Vintageverb slightly narrow, stereowise?

[se729]

I'm checking out Vintageverb. Made an observation about the sound that I'd like feedback on.

Mostly I use the wallet-stinging Lexicon PCM, because most of what I do is pop/rock music. So that's my main reference. I find Vintageverb to be a little narrow and more "far away" than lex, and some others. Or, should I say, can’t spread out quite as far wide over the stereo image as …

My familiarity with parameters is good and I've tweaked the VV quite a bit. Sounds beautiful. I paid particular focus on the Modulation parameter, to create as much "inconsistency" between R/L channel as I could.

Yet, when using a large hall, a "far away in the distance" verb for example, the reverb doesn't quite absorb all the dry sound into it, and spread out to the sides as much as lex. Rather, it tends to go 85% (or so it feels to me) and get a slightly more busy tail. The weight seems to end up in the centered tail, you can discern distance on the Z-axel rather than the X-axel, if you know how I mean.
The VV does do a pretty good spread, stereowise, but it's ... it's not really there. Know the feeling?

This was not as obvious when listening and comparing verbs alone, but rather when I was using/comparing the reverbs in context, in mixing. It’s not a clearly apparent difference, which is why I did this thread, to hear from others, if I’m hallucinating or not, or just a bad tweaker or not.

This may not be an “inability” of the VV but instead a character of the sound of the VV. I know of many verbs which don’t do that full width.

The VV sounds damn good, much better than valhalla room IMO. I was greatly surprised about its purity and tweakability - especially the NOW algorithm. Experiencing this high quality level made me set the bar so high, that I felt surprised that I would be having the above kind of impression, and subsequently that it may not be user shortcoming.

Have you ever felt a little bit along these lines about the VV? If you haven’t, would you mind having a listen and comparing it? Am I hallucinating here?

Would love to hear others opinions and reflections on this. Don't be afraid to disagree.
/SE

[valhallasound]

IIRC, the Lexicon PCM algorithms use M/S processing to allow for an artificially wide stereo image, at the expense of mono compatibility. The VintageVerb algorithms are equivalent to the "Width" controls of these algorithms set at 100%.

Personally, I shy away from M/S processing for reverbs. A lot of modern sound systems have subwoofers, or will otherwise sum the sound to mono at some point, and M/S processing falls apart with these systems.

I implemented a WIDTH control in ÜberMod, but it does a weird frequency crossover thing to emulate Dimension D type choruses, so it isn't a standard M/S control.

The 6 new algorithms in the VintageVerb update have more depth than the older algorithms, versus width. I would consider "depth" as hearing sounds from some distance BEHIND the two speakers, versus increasing the perceived width of the speakers.

Anyway, that's my $0.02. I'd love to hear other opinions on this topic. Perceptual attributes are very subjective, and getting a bunch of different opinions on some attributes that are fairly easy to comprehend (i.e. stereo width or depth) is useful for future algorithm designs.

Sean Costello

[valhallasound]

A few more things:

I've found that the stereo width/depth of a reverb tends to increase as a factor of the Size control. My recommendation is to have the Size set as large as you can get away with, just before the sound gets too grainy for your tastes.

Along similar lines, reducing the Early Diffusion can also increase the spatial width/depth. I'm not sure why this is. Maybe the "graininess" of a less diffuse reverb helps to increase left/right channel differences.

Sean Costello

[se729]

Thanks for that wealth of info, Costello. Just what I was looking for.

The 6 new algorithms in the VintageVerb update have more depth than the older algorithms, versus width. I would consider "depth" as hearing sounds from some distance BEHIND the two speakers, versus increasing the perceived width of the speakers.

Yes, that pretty much sums up what I felt in this matter about the VV. Damn I got good ears sometimes

Sorry to pit you against probably the most overtalked reverb product. I'm sure you've had too much of that. But I didn't know that it possibly uses M/S. I'm going to look into that. As you said, might cause unexpected effects. Effects that - if so - I haven't even noticed. Damn I got bad ears sometimes

I will try tweaking around with the Size and ER balance controls and see what that can do.

