "Here is a useful reverb for drums / here is one for acoustic gtr. / here are some emulations of halls, etc")
> 
> Or is the user dialing everything in?



We have various templates for suggestions for starting points for different instruments as is generally indicated by the preset names. For example there are folders called "piano", "drums" etc. These are good things to try for the suggested instrument types.

..but ultimately there are no rules in B2. If something sounds good on a particular instrument, it IS good. We don't care much if it is labeled as Hall, Chamber, Drums, Piano, whatever.

At least that is our design aesthetic in making the product. Preset designers, such as Den, may offer their own spin on how to achieve their own particular flavor for the family of presets they are designing.



clarkus @ Sat May 31 said:


> Also, is the compressor a separate plug-in, or part of the interface, and I wonder what your opinion is that?



The dynamics section of B2 offering Gating, Ducking, Compression etc, as well as relative dynamics that can act like "auto gain" functions. We think of these features as supplemental to the needs of the primary application which is reverb and spatial effects. We don't intend for them to replace a general purpose compressor for example. However, the gating action in B2 is as clean and as precise as the top stand-alone gate products on the market based on my testing while designing these features. I would say, at the moment, if you wanted to use B2 only as a gate, ignoring all reverb functionality, it is quite impressive in this functionality, minus less common "
special features" such as independent L and R gating and other things sometimes found in advanced stand-alone gate products.

I terms of pure compression, I think there are other products on the market at are better suited for pure compression needs, and would not consider B2 to be a fully functional compressor for normal musical needs. It the context of compressing reverb signals, it is quite awesome, but this is a rather specific need that differs some compared to the needs of pure compression of a normal audio track such as vocal/drums/gtr. etc...




clarkus @ Sat May 31 said:


> Still not clear on CPU usage, if several instances are going to tax my MacBook Pro. Perhaps you could offer an opinion on that?



CPU usage in B2 varies drastically in terms of preset settings. It is possible to design a preset that uses almost zero CPU resources. It is also possible to design a preset that uses all available CPU resources for a given CPU core, or more. On average, the statistical norm for presets tends to be on the moderate to high side of expected CPU usage compared to competitive products . This is simply b/c the nature of the algorithm is much more complex than the average competitive algorithm and offers incredible fidelity that is not found in other products. 

There is also a natural tendency to "turn things to 11" in B2, simply bc most other products only go to 7 or 8 metaphorically, so the extremes that are possible for the first time with B2 are fertile ground to explore. But it is wise to realize that having the ability to go to 11, does not necessarily mean it is advisable in all cases. Sometimes moderate or low settings are just as good if not better to use for a particular musical example. It depends on the context.

CPU usage is variable depending on:

Density/Diffusion Mode: Nano, Lo, Hi, XTRM (each uses more than 2x more CPU than the previous... XTRM vs nano is 10x more CPU usage)


Oversampling: 1x, 2x, 4x (each requires more than 2x as much CPU power as the previous. 4x is NOT recommended for real-time use. It stresses the cache/RAM systems of modern CPUs too much to be realistic to use in complex projects. Use 2x for real-time and 4x for bounces if you want the ultimate fidelity.)

Modulation: disabled, Lo, Med, Hi

Used engines: only 1, or both

Damp Filter choice: some new filter choices such as Air A, and Air B are complex and use extra CPU.

Attitude On/off

Dynamics On/Off

Diffusion On/Off

etc.

B2 uses only as much CPU as is required for the given preset. Lowest CPU preset to highest is easily over 150 times as much CPU usage. This is a HUGE range.

Using XTRM mode with Oversampling for example, can use a lot of CPU resources. There is no way around that. It is a HUGE amount of calculations to be preformed.





clarkus @ Sat May 31 said:


> Do you work for the company? Are you a developer?



Den does not work for us officially. 2Caudio consists of me, Andrew Souter, and Denis Malygin. Den (Deneb Pinjo) is friend of ours who has been a big fan of our products since Aether, and has become very involved in preset design for our products. He is a beta tester for us, and we have contracted him to help us with making preset expansions for our reverbs on a few occasions. He does really great work, is really helpful to the community, and we are very happy to have him as a good friend and colleague.


If you have other specific questions you'd like to ask me directly, I am happy to answer, otherwise I'll try to leave you guys alone, as I don't want to monopolize the discussion. B2 is designed to be a very open-ended product and there is really no right or wrong way to configure it. That is our design intention. If certain classes of presets prove popular for certain applications, that is wonderful, and we are more than happy to have other people's perspectives on such topics. o-[][]-o


----------



## clarkus (May 31, 2014)

Thanks, Andrew. Very helpful.


