# Spaces is now available



## stonzthro (Jan 11, 2011)

Looks interesting for sure: http://www.soundsonline.com/Spaces/?id= ... 2e0bcddde2

Watch the videos to get a good feel (or DL the 10 day trial)


----------



## rJames (Jan 11, 2011)

*Re: Spaces is released*

I can't load the videos here. I wanna watch it, not download it. Oh, well.


----------



## Elfen (Jan 11, 2011)

Sounds amazing!


----------



## madbulk (Jan 11, 2011)

Elfen @ Tue Jan 11 said:


> Sounds amazing!


Who cares? That sucker is kool lookin'. 
Chromey!


----------



## Dan Mott (Jan 11, 2011)

Sounds awesome!


----------



## OB.one (Jan 11, 2011)

Pristine and Deep :wink:


----------



## IvanP (Jan 12, 2011)

Can anyone remind me which piece is played in the piano video? :D 

Thks!

Ivan


----------



## gravehill (Jan 12, 2011)

I wonder if this is the first product to boast words "24-bit" and "Vintage Analog" in one GUI? ~o)


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 12, 2011)

Sounds lovely. No ERs?

EDIT - no, not Emergency Rooms. Though that would be cool.


----------



## wqaxsz (Jan 12, 2011)

I wonder how this sounds compared to a Bricasti M7.


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 12, 2011)

Nice sound and nice price! It doesn't mention being 64 bit on mac, which would be a deal breaker for me. /\~O


----------



## EvilDragon (Jan 12, 2011)

Sounds great. However unnecessarily oversized interface.


----------



## Danny_Owen (Jan 12, 2011)

For the ER's I suppose if you wanted to do it that way you'd use the ACME storage rooms- that's what I'm thinking anyway, seems to just thicken things up.

Sounds really quite amazing. And I love the simplicity, it's all just done for you. Hooray for presets!


----------



## noiseboyuk (Jan 12, 2011)

Danny_Owen @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> For the ER's I suppose if you wanted to do it that way you'd use the ACME storage rooms- that's what I'm thinking anyway, seems to just thicken things up.
> 
> Sounds really quite amazing. And I love the simplicity, it's all just done for you. Hooray for presets!



I sorta wondered that re the storage rooms, but I don't think it would have the same effect... IMHO you'd still need something else for the ER on close miced stuffs.

But yeah yeah yeah I love the simplicity too.


----------



## Danny_Owen (Jan 12, 2011)

you might well be right Guy... only one way to find out! Will be downloading the trial later for sure


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 12, 2011)

Whoa. Nice without restrictions.


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 12, 2011)

Need to hear it with some dry VSL stuff through it! o=<


----------



## brianmusic (Jan 12, 2011)

I really really like the cello sound from the demo Into The West. I'm actually writing a cello piece too and have the solo cello sample from LASS but it sounds not quite right to me. (one of the reason I think because of the detuned issue in the higher register.) Could anyone please tell me where's the cello from in that demo? I'll appreciate your help, thanks!!


----------



## Jaap (Jan 12, 2011)

Been fooling around with it for a bit and really like it so far. Blends nicely EW stuff also with dryer libraries like LASS.

Sound is really clear and cpu usage low actually and runs smooth in 64 bit Sonar.


----------



## OB.one (Jan 12, 2011)

"Could anyone please tell me where's the cello from in that demo? I'll appreciate your help, thanks!!"

Hello Brian,

For me the cello in the demo is simply played by a cello player and not coming from any samples library ... unless it is the new cello from sample modeling ? :wink: 

Best Regards

Olivier


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 12, 2011)

brianmusic @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> I really really like the cello sound from the demo Into The West. I'm actually writing a cello piece too and have the solo cello sample from LASS but it sounds not quite right to me. (one of the reason I think because of the detuned issue in the higher register.) Could anyone please tell me where's the cello from in that demo? I'll appreciate your help, thanks!!



He said he recorded a cello player in his studio. Of course.


----------



## Ranietz (Jan 12, 2011)

I'm no expert on reverbs but this sounds amazing to me. I wonder how this would sound with EWQLSO Gold (I don't have an iLok so I can't try it out).


----------



## windshore (Jan 12, 2011)

I may be accused of stating the obvious, but did they compress the crap out of these demos or what? I guess it's one way to hear the verb!

kinda impressive....


----------



## Colin O'Malley (Jan 12, 2011)

I'm seriously impressed by these demos. SOLD. It all sounds warm, smooth and open to me. I didn't think I needed any more reverb until I woke up this morning. Blast you instant download purchase. You'll be the death of me. 

