# Hardware Reverb



## OleJoergensen (Sep 27, 2015)

I dont have experience with hardware Reverb but after reading about using reverb to gluing a mix together, I watched this example about Lexicon PCM92 and I think it sounds great! But its a 2300 USD hardware. One more to add to the wishing list




.
Anyone who uses hardware reverb?


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 27, 2015)

Nothing but hardware and DSP.
I route hardware into projects via AES or ADAT.
TC Fireworx are cheap used.
My favorite for live work and recording.


----------



## tack (Sep 27, 2015)

I'm a little amazed if outboard reverbs (or indeed most outboard gear in general) are still relevant these days. Sure, 10-20 years ago, you probably did need custom ASICs. But general purpose CPUs are damn fast today. And if they're not, my GPU has a massive pile of cores sitting completely idle while I'm in my DAW (and calculating reverb is a similar problem to ray tracing).

So if outboard kit actually sounds better, it's surely because of secret algorithmic sauce and not because of the hardware itself.

Ok, I've poked the bees nest. Let's see what happens next.


----------



## Vin (Sep 27, 2015)

You can get the http://lexiconpro.com/en/products/pcm-native-reverb-plug-in-bundle (Native version) for 1/4 price of the hardware, unless you hate money. Identical algorithms. I know that there are some people that'll say that hardware sounds better/"more expensive"/"creamier" or whatever (just like with synths), but I know some people who have both are say that they're basically the same. Lexicon (Michael Carnes, the guy who created the algorithms) says it's the same thing, so...

Take a look at this thread, post #54 sums it pretty much.


----------



## synthpunk (Sep 27, 2015)

If you want hardware look for a used Kurzweil Rumour. Best converters for the money. And much less than Lex.

If software is ok alternative, Vin hit it, Lexicon Native. Even Vahalla Vintageverb and Room for $50ea can do allot of this now.

Tack, I like to think another gear site is for the bee's, here it's about musicians helping musicians.


----------



## tack (Sep 27, 2015)

aesthete said:


> Tack, I like to think another gear site is for the bee's, here it's about musicians helping musicians.


I've come to learn that musicians have strong opinions too.


----------



## StrezovSampling (Sep 27, 2015)

The video above by Adam is great. He also did one for the Native version, so you can judge yourself whether the hardware does a better job than the software version.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 27, 2015)

Hardware is not out dated for Eurorack geeks, and definitely not out dated for live performers.

Sometimes I rather enjoy a good sounding Native Reverb at home when using Samples or VSTi synths.
Especially the ones claiming to emulate a Lexicon or Bricasti. These Native instruments sound like ass without something to mask their quality.
Lexicon and Bricasti in themselves are emulations of space.

So when a Native developer does an emulation, of the emulation, just the process described there says a lot.

Take it a step further.
Sewer Sound #1: On the 1st stage of emulation the hardware sounds full and precise, and can actually be modulated since it does not bow down to an OS and CPU that demand permission to calculate every single step made.

Sewer Sound #1 now emulating the emulation.
Sounds alright I suppose in headphones, but on a powered stage monitor or PA it sounds distant, behind the array as if scared to touch the speaker cone.

Then modulating any parameter reveals zippers and crackles.
No life, weak quality compared to hardware, but hey it's "new" and in style, and gosh it's cheap.

I'd rather be broke and have great FX used sparsely, than to have money in my pocket and every sound bathed with long dripping tails of sewage.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 27, 2015)

Chim, not a criticism as it is perfectly OK, but my guess is that 90% of the people here do not use samples live much. And while I love good hardware but I am not convinced that if I had a Bricasti or 2 here, the end result of how my sample-based cues bounced to audio would sound significantly better.


----------



## Studio E (Sep 27, 2015)

I do indeed own a Bricast M7. I also own the Lexicon PCM bundle, EW Spaces, everything that comes with Cubase, and the ValHalla vintage verb. All different flavors. I love the PCM bundle, I love Spaces a lot, but there is something special to me about the Bricasti. It's probably psychological because of the bank I spent on it, but to me, it always adds a little dimension that just isn't there with the lexicon stuff. That said, I could easily get by with any one of these and make great sounding mixes (well, at least as well as I know how). The problem is that you can't really use outboard hardware in the composing stage if you are playing live into Cubase because of the added latency, at least that's my case with the Orion 32. With an added hardware loop in the audio chain, it adds like 22-40+ ms of latency. So I usually use a Lexicon PCM patch as a final tail on orchestral stuff while I'm composing, but on final mixdown, I replace that with the Bricasti or, I render my composition into a mastering project and use the Bricasti there. No regrets on the purchase, but I am indeed an in-debt studio owner. I'll be way happier about it (and everything else) when it's paid off


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 27, 2015)

Eric, would you be willing to bounce out 2 versions of a cue for us to hear; one with the Bricasti and one with a convolution + algorithmic reverb tandem to compare? I would love to hear that.