----------



## clarkus (May 31, 2014)

Andrew, I installed the Demo on my Mac, but I don't know where it is. It's not showing up in any obvious place in Logic Pro X (there's no new option for a reverb, for example)

A search for it only turns up the installer.

Where should I look?

I'm running OS 10.9.3

And Logic ProX


----------



## Den (May 31, 2014)

clarkus @ Sun Jun 01 said:


> Andrew, I installed the Demo on my Mac, but I don't know where it is. It's not showing up in any obvious place in Logic Pro X (there's no new option for a reverb, for example)
> 
> A search for it only turns up the installer.
> 
> ...




Andrew answered better than I could.

Here is the picture.


----------



## jamwerks (Jun 1, 2014)

Some good Reverb info here. Guess I need to demo B2!


----------



## clarkus (Jun 1, 2014)

Yes, I'd expect it to show up there, but it is not there.

I allowed default installation (i.e. I did not direct it to install in a place of my choosing).

What would you say my next step should be>

I can re-install & place i in my external hard-drive.

I agree the goal should be for it to appear as a choice in "Audio Units" but I don't know how to make that happen. 

Thx


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Jun 1, 2014)

A have a few thoughts on this topic that I'm sure many people won't agree with, but that's ok. Before discussing reverbs I'd like to say this:

If you really want a cohesive, homogenous orchestral sound, stick to one library that was recorded in the same space with the same engineer. Simple as that. Before you roll your eyes and argue that "performance" is more important, consider this: In an ensemble, whether it be a choir or an orchestra, you are performing as a single unit, not a soloist. I don't care how amazing the performer is, if he's sticking out from the rest of the group, it takes away from the emotional delivery as a whole. When you mix, you similarly make tweaks to individual tracks based on how it makes the entire piece sound, not how awesome it makes that track sound when it's in solo. In my opinion, a mix mash of dry and wet orchestral libraries ruins the illusion that there's an orchestra sitting in front of me a lot quicker than a lack of true legato etc. 

If you're set on using Dry sample library A with Wet sample library B. I would layer like sections of library B behind A if at all possible. For example, if you wanted to use LASS with Spitfire products, I would use one of the spitfire string libraries as an ambient layer behind it. Lass would then act as a spot or close mic of sorts and you're overall orchestral ambiance would remain somewhat consistent.

As far as reverbs go, there's nothing out there that touches the Bricasti in terms of realism. It's a very special piece of gear that requires more processing power than most people's computer's could even provide. That being said, a "realistic" sounding reverb may not be what you need to get things to sit right in a mix. It could be a a delay feeding in to a chorus that's feedng in to a reverb that's being Eq'd and gated. Or no processing at all. You really have to just experiment and use your ears and experiment some more.

- O


----------



## clarkus (Jun 1, 2014)

I appreciate your perspective, Oliver. Good, coherent reasoning & as I'm still reverb-shopping, it makes me think about an outboard option. I wish I could afford a Bricasti.

I'll only add that not all of us are writing music that is of a piece with the model you present, which is orchestrally-based. I love that sort of material & of course it's a big part of the movie world. But I'm writing cues with a lot of electronics & sometimes electronics married with a smorgasbord of acoustic / sampled sources that leads in the end to something somewhat unfamiliar. So the notion that we (the audience) need to picture an orchestra sitting on front of us is not the only working (or effective) model. And the way reverb is designed - or used - can be malleable thereby.

Not to say you might not want to drop what you've got into a room (or a modeled room) if it leads to a happy result.


----------



## Arksun (Jun 1, 2014)

I think Oliver was just stating specifically for creating the sound of an orchestra, using the violins, violas, trumpets etc all from one library recorded by same engineers in same space is much more preferable to using lots of different libraries recorded in different spaces with different equipment and mix engineers.

It's also why I have a lot of respect for composers like Blakus and his ability to be able to glue different libraries together in such a cohesive way.

Clarkus, just spend time with the demos and get a feel for them. Definitely check out Valhalla Room as well if you can, its really superb for creating a sense of being in real space. Not exactly Bricasti level, but really not all that far off. Don't let the low price full you they could have easily charged 4x as much for the quality it delivers. For applying to electronic type sounds you might prefer Valhalla Vintage though.