Colin


----------



## Pzy-Clone (Jan 12, 2011)

Ouch , this is like ....seriously impressive!
A must have...but i wonder , it would be nice to hear the reveb on actual samples as well..not only clear good live recordings...tsk .

I watched that video with the 2 steps from hell recording....yeah, sure it sounds amazing, but how could you possibly make that piece sound bad anyway ?

Oh well, i can grab the demo i guess...


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 12, 2011)

Sounds great! I am very impressed, Nick!


----------



## madbulk (Jan 12, 2011)

EvilDragon @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> Sounds great. However unnecessarily oversized interface.


So... I shouldn't be thinking, "hey I'll get a dedicated LCD so I can look at my pretend big shiny reverb box persistently?" Cuz I was.


----------



## madbulk (Jan 12, 2011)

EvilDragon @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> Sounds great. However unnecessarily oversized interface.


So... I shouldn't be thinking, "hey I'll get a dedicated LCD so I can look at my pretend big shiny reverb box persistently?" Cuz I was.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 12, 2011)

Ranietz @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> I wonder how this would sound with EWQLSO Gold.



Good Q. I asked on the SO forum if Spaces would include the original EWQLSO recording irs, and the answer from Doung was yes. 

http://www.soundsonline-forums.com/show ... hp?t=31124

Cheers.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 12, 2011)

wqaxsz @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> I wonder how this sounds compared to a Bricasti M7.



prolly not as good


----------



## Pietro (Jan 12, 2011)

After spending some time with Spaces, I can say, that it will make for a great finalizing reverb.

- Piotr


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 12, 2011)

Interesting. Must try it out. I use a lot of VSL stuff so this would be greatly beneficial even though the new VI PRO includes a smooth reverb.

I wonder if you use the EW reverb on VSL whether your computer will explode though. 

All these new products are making it hard for me to follow my New Year's resolution!!! Dammit EW and VSL!!!!


----------



## Brobdingnagian (Jan 12, 2011)

Looking forward to trying the demo. IS IT 64 BIT MAC???????????????


----------



## OB.one (Jan 12, 2011)

"All these new products are making it hard for me to follow my New Year's resolution!!! Dammit EW and VSL!!!!"

... and we are just the 12nd of January ... :twisted:


----------



## TuwaSni (Jan 12, 2011)

Hmmm... Sounds OK - not great but OK. Any idea how much it is - nothing on the EWQL site to indicate the damage report. Not putting prices on things is getting to be a very annoying occurrence as of late. Frankly the practice has lost many a sale as I won't purchase from any place that cares so little about their customers as to hide their prices.


----------



## LOU AU (Jan 12, 2011)

I was going to update to Altiverb 6 yesterday (for $279) when I read the announcement. Sounds very good to my ears. Any idea what rooms were sampled? "Burbank Studio" could be quite a few different places. I was looking forward to Todd AO in Altiverb.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jan 12, 2011)

In the orchestral department, it helped to have absolutely stellar examples to start with to use to demonstrate the reverb. I think it sounds great though - there is a lot of chaotic reflections I'm hearing which is reminiscent of the old Sony 777. I like that the mud factor is missing. $299 sounds like a no-brainer to me.


----------



## snowleopard (Jan 12, 2011)

I'd say it sounds pretty darned good! Especially for the price. I can see how this makes it hard to shell out triple the amount, or more, for Alitverb, or Lexicon's PCM reverb. Only drawback I see is as ED says, it takes up a lot of screen real estate. 

How to people feel this compares to Aether? Liqusonics? Curious how some feel it handles not so much perfect room simulation, but old-fashioned staples of reverb that a plug like the Redline does so well (early reflections, long smooth tails, etc)?


----------



## madbulk (Jan 12, 2011)

Frederick Russ @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> In the orchestral department, it helped to have absolutely stellar examples to start with to use to demonstrate the reverb. I think it sounds great though - there is a lot of chaotic reflections I'm hearing which is reminiscent of the old Sony 777. I like that the mud factor is missing. $299 sounds like a no-brainer to me.



I was thinking the same thing.
Not about the sony. I don't know anything about that box at all.
But that the piece was an ideal demo. Is the trial version full function? Will we get to hear demos of non TJ, non live orchestra?


----------



## Udo (Jan 12, 2011)

*There will be expansions if it sells well.*

Nick mentioned on their forum that if Spaces sells well, he plans to reinvest some of the money into an addition, using venues in Europe and Asia.


----------



## muziksculp (Jan 12, 2011)

Udo @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> *There will be expansions if it sells well.*
> 
> Nick mentioned on their forum that if Spaces sells well, he plans to reinvest some of the money into an addition, using venues in Europe and Asia.