----------



## Studio E (Sep 27, 2015)

Hey Jay, let me look into my recent projects to see what I have that I could do that on. Just to be clear, when it's orchestral, I usually render out a 2-buss mix with Spaces included in the rendering, and then use the M7 in the mastering project of the 2-buss, so even when I do use it, I've already used Spaces in the mixing beforehand. So either way, I end up with a combination of convolution and algorithmic reverbs. With only one M7, I think it would be a nightmare to print all those reverb tracks (in realtime), one per stem essentially.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 27, 2015)

Studio E said:


> Hey Jay, let me look into my recent projects to see what I have that I could do that on. Just to be clear, when it's orchestral, I usually render out a 2-buss mix with Spaces included in the rendering, and then use the M7 in the mastering project of the 2-buss, so even when I do use it, I've already used Spaces in the mixing beforehand. So either way, I end up with a combination of convolution and algorithmic reverbs. With only one M7, I think it would be a nightmare to print all those reverb tracks (in realtime), one per stem essentially.



Eric, I am good with whatever you think is the fairest representation of the two. My friends who use good hardware talk about the "depth" dimension it adds and I am not necessarily skeptical that it could be so, but I have yet to hear a comparison where I could hear that difference.


----------



## patrick76 (Sep 27, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> Eric, would you be willing to bounce out 2 versions of a cue for us to hear; one with the Bricasti and one with a convolution + algorithmic reverb tandem to compare? I would love to hear that.


That's a great suggestion! StudioE, it would be wonderful to hear anything you would be willing to share. Thanks for considering putting something together for us to hear.


----------



## Studio E (Sep 27, 2015)

I'm working something up and I'll put up a new post for it in a few.


----------



## OleJoergensen (Sep 27, 2015)

Thank you for your answers, its very interesting- its al about good Audio quality .
Im certainly a newbie compared to you, replying here. 
I did listen to the hardware and the plugin version by Adam. Maybe its the different composition but I like the hardware better, it had a more clean and calm sound. With the plugin version there is some kind of artifacts in the reverb tone, even I also think the plug in sound good to. 
Daily Im using Spaces reverb, which I think is great too. But Im struggling with the audio quality but I think the result I get now is better then half a year ago so maybe its just about practice.

-Eric a comparison would be awesome!


----------



## Vin (Sep 27, 2015)

EastWest Lurker said:


> Eric, would you be willing to bounce out 2 versions of a cue for us to hear; one with the Bricasti and one with a convolution + algorithmic reverb tandem to compare? I would love to hear that.



+1, great idea, Jay.

However, please name it "version 1" and "version 2" or something like that, don't say which is which upfront.


----------



## Studio E (Sep 27, 2015)

Whoops, sorry Vin, too late. I just put up another thread for it in the same forum and I did indeed name all the tracks. I'm sorry. Hopefully it will still be of use.


----------



## OleJoergensen (Sep 27, 2015)

There is an other demo here, hardware vs software....


----------



## EastWest Lurker (Sep 27, 2015)

OK, fortunately by the time I got to this, I only knew that I was listening to version A, then B, then C. These were my notes.

A + clear, very light, maybe even a little dry
B = less clear and transparent but still nice
C = overall a little warmer richer sound, yet still clear

My preference: C, then A, then B


----------



## GULL (Sep 27, 2015)

I don't use a hardware Reverb, and not an expert. But I am a computer engineer basically. There is no scientific basis for an argument like 'Hardware is better .." Can't understand the point. I respect opinions of expert users though.


----------



## chimuelo (Sep 27, 2015)

Well I can sum it up for you with an example of a DSP Based Console sold to Broadcast Corporations.
The Fairlight Constellation.
It's packed with Scope DSP Plug Ins, stock from the old Creamware days and some new ones from the developers in France known as DigitalAudioSoft (DAS).
Sounds better than my 3500 DSP rack too.
It has it's own operating system, so the FX quality is quite noticeable as is the real time parameter modulation you can add to tailor your sound in real time.
You just can't do anything with Native reverbs other than turn them on and listen to the tails.

When I go to the Big 3D and Surround Theaters I never hear Reverb tails, and I assume that any Scoring considers the very rooms they will be having their music played.

The only place I ever hear these Reverbs are on forums.
One good thing about the endless demos of this reverb vrs. that one and this track with giant tails vrs the other giant tails is that it brought down the price of hardware.
So I love Native reverb for that reason.

My rant is not made to anger developers but rather unite them in an attempt for musicians to take a stand for once and demand an OPERATING SYSTEM MEANT FOR MUSIC.
Otherwise wallow in your mire and wait for hardware to bottom out.
I'll take a Bracasti M7 for 2250 ankyuvarymush.


----------



## jrrshop (Sep 27, 2015)

tack said:


> I'm a little amazed if outboard reverbs (or indeed most outboard gear in general) are still relevant these days. Sure, 10-20 years ago, you probably did need custom ASICs. But general purpose CPUs are damn fast today. And if they're not, my GPU has a massive pile of cores sitting completely idle while I'm in my DAW (and calculating reverb is a similar problem to ray tracing).



Personally, I've got a chain of a few reverbs on the aux send of my board. I actually prefer the sound of the UAD-2 reverbs (Lexicon 224, AKG BX20, EMT 250, and Ocean Way Sound) over all of them but we don't have spare I/O's or DSP and the whole point is to have a dedicated reverb that's only a knob turn away.


----------