I tried out some of the Bricasti impulses but, its just not like the real hardware. The somewhat static nature comes through I think. Impulses are fantastic for creating specific effects though, like if you're trying to recreate the sound from being sat in another room with it coming through the wall, or stuff like telephone conversations etc.


----------



## clarkus (Jun 1, 2014)

Thanks, Arksun. Appreciate your guidance. I'm about to see if I can demo Valhalla.

Is there a particular model of reverb you're referring to? The Ubermod and the VintageVerb look to be very different animals.


----------



## Arksun (Jun 1, 2014)

clarkus @ Sun Jun 01 said:


> Thanks, Arksun. Appreciate your guidance. I'm about to see if I can demo Valhalla.
> 
> Is there a particular model of reverb you're referring to? The Ubermod and the VintageVerb look to be very different animals.



I was specifically referring to Valhalla Room in the previous posts. There's also Shimmer, which is geared more towards long lush ambient type reverb sounds, and VintageVerb, which is more of a homage to older Lexicon style algorithms.

Ubermod is a highly tweakable multitap delay/chorus beast that too can be programmed to sound like a reverb. 
The two I would demo for reverb duties are Room and VintageVerb

http://www.valhalladsp.com/valhallaroom


----------



## Oliver_Codd (Jun 1, 2014)

Good point Clarkus! For some reason I thought the original poster was talking specifically about the orchestra, but looking back now I see that is not the case. 

Regardless of the genre or source material, my favorite mixes have a perceived sound stage. Be it a large hall or something much more intimate, I'm always after that 3 dimensional quality. If your working with a bunch of samples that all have different spacial characteristics, your setting yourself up for a challenge from the start. I'm not sure what you're aiming to achieve personally, so I can't really state an opinion one way or another. From my experience, getting things 95% there from the production choices and source material is a much better option than trying to create something that doesn't already exist through mixing technique. It could just be that I'm a shitty mixer though :D


----------



## Arksun (Jun 1, 2014)

Yeah this topics got somewhat side tracked into capabilities of specific reverbs :D

But my original post was indeed about the art of blending either different libraries or natural sounds with electronic ones and trying to convey a sense of unified space, which like you Oliver I feel can be an important part of the sound of a mix (although there can be exceptions, there are no rules of course, why not plunk a massive synth lead with crazy long reverb tail on top!). 
What tips people might have to help with the cohesive and glueing aspects, which may not just include reverb but other fx too.


----------



## clarkus (Jun 1, 2014)

Great question & one i'm interested in. Sorry to hijack the thread. I'm shopping in a big way this week for a reverb & this is all of greet interest to me.


----------



## clarkus (Jun 1, 2014)

I've now got 2C and Valhalla in the audio units folder in LogicX.

You're got to restart for them to show up.

Over & out.


----------



## JFB (Jun 1, 2014)

Arksun @ Sun Jun 01 said:


> Yeah this topics got somewhat side tracked into capabilities of specific reverbs :D
> 
> But my original post was indeed about the art of blending either different libraries or natural sounds with electronic ones and trying to convey a sense of unified space, which like you Oliver I feel can be an important part of the sound of a mix (although there can be exceptions, there are no rules of course, why not plunk a massive synth lead with crazy long reverb tail on top!).
> What tips people might have to help with the cohesive and glueing aspects, which may not just include reverb but other fx too.



This multi-library blending problem was solved when I got a Bricasti M7. I just set it to preset 1 Large Hall and forget about it. The big difference to me between the M7 and plugins shows when you send several sources into the reverb simultaneously. With the plugins, the individual qualities of the instruments eventually collapse into an indistinct reverberant wash that sounds "de-coupled" from the sources going into it. With the M7, you can literally throw anything into it and this never happens.

I do use plugin reverbs (both algo and convo) occasionally as an insert on individual sources when I want a different "ambient tone" before sending to the M7. But I never use plugin reverb on an aux send.

I don't claim that a Bricasti M7 is the only way to solve this problem, but it saved me so much time and headache that it was worth the investment.


----------



## clarkus (Jun 1, 2014)

Thanks, JFB

If anyone had an old Bricasti they want to let go at fire-sale prices, I am standing by.


----------



## Daryl (Jun 1, 2014)

The problem with the Bricasti is whilst it sounds fantastic, in order to deal with the modern production process one would need up to eight of them. I tend to use mine on Strings and then use plugs for other sections.

