What's new

Hearing reverb differences?

I assure you that I feel exactly the same way about Reverberate as you do and really any other plugin that has that behavior. It's an instant turn off because 95% of what I like and do doesn't need that level of reverb unless it's an effect and even then, it's to much. That one reverb level would destroy the whole mix for me.

Could I "eventually" get it to sort of emulate the my Bricasti hardware? Yup, sure could I bet. Problem is, every time I change rooms or want another preset I have to spend endless time figuring out how to remove 90% of the sound to get it to match the hardware. No way, no thanks. In my opinion, 7H is instant gratification for people who hate drowning levels of reverb and prefer a "clear" sounding reverb versus a very colored reverb. To me, a Bricasti leaves the instruments almost in their naturally recorded dry tone sense (think of VSL) but gives them magic without sucking the life out of it (please don't start a war that VSL sounds lifeless) lol. That's not some peoples preference but it's mine.

I think it would be beneficial for you to demo 7H while it's still on amazing sale. It is a potential game changing experience for anyone who's a Bricasti lover and can't afford one. It's really good in my opinion.

Yep, that's exactly it. I think I'll try the 7H trial see how it goes! Once again, thanks for helping me think through this stuff. Much appreciated!
 
I was able to improve the Bricasti presets a lot by tweaking some things in Rev3. I agree that the factory presets seem to be particularly bad... I called up, for example, the Boston B hall in both 7H and Reverberate. at first I was like wow, the rev3 preset of BostonB is really bad! My impression is that they made the Fusion IR's, but didn't spend that much time dialing in awesome presets with them. They could have gone a lot further. Instead they moved on to develop 7H and other plugins.

But one of the things that is cool about Rev3 is that there is a lot of room to experiment, but you have to think about things a different way, that is perhaps less intuitive then using the controls of say 7H, but still you can make things sound a lot better...

Here are some things I did to get the BostonB preset in Rev3 to sound a ton better and much much closer to what I hear in 7H for the BostonB.

  1. Turn down or off the Fusion Mod rate.

  2. add some HF and LF rolloff....similar as the 7H preset. The Rev3 factory preset has no EQ curve at all applied.

  3. Adjust the Shape Stretch parameter in Rev3 to get the decay time to match what you hear in 7H.

  4. Regarding ER vs Tail..the way to handle that is to load another instance of the BostonB IR until IR slot#2. The factory preset is only using one IR slot. Load the same IR into the other slot as well...then you can play with the envelope parameters of the two different IR...where one accentuates the ER section of the IR and the other accentuates the tail. Then you can simply use the cross-fading knob to control how much of each one you want, thereby adjusting the balance of ER to tail.

  5. You can accomplish other kinds of fine tuning by using the two-IR trick...have one be lower frequency content vs the other with higher frequency content, etc..

  6. 7H does have the VLF knob, which is replicating something that is in the Bricasti...a special feature if you know what to do with it...and I doubt this can really be replicated with Rev3. But maybe..
Anyway, I got it a lot closer after some tweaking like that.

But anyway, the point of Reverberate3 is really not to emulate the Bracasti. Its more of a creative IR player...you can put any IR's you want in there and then get creative with it. On one hand that is powerful and cool, but on the other hand, its not going to automatically sound good and can easily be made to sound bad. And you have to know how to use it as a tool to accomplish some of these things...rather then simply twisting the "decay" knob in 7H, for example.

And I think the IR sampling is a little deeper with 7H but I could be wrong, I think almost for certain it adds the VLP related IR's, for example. But still, the Rev3 versions can be made to sound substantially better then the factory presets. and if you start combining with other IR's from other places, you can start to do all kinds of interesting things that are totally outside the realm of possibility in 7H.

I believe 7H has been hugely popular mainly because its just dead simple to use and sounds good without messing the details too much.
In another thread, I wrote about something similar using the Samplicity IRs in Waves IR1. Using 3 to 4 instances of IR1, you can achieve a sound that is almost exact to the 7th Heaven sound. It involved a similar concept... having one instance for early reflections, one for the tail, one for the sub emulation, and using the same eq parameters, etc. You then adjust each instance and volumes according to the Bricasti presets. Since I use Reaper, I just grouped all of those instances within a parent track which handled the routing, etc.

