Plugin Reverbs vs Outboard Reverbs

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by flommer

Any examples of well know recordings that used a chamber as a reverb effect?

If you stretch the definition, all live albums have natural live chamber reverb...

Originally Posted by flommer

I'm guessing you can do a lot by where you put the speaker(s) and how you mic up...?

Yes! Exactly! Naturally a fixed chamber has its own distinct sound, but that can be modified by many little tricks (some of which are used inversely by killing all reflections on control room) beginning with distance to mic a.k.a. "mix percentage".

[Eric Lambert]

There isn't a plugin reverb which can match the best of hardware reverb.

Altiverb, even using the great IRs made by Acousticas, can't touch things like a TC6000 (the VSS4 algorithm. VSS3 is inferior to 4), or Lex 480/960/PCM96, or Bricasti, etc.

Understand how something like the Bricasti works, from a technical standpoint, and you'll see how plugins simply can't compete. They will, eventually, because it's certainly possible, but they're not there yet.

[crizdee]

Originally Posted by Dizzi45Z

Wow! What are you doing there? I definitely hear how the reverb becomes very bright and bell like. What kind of effect is that?

Hi,

its a multi-fx patch doing several things: reverb/ delay/ pitch shift/ chorus etc. I've yet to find a plugin that can do this stuff really well. the closest is probably Sound Blender from soundtoys and coincidentally thats the same team who were behind the Eventide Harmonizers. The biggest mistake Eventide made was calling them Harmonizers! as they have some of the best reverbs and delays ever and many people think they did just harmonizing. Eventide Factory plugin has many of the patches from the H3000 and the DSP range, but not many of the really mulit-fx one's.

I also have a roland srv330, but if i take it out the rack there's going to be a big hole

Chris

[25ghosts]

Originally Posted by Eric Lambert

There isn't a plugin reverb which can match the best of hardware reverb.

I would have to disagree on that comment.

I tested a Bricasti for a week and found it to be nothing special at all. As a matter of fact I was seriously disappointed by it after reading all the hype surrounding it. I tested it hard against the VSS3 plug-in and I like that a WHOLE lot more than the bricasti which I returned to the dealer. Then again, I like the acousticas EMT/LEXICON impulses a lot more than I like the VSS3. I dont think you can say that a hardware reverb is better than a software one, because they are BOTH digital. One residing in its own housing the other lending the housing from a mac or pc. Maybe a lexicon 480 impulse response does not sound exactly like the 480 hardware but the lexicon 480 impulse sure as H*** sounds better than the bricasti hardware...

[Eric Lambert]

Originally Posted by 25ghosts

I would have to disagree on that comment.

I tested a Bricasti for a week and found it to be nothing special at all. As a matter of fact I was seriously disappointed by it after reading all the hype surrounding it. I tested it hard against the VSS3 plug-in and I like that a WHOLE lot more than the bricasti which I returned to the dealer.

This puts you in an extreme minority. One in a hundred, maybe a higher ratio even. Which, to me, says that your ear has a different expectation for what reverb SHOULD sound like, different than the other 99 of us. And there's further evidence in the fact that I've tested much of what you've mentioned and had the opposite impressions. As has everyone else I'm aware of, with maybe one or two exceptions. I'm not saying you're wrong - this is all somewhat subjective.

And digital vs. digital isn't an argument for or against hardware vs. software reverb. It's an issue of the quality of the algorithm and the available horsepower to accurately do the math, in real-time. The Bricasti, for instance, has a throughput of 3GB/sec. Think about that for a second (while the Bricasti processes 3GB... Your TDM chips are afraid of that number. As far as the algorithm goes, we're talking about some of the best minds in the business typing in the code.

I'm not a Bricasti employee, and this isn't just about the Bricasti - it's about hardware reverb and their power and efficiency to do just one task.

There isn't a single Acousticas IR which matches its hardware counterpart. Not one.

VSS3 sounds very good, but it gives off a whiff of digital processing that I don't gravitate towards. Every plugin verb does so. The only exception I'd make to that rule is the Duende X-Verb, but then it's actually being processed by outboard DSPs and piped into the session via VST, so it's not really a plugin after all.

[JFreak]

Originally Posted by Eric Lambert

The only exception I'd make to that rule is the Duende X-Verb, but then it's actually being processed by outboard DSPs and piped into the session via VST, so it's not really a plugin after all.

It's just as plugin as TDM plugs. Only diference being the location of DSP chips, but:

1) it is digital reverb
2) it uses DSP
3) it dithers/truncates its output to 24 bits
4) it is plugged in to the audio chain

...thus it is a plugin.

Even external hardware (Lexicon PCM91 and such) can be considered being plugins when you use them via digital interface. Then it functions just like a plugin, only difference being it has dedicated controls available at all times.

[Mark Ziebarth]

Originally Posted by Eric Lambert

This puts you in an extreme minority. One in a hundred, maybe a higher ratio even.

So I'm the one in the second hundred

Impulse responses done carefully sound as the "sampled" original. But it's like with samples of real instruments: IRs are snapshots, not more or less.

Kind regards

Mark

[25ghosts]

Originally Posted by Eric Lambert

This puts you in an extreme minority. One in a hundred, maybe a higher ratio even. Which, to me, says that your ear has a different expectation for what reverb SHOULD sound like, different than the other 99 of us. And there's further evidence in the fact that I've tested much of what you've mentioned and had the opposite impressions. As has everyone else I'm aware of, with maybe one or two exceptions. I'm not saying you're wrong - this is all somewhat subjective.

Sounds like you have been doing some extensive market research. With all due... that 1 in a 100 minority.... I aint buying that for a minute. I give you that 99 or 100 are scared of trusting their own ears and that those 99 probably trust in this: MORE CPU POWER = BETTER REVERB.

I say, EMT 250 etc etc etc. How old are they? 30 years??? one of those 250 would probably fit 25 times on one tdm chip. It isn't at all about the horsepower its about the brains utilizing them.

And digital vs. digital isn't an argument for or against hardware vs. software reverb. It's an issue of the quality of the algorithm and the available horsepower to accurately do the math, in real-time. The Bricasti, for instance, has a throughput of 3GB/sec. Think about that for a second (while the Bricasti processes 3GB... Your TDM chips are afraid of that number. As far as the algorithm goes, we're talking about some of the best minds in the business typing in the code.

I know that the one bricasti person is writing about the bricasti is sooo much stronger than 5 protools systems etc etc etc etc over on gearslutz. One thread i read he was drawing about 4 comparison to how fast and powerful the bricasti is. I thought to myself, wow this guy should have been more concerned with reverb alg. than the cpu running them. Maybe then his unit would actually sound as good as those units 30 years old.

I'm not a Bricasti employee, and this isn't just about the Bricasti - it's about hardware reverb and their power and efficiency to do just one task.

The VSS3 has SUPERIOR power resource over any 20 or 30 year old unit. And I promise you (although I might be mingling with minority groups here) that it does not sound as good. CPU Horsepower Power never ever ever ever ever equalled SOUNDING GOOD.

There isn't a single Acousticas IR which matches its hardware counterpart. Not one.

That aint the point. But I would rather use an IR of a hardware reverb unit which is great than be using any of todays hardware reverb units.

VSS3 sounds very good, but it gives off a whiff of digital processing that I don't gravitate towards. Every plugin verb does so. The only exception I'd make to that rule is the Duende X-Verb, but then it's actually being processed by outboard DSPs and piped into the session via VST, so it's not really a plugin after all.

Look, I dont think that either the audio traveling through a reverb nor the algorithms give a flying fu** where the DSP is located. Outboard or where inboard. You are glorifying outboard putting it on a plateau where it can but does not always belong. A processor does not have a sound. It processes lines of code. A digital reverb generated using code being processed on a CPU chip is the same across the board be it outboard, inboard, snowboard or ouija board. Might be a slight variance in ADC/DAC though.

[jeremyroberts]

Not much work, guys? Who has time to argue the path of the DSP? If you really believe it, you should invest in it.

But I think your resources should be chasing a better song.

[25ghosts]

Originally Posted by jeremyroberts

Not much work, guys? Who has time to argue the path of the DSP? If you really believe it, you should invest in it.

But I think your resources should be chasing a better song.

Its a forum. Once goes here to discuss things. Even you