D


----------



## re-peat (Jun 1, 2014)

JFB @ Sun Jun 01 said:


> (...) This multi-library blending problem was solved when I got a Bricasti M7. (...)


I solve all mine with SPAT and the Phoenix, and, occasionaly, with the Relab and the UAD EMT140. But SPAT is always part of the configuration.

Different types of music needs different approaches of course, and I can imagine that if one does mostly dark-ish electronic stuff, that SPAT’s specialities are perhaps not required and that 2caudio’s products make for a excellent choice, but if you need to place SampleModeling or VSL instruments in amongst a mock-orchestral surrounding that has a distinct ambience of its own (say, Spitfire or Cinesamples), I can’t think of anything more perfect than SPAT to do it with. In fact, offer me the choice between a farm of Bricasti’s and a single license of SPAT, and I’d go with the latter every day of the semaine, believing, as I do, that whatever finesse sets a Bricasti apart from the crowd is largely wasted on a mock-up anyway. Even if it is present in the mix, there’s so much else that distracts from it, that it might just as well not be there.

Now you might wonder, doesn’t the same thing apply to SPAT? Well, no, because SPAT has a few tricks up its sleeve that solve very specific mock-up related problems in ways that ‘just reverb’ (no matter how good) can’t quite as effectively, such as positioning, or, and this is where SPAT shines, the difficult matter of creating a convincing spatial illusion around anechoic or almost anechoic sources.

But again: with mostly synths and electronics in the mix, and no real need for spatial consistency among the various tracks, a very good reverb is probably the way to go.
(The Phoenix, by the way, is a *very* good reverb. As is its nephew, the R2.)

_


----------



## Den (Jun 1, 2014)

*Re*

not important. Deleted


----------



## JFB (Jun 1, 2014)

re-peat @ Sun Jun 01 said:


> ...believing, as I do, that whatever finesse sets a Bricasti apart from the crowd is largely wasted on a mock-up anyway. Even if it is present in the mix, there’s so much else that distracts from it, that it might just as well not be there.



I agree with this but, alas, my so-called "mock-up" has to be a deliverable ready for broadcast so I'll take all the "finesse" I can get. 



> Now you might wonder, doesn’t the same thing apply to SPAT? Well, no, because SPAT has a few tricks up its sleeve that solve very specific mock-up related problems in ways that ‘just reverb’ (no matter how good) can’t quite as effectively, such as positioning, or, and this is where SPAT shines, the difficult matter of creating a convincing spatial illusion around anechoic or almost anechoic sources.



It's true, the M7 will not do source repositioning like SPAT, but I don't think it was designed for that purpose. There is virtually no overlap in the adjustable parameters between these two products, which suggests to me very different design goals. I don't work with orchestral sample sources that are (or almost) anechoic so source spatial repositioning is not in issue for me. All the libraries I use have position and varying degrees of ambience baked in and don't feel a creative need to change that. If I don't like them as they, I use something else.

I remember demoing SPAT about 4 years ago and it was almost like a magic trick on VSL samples in the way you describe (I don't use VSL anymore). I just didn't like it as a general main reverb on the aux send (even in reverb mode) and continued using the TC4000 as my main verb until the M7 came out. However, when Flux releases a 64bit version of SPAT, I will certainly re-evaluate it.


----------



## John Rodd (Jun 6, 2014)

Daryl @ Sun Jun 01 said:


> The problem with the Bricasti is whilst it sounds fantastic, in order to deal with the modern production process one would need up to eight of them. I tend to use mine on Strings and then use plugs for other sections.
> 
> D



That may be your workflow (to use many reverbs) but truly great mixes can easily be done with one Bricasti M7, in my opinion.

 

I am fortunate that I own many nice hardware reverbs (including three x M7) ... but I just wanted to add my opinion.....


----------



## Daryl (Jun 6, 2014)

John Rodd @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> Daryl @ Sun Jun 01 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the Bricasti is whilst it sounds fantastic, in order to deal with the modern production process one would need up to eight of them. I tend to use mine on Strings and then use plugs for other sections.
> ...


Yes, of course, but as you have to bounce down each stem separately in real time, imagine how long it would take when using 7 or so stems.

D


----------



## John Rodd (Jun 7, 2014)

Daryl @ Fri Jun 06 said:


> John Rodd @ Fri Jun 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Daryl @ Sun Jun 01 said:
> ...