7th Heaven's IR sampling is definitely deeper though. They sampled nearly every knob combination for ERs and Tails rather than relying on stretching the IRs out by retiming the decay. So that is a difference. Plus, the GUI in 7th heaven just makes it so dang easy to use. But - the point here is that it is possible to have a much better emulation of a Bricasti with the IRs if you set it up like this rather than just "playing back a single IR inside a plugin."

Bricasti is not my personal preference for reverb, but it is definitely a beautiful verb! Michael Carnes certainly knows what he is doing!

-J
 
1. First off, the instrument presentation is larger. Against any reverb I throw on this machine, none of them can create the same size image of the instrument that it does all the while achieving the same room sound. The whole image and soundstage just sounds bigger and wider. The instrument seems to meld with the room in a magical way without pushing away the instruments natural qualities. It is instantly noticeable when doing an on/off scenario of each tested reverb I tried.

Maestro, thank you for your extensive insight into the differences you hear between the hardware Bricasti and the various plugins. You speak of the instrument presentation as being "larger". Is there any chance you might be able to provide even a short snippet audio .wav file of your choice that demonstrates this? Also, it would be great to also hear the dry unprocessed sound so that the rest of us might be able to compare with our plugins and possibly learn exactly what you mean by "larger" presentation by the Bricasti? And if it's not too much trouble, could you also use a dry woodblock and a short snare hit (just single hits) as well, as this is the best way I personally can hear the detailed differences between reverb settings (even though it's not a typical musical context). I hope this is not too much to ask, and I hope you find this of possible interest as well, as I certainly realize you probably have limited time and many other things to do. If possible though, I'd really appreciate hearing this as I'd like to learn about what you are describing. And if not, I certainly understand. This is purely out of my interest and desire to learn more as I am a certified reverb fanatic (I've owned many hardware Lexicons, Quantecs, and many others which is why I'm curious). Thanks. Cheers, Greg
 
Maestro, thank you for your extensive insight into the differences you hear between the hardware Bricasti and the various plugins. You speak of the instrument presentation as being "larger". Is there any chance you might be able to provide even a short snippet audio .wav file of your choice that demonstrates this? Also, it would be great to also hear the dry unprocessed sound so that the rest of us might be able to compare with our plugins and possibly learn exactly what you mean by "larger" presentation by the Bricasti? And if it's not too much trouble, could you also use a dry woodblock and a short snare hit (just single hits) as well, as this is the best way I personally can hear the detailed differences between reverb settings (even though it's not a typical musical context). I hope this is not too much to ask, and I hope you find this of possible interest as well, as I certainly realize you probably have limited time and many other things to do. If possible though, I'd really appreciate hearing this as I'd like to learn about what you are describing. And if not, I certainly understand. This is purely out of my interest and desire to learn more as I am a certified reverb fanatic (I've owned many hardware Lexicons, Quantecs, and many others which is why I'm curious). Thanks. Cheers, Greg
I will see what I can do. I don't have time this week though as things came up. I do have a few additional things that have raised their heads that I believe have closed the gap even more. I will update as soon as I can test this weekend but the difference could be something more simple than I expected.
 
Interesting to read your thoughts on this reverb, and in comparison to such a lauded piece of hardware.
It's a reverb that seems to only rarely get mentioned. Not sure why. Maybe in part due to the complexity, wealth of options or price.

I'm no reverb specialist. I just use what sounds good. And while my main motivation for buying it was as a character and ambient/sound-design reverb, I just find that as a 'standard' reverb it just sounds great on everything I use it on. Since owning it, I sold both of the Valhalla plugs I'd previously used (No shade on VDSP, as their plugins are great). It's now the only 3rd-party 'verb I own. I still use my DAW stock 'verbs, but this is mainly because of B2's CPU hit, but also 'cause I sometimes prefer convolution and because Logic's Chromeverb is so quick to dial in.

Would love to see B2 get not just a facelift, but also perhaps an improved UIUX.

Which of the expansions do you recommend? I already have 'Imagination'

Cheers :)

I was extremely tempted by the recent Liquidsonics sales, but I ended up buying B2 instead. On x4 oversampling it's amazing.

I wonder how Adaptiverb would compare with the Bricasti M7. Adaptiverb's been my go-to "effect" reverb---I love the sound almost as much as B2, but I can also use it heavily without adding mud. Huge CPU hit when not in "preview" mode but I can combine Adaptiverb in "preview" and B2 on x1 oversampling without major cpu issues.
 
