SoloRack v1.0 is here

[kokotte]

Another thing I noted: When you increase the "mix" of the reverb module, the sounds get MUCH louder. It would seem more natural if the level was reduces internally such that the general level remains more or less constant.

Cheers,
Martin

Same here, everytime i increase the "mix" of the reverb module, i must automate or adjust a mixer level after for have a general level constant.

[S0lo]

Another thing I noted: When you increase the "mix" of the reverb module, the sounds get MUCH louder. It would seem more natural if the level was reduces internally such that the general level remains more or less constant.

Cheers,
Martin

Same here, everytime i increase the "mix" of the reverb module, i must automate or adjust a mixer level after for have a general level constant.

Yes, natural reverb is about 8 to 12 db lower than the original sound (offcourse it depends on the room size and shape).

The more delay lines you put, the louder the reverb gets. Usually, a dev would auto level things internally to force the reverb to be much lower. I thought about that, but decided not to do it. I like these things raw, since this is modular. Why should I force things to be always natural. Users are going to level things manually any way using mixers and VCAs. So I kept the levels untouched. Plus, it's better for CPU.

So simply speaking, If you want natural sounding reverb, keep the mix knob mostly towards dry. Below 9 o'clock should be good. If you want wild results, then you know what to do

I could otherwise use a exponential mix knob. But again every added bit adds a bit of CPU cost. Is it worth it? I'm not sure. Besides people are already making presets now. may be too late to change.

[martin_l]

Yes, natural reverb is about 8 to 12 db lower than the original sound (offcourse it depends on the room size and shape).

The more delay lines you put, the louder the reverb gets. Usually, a dev would auto level things internally to force the reverb to be much lower. I thought about that, but decided not to do it. I like these things raw, since this is modular. Why should I force things to be always natural. Users are going to level things manually any way using mixers and VCAs. So I kept the levels untouched. Plus, it's better for CPU.

So simply speaking, If you want natural sounding reverb, keep the mix knob mostly towards dry. Below 9 o'clock should be good. If you want wild results, then you know what to do

I could otherwise use a exponential mix knob. But again every added bit adds a bit of CPU cost. Is it worth it? I'm not sure. Besides people are already making presets now. may be too late to change.

I doubt that it makes any difference to the CPU. You are already having the mixer where you need to multiply both the dry and the wet signal by some number. It's only the calculation of that number which would have to change. And it only needed to depend on the number of delay lines.

In many applications, you want to use the wet and dry signal in different signal paths. One example is if you want to introduce some pre-delay, or if you also want to apply a HP filter or other effects to the reverb only, but not to the main signal. Now, this requires always the introduction of at least one further module to tame the output of the reverb. I don't know of any other reverb unit which behaves like that. I would assume that good practice for most modules is that the give a similar output range for all parameters (there are exceptions to that rule, of course, such as a VCA or filters).

I understand that it is difficult to change features once the product is released. Are you also running new modules through a number of beta testers, who could pick up on such things before you release a module? I guess a number of people would have advised you against the 'raw' behaviour.

That aside, the reverb does sound great to me.


Cheers,
Martin

[S0lo]

I doubt that it makes any difference to the CPU. You are already having the mixer where you need to multiply both the dry and the wet signal by some number. It's only the calculation of that number which would have to change. And it only needed to depend on the number of delay lines.

yeah sure it's not like it would break the bank. I agree.

In many applications, you want to use the wet and dry signal in different signal paths. One example is if you want to introduce some pre-delay, or if you also want to apply a HP filter or other effects to the reverb only, but not to the main signal. Now, this requires always the introduction of at least one further module to tame the output of the reverb.

You don't really have to do that. You can control/lower the level pre, at the VCA or mixer since the reverb is usually put at the end.

I don't know of any other reverb unit which behaves like that.

Another reason to do things differently.

I would assume that good practice for most modules is that the give a similar output range for all parameters (there are exceptions to that rule, of course, such as a VCA or filters).

I agree. But again this is modular. rules are meant to be broken

I understand that it is difficult to change features once the product is released. Are you also running new modules through a number of beta testers, who could pick up on such things before you release a module? I guess a number of people would have advised you against the 'raw' behaviour.

That aside, the reverb does sound great to me.

Most of the beta testers where trying to find bugs in the synth.

[martin_l]

I doubt that it makes any difference to the CPU. You are already having the mixer where you need to multiply both the dry and the wet signal by some number. It's only the calculation of that number which would have to change. And it only needed to depend on the number of delay lines.

yeah sure it's not like it would break the bank. I agree.

In many applications, you want to use the wet and dry signal in different signal paths. One example is if you want to introduce some pre-delay, or if you also want to apply a HP filter or other effects to the reverb only, but not to the main signal. Now, this requires always the introduction of at least one further module to tame the output of the reverb.

You don't really have to do that. You can control/lower the level pre, at the VCA or mixer since the reverb is usually put at the end.

Not quite. If I lower the level in the last VCA before the reverb, I would have to boost it again for the dry signal. Making the wet signal so much louder than the input signal just does not make sense.

I don't know of any other reverb unit which behaves like that.

Another reason to do things differently.

I would assume that good practice for most modules is that the give a similar output range for all parameters (there are exceptions to that rule, of course, such as a VCA or filters).

I agree. But again this is modular. rules are meant to be broken

I agree that sometimes departing from the norm is a good thing. But only if it does not hinder the usual workflow.

I understand that it is difficult to change features once the product is released. Are you also running new modules through a number of beta testers, who could pick up on such things before you release a module? I guess a number of people would have advised you against the 'raw' behaviour.

That aside, the reverb does sound great to me.

Most of the beta testers where trying to find bugs in the synth.

Finding bugs is one part of beta testing. I would consider checking whether the code behaves in the expected way as another part of beta testing, or also whether any functionality which might be useful is missing.

Anyway, don't get me wrong. You have a great product and I only would like to help to get it better in a few things which are not as many people would expect. And it seems I am not completely alone with that view.


Cheers,
Martin

[S0lo]

Not quite. If I lower the level in the last VCA before the reverb, I would have to boost it again for the dry signal. Making the wet signal so much louder than the input signal just does not make sense.

Here is a preset that does what you want using only one VCA.

Rev_DryWetSeparation.zip

Separate dry and wet paths. Wet is processed using pre-delay. Dry and wet arrive at the outputs at almost the same levels.

Finding bugs is one part of beta testing. I would consider checking whether the code behaves in the expected way as another part of beta testing, or also whether any functionality which might be useful is missing.

Anyway, don't get me wrong. You have a great product and I only would like to help to get it better in a few things which are not as many people would expect. And it seems I am not completely alone with that view.

Sure martin, you've been always helpful. Thanks

[S0lo]

On second thought, I guess I could do a quick update to lower that WET level of the reverb. If people think I should. But it better be quick before more people do more projects with the reverb.

So what do you think guys? is the level of WET in the reverb module too loud, when you increase the lines? is it annoying to level things out? If I should do this, then I should do it now.

[martin_l]

On second thought, I guess I could do a quick update to lower that WET level of the reverb. If people think I should. But it better be quick before more people do more projects with the reverb.

So what do you think guys? is the level of WET in the reverb module too loud, when you increase the lines? is it annoying to level things out? If I should do this, then I should do it now.

You know my opinion

But let's see what others think.

Martin

[kokotte]

On second thought, I guess I could do a quick update to lower that WET level of the reverb. If people think I should. But it better be quick before more people do more projects with the reverb.

So what do you think guys? is the level of WET in the reverb module too loud, when you increase the lines? is it annoying to level things out? If I should do this, then I should do it now.

i think, you should lower that WET level of the reverb.

[RPH]

Yeah lower it.
Based on a basic example with reverb, going wet increases the volume a lot indeed.

Note:
- Must be me, but I can't see the preset (Rev_DryWetSeparation.srp) you posted when added to the presetfiles and reloaded the plugin or my DAW ( FLstudio ).

- Can you change the installer so we can choose which version ( or both ) of SoloRack we want to install ( 32 / 64 bit version )?

[S0lo]

- Must be me, but I can't see the preset (Rev_DryWetSeparation.srp) you posted when added to the presetfiles and reloaded the plugin or my DAW ( FLstudio ).

You probably have previuos beta installed. which doesn't look for the presets in the "My Documents\SoloRack" folder but instead it searches in the dll folder.

- Also, after the 1.0 update I see 4 entries of SoloRack in FLstudio, also after rescan of my pluginfolder. Can't seem to remove them from my list.. I checked my VST locations, SoloRack is only installed in C:\Program Files\Common Files\VST2\SoloRack

I recommend:

1. Backup your own presets to a separate folder
2. Uninstall SoloRack.
3. Find out where older betas are installed and remove them. FLstudio should show no SoloRack (after re scanning)
4. Reinstall the newest version

BTW, The update to fix the WET will be available very soon.

[S0lo]

Update is ready. Link is in the first post.

I kept just a little bit of loudness in the wet because I think it sounded cooler. But its much lower than before, and it won't increase by adding more lines.

[kokotte]

[RPH]

You probably have previuos beta installed. which doesn't look for the presets in the "My Documents\SoloRack" folder but instead it searches in the dll folder.

No I have version 1.0, I even re-installed version 1.0 to be sure.
I placed the preset in C:\Program Files\Common Files\VST2\SoloRack\presets, didn't even know SoloRack had a my documents folder.
Will recheck this tonight and let you know.

I recommend:

1. Backup your own presets to a separate folder
2. Uninstall SoloRack.
3. Find out where older betas are installed and remove them. FLstudio should show no SoloRack (after re scanning)
4. Reinstall the newest version

Thanks for the suggestion, I also posted this at FLstudio forum and it turned out to be some old .fst files I needed to delete from the browserview. So that problem is solved.

[S0lo]

No I have version 1.0, I even re-installed version 1.0 to be sure.
I placed the preset in C:\Program Files\Common Files\VST2\SoloRack\presets, didn't even know SoloRack had a my documents folder.
Will recheck this tonight and let you know.

Yea, if you put the preset in the "My documents\SoloRack\Presets" folder. It will show up in the presets menu.