I'm quite sure that Nick will be taking a trip to Europe very soon ! 

QL-SPACES is a great sounding IR based reverb, and for $299 , it is a fantastic deal. (I Imagine if the price was $499. ~o) It will still sell pretty well :mrgreen: )

I still like algorithmic reverbs, they add a different character, compared to IR based reverbs, and find Algo. Rev. sometimes do a better job, well.... It all depends on the sound you are trying to achieve.


----------



## dcoscina (Jan 13, 2011)

This is an amazing verb. Might have to buy it.


----------



## midphase (Jan 13, 2011)

Colin O'Malley @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> I'm seriously impressed by these demos. SOLD. It all sounds warm, smooth and open to me. I didn't think I needed any more reverb until I woke up this morning. Blast you instant download purchase. You'll be the death of me.
> 
> Colin




Colin, you use a Bricasti...I would love to hear if this reverb is good to the point where you'd consider putting your Bricasti on eBay?

To me that's the real test, if you feel strongly that this reverb could replace your hardware one...then you'd be selling me on it too!


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 13, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Jan 13 said:


> Colin, you use a Bricasti...I would love to hear if this reverb is good to the point where you'd consider putting your Bricasti on eBay?



Haha, what a tough question.

Whatever he says is better would take away some glory of the other product which probably both deserve much praise.

Unfortunately I have no Bricasti (yet) but I can say that Quantum Spaces in conjunction with the new RoomHunter/Nebula for the first time lets me do something the Bricasti is usually praised for ... after adding it you think 'hmm, sounds like a nice recording' instead of 'sounds like a nice reverb'. Here is a test recording we did the other day (it was just a one pass take right off the bat on the occasion of a rehearsal):

http://www.frischat.com/music/20110113_Liebesleid_master.mp3 (http://www.frischat.com/music/20110113_ ... master.mp3)

Only little flaw here is that Spaces behaves a little touchy in Reaper and makes it crash easily. But that would not stop me working with it.


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jan 13, 2011)

Brobdingnagian @ Wed Jan 12 said:


> IS IT 64 BIT MAC???????????????



Not yet, it should go 64 bit mac at the same time as PLAY. They're saying hopefully Q1 (but who knows, they previously said Q3 of last year).


----------



## Ed (Jan 13, 2011)

DAMN is that Hollywood Strings in the "Little Ben" demo????


----------



## Craig Sharmat (Jan 13, 2011)

midphase @ Thu Jan 13 said:


> Colin O'Malley @ Wed Jan 12 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm seriously impressed by these demos. SOLD. It all sounds warm, smooth and open to me. I didn't think I needed any more reverb until I woke up this morning. Blast you instant download purchase. You'll be the death of me.
> ...



Lets say it does not sound like the Bricasti but blows away what you use for your IR verbs, does that still not make it a fairly simple choice?


----------



## Ed (Jan 13, 2011)

Super Strength
Nick Phoenix

Was it really Nick's piece? I thought it was TJ from their first release... :S


----------



## eschroder (Jan 13, 2011)

I think those pieces are from TSFH.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6CgbF59hYM


----------



## Ed (Jan 13, 2011)

eschroder @ Thu Jan 13 said:


> I think those pieces are from TSFH.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6CgbF59hYM



Yes I know that, but it was my impression that TJ wrote that track not Nick. It was in their first Volume 1 release where you could tell which tracks were by TJ since they all sounded live


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jan 13, 2011)

http://www.twostepsfromhell.com/invincible_booklet.pdf


----------



## Ed (Jan 13, 2011)

Ahh well thats interesting. I guess he had recorded that beforehand since it sounded real back in Volume 1 when the rest of Nick's tracks sounded like QLSO


----------



## Marius Masalar (Jan 13, 2011)

Bugger bugger bugger this sounds unbelievably rich!

This might be the thing that pushes me over to PLAY...especially with the friggin' 50% off ridiculous NAMM offers for upgrades.

*sigh* guess I'll wait to see what other wonders are announced.

Seriously though, major kudos to you guys for this plug: truly impressive sound.


----------



## reddognoyz (Jan 13, 2011)

I have to say this really plays to EW's strengths. While I malignPlay as being too simplistic and featureless, I think EW's sounds are simply the best. Th[/img]is 'verb sounds fantastic and I believe I'm buying.


----------



## tumeninote (Jan 13, 2011)

Hannes_F @ 1/13/2011 said:


> Here is a test recording we did the other day (it was just a one pass take right off the bat on the occasion of a rehearsal):
> 
> http://www.frischat.com/music/20110113_Liebesleid_master.mp3 (http://www.frischat.com/music/20110113_ ... master.mp3)
> 
> Only little flaw here is that Spaces behaves a little touchy in Reaper and makes it crash easily. But that would not stop me working with it.