Last edited:
I will see what I can do. I don't have time this week though as things came up. I do have a few additional things that have raised their heads that I believe have closed the gap even more. I will update as soon as I can test this weekend but the difference could be something more simple than I expected.
Thanks Maestro. I appreciate your considering doing this when you get a chance. Nothing complicated or fancy needed and I'm not trying to prove a point or challenge your opinion. I owned the Lexicon224XL and Quantec and I know that software plugins don't quite have the same feel or spaciousness and that these subtle characteristics are not easy to define or explain. And I also realize the nuances can sometimes hard to hear if you're not tuned into a specific aspect to listen to, which is particularly why I'm interested in hearing this! And its not about golden ears, but rather learning and knowing what to listen to. Cheers.

btw, one thing I like to do with plugins that you might try is to run the VSL Imager (Waves C1 also works) after the reverb return (but only on the reverb, not the instrument). Try a subtle setting such as 1.37 or so, as its very easy to over-do this and end up with something not tasteful. It does help with the spaciousness on a reverb plugin if done properly.
 
Thanks Maestro. I appreciate your considering doing this when you get a chance. Nothing complicated or fancy needed and I'm not trying to prove a point or challenge your opinion. I owned the Lexicon224XL and Quantec and I know that software plugins don't quite have the same feel or spaciousness and that these subtle characteristics are not easy to define or explain. And I also realize the nuances can sometimes hard to hear if you're not tuned into a specific aspect to listen to, which is particularly why I'm interested in hearing this! And its not about golden ears, but rather learning and knowing what to listen to. Cheers.

btw, one thing I like to do with plugins that you might try is to run the VSL Imager (Waves C1 also works) after the reverb return (but only on the reverb, not the instrument). Try a subtle setting such as 1.37 or so, as its very easy to over-do this and end up with something not tasteful. It does help with the spaciousness on a reverb plugin if done properly.
You're very welcome. I will get us all something to hear as soon as I can. I couldn't have described it better than you did. I hear it, I know it's there, but it's so hard to explain. Especially if you're not sitting here in front of my studio hearing what's there and being shown what to look/listen for. Amazingly, my wife has way better ears than me and she hears it much more than me and I can clearly hear it. I read once in the past that women can hear distortion and compression more than male ears. I have no idea if that's bullocks or not but she can hear the change more than me.

It's much harder to notice sometimes in a quick 5-10 second clip comparison, but one major issue I find between the software and the hardware is as stated by me above, the fatigue and pain. It's completely non-existent when using the hardware in my studio and immediately noticeable every time I switch to the software. As I was mentioning my wife can hear it more than me, once I showed her what to listen for, I was no longer able to fool her in blind tests. I tried to play her the same software reverb 5 times in a row thinking she would absolutely choose wrong but she never waivered. If I can adjust that image a little and smooth out that fatiguing affect I think I can fool her too.

So yea, that's really about the last remaining 2 items to figure out. Interestingly, I thought of the imager idea and planned to try that so thank you very much for giving me a starting point. I will try that this weekend. I am hoping I can post some examples this weekend. I have never done these reverb tests so the whole snare drum and woodblock, is that something where you want to hear the 100% wet signal or do you want to hear the 50/50 that I use?
 
I was extremely tempted by the recent Liquidsonics sales, but I ended up buying B2 instead. On x4 oversampling it's amazing.

I wonder how Adaptiverb would compare with the Bricasti M7. Adaptiverb's been my go-to "effect" reverb---I love the sound almost as much as B2, but I can also use it heavily without adding mud. Huge CPU hit when not in "preview" mode but I can combine Adaptiverb in "preview" and B2 on x1 oversampling without major cpu issues.
If you start with the Boston Hall from one of the add-on packs, with minimal adjusting you will have a nice Bricasti emulation to my ears. I did change the reverb tail to match the hardware (2.1 seconds). That preset really gets you a nice starting point of emulation if you can get past the high CPU hit.
 
So yea, that's really about the last remaining 2 items to figure out. Interestingly, I thought of the imager idea and planned to try that so thank you very much for giving me a starting point. I will try that this weekend. I am hoping I can post some examples this weekend. I have never done these reverb tests so the whole snare drum and woodblock, is that something where you want to hear the 100% wet signal or do you want to hear the 50/50 that I use?
Mixed 50/50 would be great. You mention fatigue with the emulations and I remember how much headroom the 224XL had in comparison to my Lexicon PCM91 (LXP series is far worse). The 224XL was just so much smoother and this was likely due to the extra headroom and less distortion. All of the old pro gear had amazing headroom compared to semi-pro gear (Tascam range). Audio engineers really went out of their way to avoid the saturation that everyone tries to emulate today!