Anyway, that's my $0.02. I'd love to hear other opinions on this topic. Perceptual attributes are very subjective, and getting a bunch of different opinions on some attributes that are fairly easy to comprehend (i.e. stereo width or depth) is useful for future algorithm designs.

That was alot more than $0,02. And yes, it would be nice if others cared to share their impressions about things like this. Plz do

Thanks again for chiming in.

[valhallasound]

Sorry to pit you against probably the most overtalked reverb product. I'm sure you've had too much of that.

It's part of my job. If I wasn't ready to deal with this, I wouldn't have released a product influenced by vintage Lexicons.

But I didn't know that it possibly uses M/S. I'm going to look into that. As you said, might cause unexpected effects. Effects that - if so - I haven't even noticed. Damn I got bad ears sometimes

It's not bad ears at all. If you aren't using a subwoofer, or otherwise summing to mono, you would never notice the artifacts that can happen with M/S type processing.

I should qualify my description of M/S, as I think that some of the Lexicons have used a variant called Spatial EQ. The best way of describing this is a frequency dependent M/S matrix, where only the frequencies below a certain frequency are widened. This works wonders with orchestral recordings that are using stereo microphones, but might do weird things with pop music mixes, as most pop mixes have mono bass tracks. I'm not sure if the PCM bundle uses M/S or Spatial EQ - it's been a long while since I demoed these plugins.

Michael Carnes has the ability to control M/S processing in his (excellent) Exponential Audio reverbs. Michael is also upfront about using these controls with care, to avoid the sort of issues I'm discussing.

If people want to try similar effects with any of the Valhalla reverbs, or any other reverb, you can run the reverb on a send, and then insert M/S processing after the reverb.

Sean Costello

[se729]

On the subject: the width control, on all 7 lex PCM type modules, is a parameter called "spread" ranging 0-100%. Doesn't tell us much. But the width of ERs and tail, separately, are controls displaying angular degree values. Ranging from stereo to inverse stereo, 0-360 degrees. Looks to be M/S like you said. Need to watch out whenever those both are set to anything but "stereo" - I guess.

Also, increasing the wet amount in the PCM doesn’t much create impression of more distance between the source and background. Rather, it more like drenches the source in verb. The VV however does this right and very nice. It doesn't add the PCM's type characer to the source. PCM's kindof incloses the source and forms 1 sound out of both sources. VV is more nearly neutral subsiding tail. Sound depends much more on the source. Also means VV might need more delicate tweaking, taking more time. PCM feels faster due to great preset system. Haven’t checked out the VV presets yet, but one can always create one’s own ‘clean presets’ too.

Tried the ER and Size controls around, and they do plenty of what you suggested they would. However, this ‘narrow’ or ‘behind the sound' is no “inability” of VV. It’s some of the personality of VV. I also placed an M/S plug after VV and took out 50% of the center. It spread out hugely. Gotta be careful with that though, monocheck it closely. M/S manipulation often bring out weird things from modulating stereo-signals.

I feel I know the personality of the VV a lot more now. And I really like it.
Being me though, I would prefer the option of wider, meaning I might see this as one of VVs weaker points - strictly from a usefulness perspective. Even a petty aspect catches one's eye, that's a sign of overall excellence. It made me feel its so good, that it takes so little to make it so much better.

[LFO8]

A few more things:

I've found that the stereo width/depth of a reverb tends to increase as a factor of the Size control. My recommendation is to have the Size set as large as you can get away with, just before the sound gets too grainy for your tastes.

Along similar lines, reducing the Early Diffusion can also increase the spatial width/depth. I'm not sure why this is. Maybe the "graininess" of a less diffuse reverb helps to increase left/right channel differences.

Sean Costello

I still find a great sense of stereo field even with smaller Size settings. I don't feel the VVV to be 'not wide enough' at all. In many cases a had hoped for a parameter in VVV with the option to decrease the width as most often in a mix I do not want a reverb taking up the whole stereo field. Especially when I am trying to place percussive elements into their own little pockets of space. Also I want reverbs to hold up in mono.