Very good Hannes! I enjoyed your playing as well.


----------



## tommalm (Jan 13, 2011)

Just downloaded the demo for this, and it sounds fantastic!

But one thing, I cant seem to find a 32-bit version of the plugin, only the x64 bit version. As I almost always run Cubase in 32-bit this was a bit of a letdown. Play installs as both 32-bit and 64-bit. 

Am I missing something?


----------



## dannthr (Jan 13, 2011)

the installer should have both.


----------



## midphase (Jan 13, 2011)

Craig Sharmat @ Thu Jan 13 said:


> Lets say it does not sound like the Bricasti but blows away what you use for your IR verbs, does that still not make it a fairly simple choice?



Dunno since I'm kinda considering purchasing a Bricasti or a Lexicon PCM 96.

Tell you what...if you guys think it blows Altiverb away...that's good enough for me!


----------



## Colin O'Malley (Jan 14, 2011)

Regarding a hardware Bricasti m7 compared to Spaces (after only a few hours, so take this with a grain of salt): Spaces holds up well to my ears, but they are different. Something about the m7 becomes a part of the sound a touch more vs. reverb on top of the sound (not sure I'm wording that very well). QL seems really warm and dense So many of Nicks IR's have that warm woofy openness that we all got from Todd A O/ Altiverb (but I like spaces better). All the instrument specific options seem really powerful. I would need a rack full of m7's to do anything like that. I think a mix done with either verb will sound great. 

Colin


----------



## madbulk (Jan 14, 2011)

This is silly. It's a question of waiting for a new Altiverb to come out or not, maybe.
But on the Bricasti, it's not as though one purchase negates the other. 
If you're in the market for an m7 you can probably swing the 299 for Spaces without really connecting those two dots.
99.5% of us are not weighing out getting m7's, conservatively estimated, I think.


----------



## midphase (Jan 14, 2011)

Brian,

I don't think it's silly, plus the money saved would be put to good use.

The truth is that there are both pros and cons to outboard gear, so if Spaces gets closer to the sound of a hardware unit than other plugin reverbs, it's a legitimate consideration.

I was very close to purchasing Altiverb last year when they announced the new version at NAMM. Now a year later not only the new Altiverb is still not out, but AudioEase was a no-show at NAMM....hmmmm.


----------



## Frederick Russ (Jan 14, 2011)

Colin O'Malley @ Fri Jan 14 said:


> Something about the m7 becomes a part of the sound a touch more vs. reverb on top of the sound (not sure I'm wording that very well).



Actually this is one of the best targeted descriptions of it I've seen that fairly nails what others have said about the m7. (By the way, seems with your track record and credits, it might not be a bad idea to contact Casey @ Bricasti Designs as an official endorser - would be cool exposure.)

Its amazing to look at the economics of hardware based units versus software. Based on manufacturer suggested retail prices alone, four units (4 m7m reverb processor mainframes plus the m10 remote control) will set you back a little over $14.5k (a $200 savings over just getting four of the regular M7s. When you bump it up to the eight maximum for the remote, the price goes to $27.3k which is a $2200 savings over eight regular M7s). Of course, shopping around will get you better deals, but these packages seem more suited to large established recording studios with write offs in mind. I think however that at least one unit for a small project studio makes sense.


----------



## madbulk (Jan 14, 2011)

Kays,
I shouldn't have characterized it as silly. I apologize.
I don't think anyone is gonna say, "The Bricasti is no longer the only thing out there that sounds like the Bricasti." 
And shy of that, raves about Spaces, Altiverb 7, or some remarkable Algo-verb to come aside, the bricasti is still a must have, for some. And I'm guessing you.
But a trip to Hawaii would be nice too.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jan 14, 2011)

Boss, do you want me to sweep these rooms? :D  

Seriously: I haven't had the time to check it out, but of course I'm very interested if the IRs are locked (which I would have done for this concept) or if you can load IR files from other sources?


----------



## synergy543 (Jan 14, 2011)

deleted


----------



## Mike Connelly (Jan 14, 2011)

Peter Emanuel Roos @ Fri Jan 14 said:


> Seriously: I haven't had the time to check it out, but of course I'm very interested if the IRs are locked (which I would have done for this concept) or if you can load IR files from other sources?



No import or export of IRs. Verb engine and IRs are one package.