Also, you mention your wife hearing things you don't. LOL, I've had this same experience with my wife. But it's not because she has better hearing (although she went to Juilliard and I didn't), but she'll notice something that I overlooked or wasn't focused on. Once I focus on that detail, then it's much easier to notice and hear. It's like seeing a bird far away in a tree that others don't see. But then you point it out, and then everyone can see it.

I'm surprised about your comment on the CPU hit though as the Seventh Heaven is quite low on my system compared with other plugins.

plugin_cpu_60.png
 
Hi guys, I am wondering if there is any information out there to help one hear the differences between reverbs. I should state I am not talking about plate reverbs vs spring reverbs or even Convolution. Hearing these differences is obvious to me. However where I struggled is hall reverbs. I have a lot of great reverbs and as I am building my template I want to be able to utilise the best verb for my needs.

I understand this can come down to personal taste for people but what would be cool to know is, what to listen out for. For example, say I use Seventh Heaven and Cinematic Rooms, both sound good but my ears can’t really hear the discrepancies or for that matter the consistency’s in the sound. I have seen Christian Henson videos about verbs and this also makes the case that a lot of people can’t hear the differences, the blindfold test proves this, if jake or Christian can’t hear the difference what hope have I got. Any advice as always is appreciated.

Try this: when you are auditioning the reverbs to use, play a section and stop it abruptly in the middle of the phrase...listen to the tail...what happens AFTER the music stops? This will give you an indication of what it sounds like within. The other trick to hearing what a reverb is doing, is to make the send PRE fader...pull the track volume down and listen to ONLY the reverb...no direct signal.

Hearing the difference between reverbs once they are in the track is hard as a whole...but the simple thing to remember is really just this simple: if it works, it works. If it adds the ambience you want in the track then it works. You mentioned you had CR and 7th Heaven...select a patch from each reverb and tweak it so that it sounds good to you. Then mute that reverb, and do the same with the other...NOT trying to match one against the other, but just trying to make it sound good...Then play the track, and now you can A/B between each reverb (mute one in real time) and see exactly what the effects are of each. There should be a very clear difference...IF there isn't, then it doesn't matter which you use, OR you have chosen patches that are similar...but in time, you will see that different reverb units have their own characteristics. It's NOT the patch alone that makes the sound...it's the engine of the plugin and the converters of the hardware.

As a side note: patch names can be deceiving. Don't discount a patch just because it has a name that says "room" when you want a hall...try them all so you can clearly see/hear the differences...

Plates, springs..etc..as you mentioned are not real spaces. A Hall reverb is a natural space...as is a bathroom, a studio, a cave for that matter But as mentioned above, if you want a cave sound, and the patch name says large hall...that might also work.

Ultimately, you need to listen to the reverb in context (this is all that matters in the end)...is it muddy? Does it build up too much before the next notes? Does it sound natural? constantly mute the reverb throughout and see what the difference are...does the reverb add depth? Does the mix sound flat without it or better (more clear)? If it's the latter, then you need to try tweaks or change the reverb altogether.
 
I was extremely tempted by the recent Liquidsonics sales, but I ended up buying B2 instead. On x4 oversampling it's amazing.

I wonder how Adaptiverb would compare with the Bricasti M7. Adaptiverb's been my go-to "effect" reverb---I love the sound almost as much as B2, but I can also use it heavily without adding mud. Huge CPU hit when not in "preview" mode but I can combine Adaptiverb in "preview" and B2 on x1 oversampling without major cpu issues.


I also tried the LiquidSonics stuff, recently. Can't say I was unimpressed, as i'm pretty sure i don't know exactly what i'm listening out for (Horrid, jarring and metallic mess notwithstanding). In the right environment, and with a huge effort to make similar presets, across all plugins, I'd likely be able to discern differences. But otherwise I'm just a pretty simple guy - I needs a space, I puts a space ;)
My choice to go for B2 was initially due to it's sound-design potential. but over time, I just found myself liking it for everything.

Have Adaptiverb, also. Unfortunately, my computer ain't really up to really digging too far into that. But I can still experiment, and I do enjoy it.
 
Hi guys, I am wondering if there is any information out there to help one hear the differences between reverbs. I should state I am not talking about plate reverbs vs spring reverbs or even Convolution. Hearing these differences is obvious to me. However where I struggled is hall reverbs. I have a lot of great reverbs and as I am building my template I want to be able to utilise the best verb for my needs.