Sorry if I misunderstood.... It was not clear to me that you were taking about delivering stem mixes.

"modern production process" means different things to different people. :wink: 

To some people it might mean just using multiple reverbs..... 

On some projects you dont HAVE to deliver stem mixes...... but yes on some you do.

I bet that many people here don't deliver stem mixes... and to them, one Bricasti M7 might increase the quality of their mixes, over whatever plugin reverb they have now.


----------



## jamwerks (Jun 7, 2014)

It would be interesting (and maybe depressing) to hear some side-by-side comparisons of a mix using 1 instance of an M7, against one using just B2, Phoenix, or IRCAM.

With BML stuff, seems an M7 might not be worth the money, but I'm wondering with the Hollywood stuff and others, if the difference is still that noticable.

Also to note that TC Electronic is moving to the UAD platform, with plugs coming I believe in July-August. If they port VSS4 (and at a reasonable price), that might be a future option for us orchestral mocker-upers!


----------



## John Rodd (Jun 9, 2014)

jamwerks @ Sat Jun 07 said:


> It would be interesting (and maybe depressing) to hear some side-by-side comparisons of a mix using 1 instance of an M7, against one using just B2, Phoenix, or IRCAM.
> 
> With BML stuff, seems an M7 might not be worth the money, but I'm wondering with the Hollywood stuff and others, if the difference is still that noticable.....



In my experience.... how much of a difference an M7 hardware would make it partially dependent on how good the mix is...

if the mix has clarity, punch, definition, and width.... then the M7 will really shine..... and be more obvious.

One of the tricks of the M7 is that it blends like crazy..... so if need be, you can add more of it than you might be able to with a lot of other reverbs... and it doesn't sound separate from the music. It just blends.


----------



## clarkus (Jun 9, 2014)

I just thought I'd offer my review of the B2 here, as I've taken up a lot of time asking other people for opinions. I've been using it for about 10 days now.

I've got no connection to the company. This is just my "shoot-from-the-hip" & not particularly comprehensive impression. I'm linking to a review if you went to dig in.

I'm still determining if multiple instances will be a problem for me as far as CPU usage, as I don't have a big, powerful computer set-up. I can get back to you on that.

Other than that (possible) issue, I like this reverb very much. To my ears it's a significant bump up from SpaceDesigner, stock in Logic -- and that was my motivation, to come up with something that would impart a richer magic.

I would characterize the reverb as "transparent," which is an adjective someone else has employed. It allows the detail of the track to come through without noticeable coloration, but also the reverb effect itself does not call attention to itself, which is very cool. This is all subjective, of course, but I find I can make a track (or project) quite wet, and yet only notice the reverb when it's turned off. There's a point, of course, where too much is too much, and you're suddenly in a mile-long tunnel. But it's terrific to be able to push the limits, if you want, and not have the reverb overwhelm by calling attention to itself rather than the track.

Space Designer is a convolution reverb & this is algorithmic. There's been some pretty interesting discussion here in recent weeks about ways to use these two animals together, and what they each do well. I'm still exploring the topic. I'd be very curious to hear this reverb side-by-side with MIR, a convolution reverb, which may provide (feel free to weigh in) a more authentic simulation of the room you're putting your instruments in. But I do find as I dial in different rooms with the B2, I can hear the walls moving in and back, and the dimensions changing up ("Damp Cathedral" has become a favored pre-set). So for a third the price of MIR, this may be where I live for awhile.

There's a lot still to learn about this software. there's the "Single Engine / Dual-Engine" aspect, providing (at a cost of CPU usage) some very rich environments, where both engines are running in parallel. And, of course, one can move beyond the pre-sets and dial in just about anything.

The demo is a good deal. After downloading for free, it's just inconvenient enough to remind you you can't live like this forever (your chosen settings need to be reset for a given project on re-reopening), but you get many hours of great use to consider that this will probably be money well-spent.

This review gets into more detail:

http://soundbytesmag.net/2caudiob2/


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jun 10, 2014)

Arksun @ Tue May 27 said:


> ... Was quite interesting watching Blakus 'making of' video...



Just curious what video this was? I would be interested in checking it out.

Thanks,
Marc


----------



## marclawsonmusic (Jun 10, 2014)

Nevermind... found it.

I bet it was this one... http://blakus.com/template-tutorial-3-mixing-188

Cheers,
Marc


----------



## milesito (Jun 10, 2014)

yes that's the one!


----------