----------



## Revson (Jan 14, 2011)

Frederick Russ @ Fri Jan 14 said:


> Its amazing to look at the economics of hardware based units versus software. Based on manufacturer suggested retail prices alone, four units (4 m7m reverb processor mainframes plus the m10 remote control) will set you back a little over $14.5k (a $200 savings over just getting four of the regular M7s. When you bump it up to the eight maximum for the remote, the price goes to $27.3k which is a $2200 savings over eight regular M7s). Of course, shopping around will get you better deals, but these packages seem more suited to large established recording studios with write offs in mind. I think however that at least one unit for a small project studio makes sense.



Something to consider: a couple years I bought an M7 at a great price (thanks to a friendship with a store manager). I was compelled to sell it a few months ago, and (tax included) ended up with about a hundred dollars more than I paid for it two years previously.

Of course not everyone is going to do as well as I did on purchase (and in fact most dealers I think stick to Bricasti's request that they sell strictly at list)...the point is, unlike most software, much of what you pay for a Bricasti is banked, not spent.


----------



## Joe S (Jan 14, 2011)

Why would you want to import impulses into software that has almost no controls??
I think the point od Spaces is the impulses just sound right and so no tweaking is required. My feeling is I am always beating a dead horse with Altiverb. Lots of controls that can't fix what wasn't thatvgreat to begin with. I don't really get the Comparison to Bricassti really.


----------



## jon wayne (Jan 16, 2011)

Can somebody tell me where the .dll installs to? I have the stand-alone working, but can't import into Cubase5.


----------



## jon wayne (Jan 16, 2011)

found it!! Sounds great.


----------



## alligatorlizard (Jan 17, 2011)

It does sound great! Have tried it on all sorts of solo instruments or sections and compared with the reverb I've been using happily for the last year or so there's no doubt Spaces sounds far richer and more alive. 

Next task to test it out on full mix, and regarding full mixes, I've a question for the EW people, or anyone else who might know: 

The instrument/section specific presets for the So. Cal. hall all load up with quite different Wet levels. eg, vln_vla wet signal level is about -16db, for brass it's -9, for winds it -6 or thereabouts, for all strings it's -12. I'm just wondering what the thinking is behind this - eg is there a reason to want brass wetter than strings etc? 

I'd have thought that if several sections are to sound like they're all playing together in the same hall, each of these should have the same wet level (all else being equal) - while the So Cal instrument-specific presets are different IR's, they're all recorded in the same hall, only difference being location on stage (correct me if I'm wrong here) - so I can't see any need to compensate for different reverb lengths or timbres. Just to be clear, my question is not about what wet level sounds best on each instrument - but about the _relative_ wet levels when several instrument-specific presets are used on their respective sections across an orchestra. 

Of course, what sounds good is good, but I'm curious whether these preset wet levels are set the way they are for a reason - or if I should just ignore them?


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 17, 2011)

I don't know their exact rational but I certainly frequently find that I feel the need to swim the strings more than the brass in my mixes. I usually control that by the amount of send but in their sample libraries EW tends to do more of the work for you than some of their competitors by pre-stage positioning etc. so that is perhaps part of their thinking with the Spaces presets.


----------



## Jack Weaver (Jan 17, 2011)

Nick P. said in the EW Forum that the preset wet/dry balance settings were meant for channel inserts. 

He recommended simply knocking down the dry signal and adjusting the wet signal level when using it on sends for multiple instruments. Ya know, regular engineering stuff. 


.


----------



## alligatorlizard (Jan 17, 2011)

That's exactly how I'm doing - Spaces on fx channel, dry signal rolled all the way to the left. Now usually on a send channel i'd set the wet signal to 100% (on the reverb plugin) and send instrument channels through it at appropriate levels, but with Spaces, I'm sending VI's thru it at 0db, and using Spaces wet knob to control the ammount. The reason I'm doing this is because i got the impression the wet level settings loaded with a preset are there for a reason. What I'm trying to figure out is whether EW really recommend the brass to be wetter than the strings (etc) when using the several of instrument specific presets on the same piece. 

If these level presets are just a general guide for what sounds good when one reverb's loaded on its own, that's fine - however my confusion is whether these preset wet levels are meant to work in relation to each other when you are using an instrument specific reverb for each section.


----------



## Ashermusic (Jan 17, 2011)

I have been playing with this this morning, comparing it to Altiverb 6 and Space Designer. It sounds warmer and yet more transparent to my ears than the other 2. In tandem with my UAD EMT Plate 140 and 250 this is going to be a terrific sound IMHO.


----------



## jamwerks (Jan 17, 2011)

Anybody have also VSL Convolution reverb and done some comparisons?


----------