I understand this can come down to personal taste for people but what would be cool to know is, what to listen out for. For example, say I use Seventh Heaven and Cinematic Rooms, both sound good but my ears can’t really hear the discrepancies or for that matter the consistency’s in the sound. I have seen Christian Henson videos about verbs and this also makes the case that a lot of people can’t hear the differences, the blindfold test proves this, if jake or Christian can’t hear the difference what hope have I got. Any advice as always is appreciated.

Try to solo-defeat your reverb bus only and switch between the different reverb inserts on it to hear them in isolation. You'll notice the tails, the artifacts (or lack thereof), which one is warmer/brighter, etc.
 
Mixed 50/50 would be great. You mention fatigue with the emulations and I remember how much headroom the 224XL had in comparison to my Lexicon PCM91 (LXP series is far worse). The 224XL was just so much smoother and this was likely due to the extra headroom and less distortion. All of the old pro gear had amazing headroom compared to semi-pro gear (Tascam range). Audio engineers really went out of their way to avoid the saturation that everyone tries to emulate today!

Also, you mention your wife hearing things you don't. LOL, I've had this same experience with my wife. But it's not because she has better hearing (although she went to Juilliard and I didn't), but she'll notice something that I overlooked or wasn't focused on. Once I focus on that detail, then it's much easier to notice and hear. It's like seeing a bird far away in a tree that others don't see. But then you point it out, and then everyone can see it.

I'm surprised about your comment on the CPU hit though as the Seventh Heaven is quite low on my system compared with other plugins.

plugin_cpu_60.png
The CPU hit I was discussing above is for 2CAudio B2, not Seventh Heaven. Seventh Heaven has really good CPU Usage.

I also wonder if part of my wife hearing it much better than me, is that she doesn't sit there for hours/all day fatiguing her ears like I do. I only call her over once a week maybe when I want her to hear something and perhaps her solid fresh ears is why she hears it so much more clearly and instantly.
 
If you start with the Boston Hall from one of the add-on packs, with minimal adjusting you will have a nice Bricasti emulation to my ears. I did change the reverb tail to match the hardware (2.1 seconds). That preset really gets you a nice starting point of emulation if you can get past the high CPU hit.
It's in the Duo Den pack.
 
It's definitely an interesting question, and I have a long answer. Get comfortable with some wine and let me walk you through my thoughts and experiences.

So what reverbs have I tested so far:
Thanks for this post. Have you tried Sonsig, R4 or Nimbus? I own these three and am wondering how they compare in terms of fatigue and tail quality, to your ear, if you've used them.

I like them a lot, but am considering selling them when I buy B2 and probably Breeze, which so far I am liking demoing a lot; LiquidSonics CRP + 7H I won't be testing until I'm at least within a few months of being able to buy, though, so I don't know yet how they are with regard to tail/dampening/ERs and workflow. Can't wait to test CRP/7H and be done thinking about it. They sound like great reverbs, in theory, but nothing beats having it in your hands.

Breeze seems like a perfectly suitable workhorse; the Exponential Audio reverbs let me split ER and tail at the touch of a knob, which is a very useful feature, as well as work on the envelopes for each independently, while the interface for Breeze makes it much easier to work with quickly on those parameters (though not in isolation, which may be fine aside from needing to easily pull up a tail-only reverb) and they all, so far, sound great, barring more dedicated deep testing of my taste of each of their tails. I am hoping Cinematic Rooms does all of the above, and I can simply buy it + B2 and call it a day lol

The one weird thing I notice about Nimbus and R4 is that when set to larger "size" values independent of any other settings, both have very noticeable and probably intentional delays/reflections that create little peaks of volume/clarity within the tails, something that I sometimes like, and sometimes don't like, as you can never get a larger-sounding, smooth tail without them poking through every few fractions of a second. Michael Carnes may have added those for realism or...? There does not appear to be a way to get rid of them at larger room/algorithm sizes.
 
There's a reason there's a lot of great reverbs: there's typically no one solution.

My ears found Breeze to be bright and plastic in a way I didn't like. I'd never buy it. On the flip side, my ears found Seventh Heaven, and even Rooms to some extent, thick, cloying, and dark in a way I didn't like, and I'd not buy them. I'm sure lack of personal skill at shaping the sound using advanced features plays into it and could overcome some or much of these things - but that's part of the choice, as well: how quickly and easily can you dial in a sound you like?

I love the Exponential reverbs, which are more in the middle ground, but they're not without flaws. Nimbus is great to add a little "air" between and around notes in a subtle way. R4 can add liveliness. I've found that I do like Reverberate 3, despite not liking the other Liquidsonics products - likely because I can use IRs from other sources. SonsigA is a great and bright reverb (even on darkest settings), but I'll likely be selling it because between reverbs I have plus the Meris Mercury 7 pedal (also brighter even when darkened) I bought for my hardware synths and can send my software through as well, it's a bit redundant. My ears seem to like Relab, but I've held off so far on VSR and the Lex ones.

There's no good way to find the reverb(s) best for you without trying them. There's so many more I'm not going into detail on (e.g., D16 Spacerek, Acon Verberate, Valhalla reverbs, Fabfilter, the new iZotope one blending together the Exponential reverbs, and dozens of more excellent options).
 
Breeze seems like a perfectly suitable workhorse; the Exponential Audio reverbs let me split ER and tail at the touch of a knob, which is a very useful feature, as well as work on the envelopes for each independently, while the interface for Breeze makes it much easier to work with quickly on those parameters (though not in isolation, which may be fine aside from needing to easily pull up a tail-only reverb) and they all, so far, sound great, barring more dedicated deep testing of my taste of each of their tails.

Another consideration: Breeze is apparently about tied with VVV and VSM for lowest cpu usage (among high quality reverbs), so it can easily be combined with more cpu-intensive reverbs like B2 (on 4x quality setting, divine...).

The one weird thing I notice about Nimbus and R4 is that when set to larger "size" values independent of any other settings, both have very noticeable and probably intentional delays/reflections that create little peaks of volume/clarity within the tails, something that I sometimes like, and sometimes don't like, as you can never get a larger-sounding, smooth tail without them poking through every few fractions of a second. Michael Carnes may have added those for realism or...? There does not appear to be a way to get rid of them at larger room/algorithm sizes.
I think Neoverb might take care of this by using AI to locate and EQ the main peaks, which of course you can then adjust. The reverbs are very similar to Nimbus (Neoverb "realistic") and R4 (Neoverb "dramatic" I think) and almost certainly use variations on the same algorithms. Hopefully there will be a better sale on Neoverb this year.
 
I think Neoverb might take care of this by using AI to locate and EQ the main peaks, which of course you can then adjust. The reverbs are very similar to Nimbus (Neoverb "realistic") and R4 (Neoverb "dramatic" I think) and almost certainly use variations on the same algorithms. Hopefully there will be a better sale on Neoverb this year.
yeah, I'm pretty into the way B2 sounds.

Honestly, I think I was mostly wrong before. Nimbus/R4, there isn't much you can do about the "slapback delays" that surface in larger size values, they're just sort of there. They're less present in Sonsig but are explosively obvious at some settings in 2cAudio reverbs, the parameters let you smooth things out a lot though. I've just been using a lot of Sonsig recently, so I wasn't as aware that that's just kind of how it goes *when you increase the size on any reverb, it's not a unique characteristic of EA reverbs.

Neoverb won't do anything about the reflections as it's not EQ related, but I did demo it tonight and can say that I'm happy it exists. I won't buy it, as it's not adding anything new besides better UI (largely in the XY controller which I can setup in patcher + more, though, it was cool to use and looks pretty).

There's a reason there's a lot of great reverbs: there's typically no one solution.
Agreed. At the same time, there probably is... I think I enjoy thinking too much about technical stuff; "too much" could fit a lot of places in that statement. At the rate I'm writing music, Jacob Collier will have 30 grammies by the time I release an album, lol :rolleyes:

I am basically in agreement with you with regard to workflow and trying them out. I have a few demos I've not tried, which I certainly will (Acon/Pro-R/LiquidSonics, not to mention IR), but... For now, I'm pretty much covered. The differences in sound are interesting but often very small after getting your hands dirty. Or at least, small enough on my budget + priorities that I need to be putting more focus into writing music, not buying reverbs right now nor crafting some lengthy list of adjectives about how each reverb compares to each other, because they are indeed all interesting and unique. After hours spent going through 5 reverbs and trying to get them to sound the same/different to identify their minute differences I can with confidence conclude that I like them.

Precedence is still really interesting, but I'll probably try to mock that up in Patcher, too, before deciding whether to buy it or not. I might already have everything I besides a good UI to bring it together.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom