Interesting blog about Reason RV7000 [thread five years dead, resurrected]

[Warmonger]

Going OT a bit on his blog:

To our help in this work we have lots of clever people that we are fortunate enough to work with and many, many passionate users that keep bombarding us with suggestion. Here’s an example of such a user list, and yes, contrary to what this writer suggests, we do read this stuff, as much as we can.

I was actually referring to other users in the Phead feature suggestion board when I said no one would probably say anything, but hey, I guess I can't complain now!

edit: doh, should have realized the link wouldn't copy over.

[nuffink]

Until you admit to yourself that your ears are easily fooled you'll always be a sucker. There's a whole branch of science dealing with it - Psychoacoustics.

Compare and contrast the lack of material on Psychooptics.

[loomchild]

Would be interesting to hear what audience was doing the blind test. Have a blind test on wines for a group of average John Does and I guarantee you they will pick out a 20$ wine over the 100000$ stuff but do the same test with the most experienced group of wine testers and the result might differ, a lot.

- bManic

Yet the latter, like anyone else seem to be very sensitive to the perceived loudness. Have a look on most pro audio boards on the web and you'll see experienced audio engineers arguing endlessly about PT's summing vs Logic's etc... which we know is mostly a matter of psychoacoustics rather than maths.

However, I agree that selecting a random statistical sample of people attenting a business conference is not necessarily representative.

ABXing is one of the greatest way to end on with most of the audio myths. But let's face it, those myths are what makes it possible for companies to market their new products.

[RapRogue]

This test only proofs that a Grammy engineer can do his
job whit whatever tools he chose to.

[bmanic]

Good points Scott!

Cheers!

[Meffy]

Until you admit to yourself that your ears are easily fooled you'll always be a sucker. There's a whole branch of science dealing with it - Psychoacoustics.

Compare and contrast the lack of material on Psychooptics.

Oh, there's literature on fooling all the senses. The two long-range, high-res senses, hearing and vision, both experience all kinds of illusions and errors. :-) By which I mean that we can be fooled every which way -- hearing is just one of the modes.

But you're 100% right that unless you admit you're a sucker, you're an even bigger sucker. I learned the hard lesson looooong ago and won't forget.

[bmanic]

@loomchild

Very true. The analogue summing vs PT mix at gearslutz, the thread with the audio example was hilarious. Everybody picked the PT session as being the analogue one. I was unfortunately reading the test much too late to do my own guess but I'm pretty sure I would have failed it too.

However, a clear point was made: there IS a difference and people heard it. Good, better, best, these are all just subjective opinions.

[loomchild]

Pen and Teller could dedicate a whole season of their "Bullshit" program to the audio industry. Most of us musicians aren't any better than the poor sap who lays down hard-earned dough to a palm reader. We want the ego-boost, the extra smattering of confidence. There simply are no absolutes when it comes to music production. What one listener loves, another will loathe. That is an open door to insecurity, and the music equipment industry expends an incredible amount of effort to exploit those insecurities.

I personally have spent a lot of time lately doing blind tests of cables, software and hardware mixers, mics and pre-amps. For the most part, I have found that an exhorbitant increase in price and hype generally provides (at best) a nominal improvement in signal quality. Most people coming into the studio can't tell the difference at all. I myself have invested a lot of money in high-end stuff, and sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. A crap mic can still provide a great recording in the hands of a great engineer. And all the most expensive gear on the planet isn't gonna save a poor or lazy engineer's tracks.

The music gear industry pitches us a "Holy Grail" in the form of "sound quality". The simple fact is that your sound could always be improved, no matter what gear you use. A better mic position can provide far more profound improvements than an umpteen thousand dollar mic pre (or God forbid, a thousand dollar mic cable).

And yeah, I do indeed use expensive preamps, decent mics and a ridiculously large hardware analogue modular. But do I do so because they inherently provide superior signals? On the contrary. I do so because I like particular characteristics that each can provide. These charactersistics were once seen as deficits to the signal quality. Would my records be inferior if I didn't use these things? Heck no. I'd still be placing the same notes in front of one another, and that's what counts.

Some equipment companies would like you to forget that. They would like you to believe that compositional and engineering skills are second to the cost of your kit, because they can't promise to sell you talent.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating: I have never, ever heard a kid say "gee, this song would be great if the engineers used better cables".

Great recordings have been made and will continue to be made by people who have limited means and limited gear. Nothing will get in the way of a good idea, and no amount of hype will turn a bad song into a good one. A hit song, perhaps, but not a good song.

It must be the wisest and most sensible post I've ever seen on KVR.

[kmonkey]

Pen and Teller could dedicate a whole season of their "Bullshit" program to the audio industry. Most of us musicians aren't any better than the poor sap who lays down hard-earned dough to a palm reader. We want the ego-boost, the extra smattering of confidence. There simply are no absolutes when it comes to music production. What one listener loves, another will loathe. That is an open door to insecurity, and the music equipment industry expends an incredible amount of effort to exploit those insecurities.

I personally have spent a lot of time lately doing blind tests of cables, software and hardware mixers, mics and pre-amps. For the most part, I have found that an exhorbitant increase in price and hype generally provides (at best) a nominal improvement in signal quality. Most people coming into the studio can't tell the difference at all. I myself have invested a lot of money in high-end stuff, and sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. A crap mic can still provide a great recording in the hands of a great engineer. And all the most expensive gear on the planet isn't gonna save a poor or lazy engineer's tracks.

The music gear industry pitches us a "Holy Grail" in the form of "sound quality". The simple fact is that your sound could always be improved, no matter what gear you use. A better mic position can provide far more profound improvements than an umpteen thousand dollar mic pre (or God forbid, a thousand dollar mic cable).

And yeah, I do indeed use expensive preamps, decent mics and a ridiculously large hardware analogue modular. But do I do so because they inherently provide superior signals? On the contrary. I do so because I like particular characteristics that each can provide. These charactersistics were once seen as deficits to the signal quality. Would my records be inferior if I didn't use these things? Heck no. I'd still be placing the same notes in front of one another, and that's what counts.

Some equipment companies would like you to forget that. They would like you to believe that compositional and engineering skills are second to the cost of your kit, because they can't promise to sell you talent.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating: I have never, ever heard a kid say "gee, this song would be great if the engineers used better cables".

Great recordings have been made and will continue to be made by people who have limited means and limited gear. Nothing will get in the way of a good idea, and no amount of hype will turn a bad song into a good one. A hit song, perhaps, but not a good song.

Some good and wise words here...

[bmanic]

Here's my reply to that blog. It's still waiting moderation so you might not be able to read it there which is why I'll post it here.
-------------------------------

Hi,

A very interesting read! One of my hobbies for a long time has been ABX (double blind) testing myself with various material. I’d be very interested in knowing how you guys set up a reverb blind test as just running an impulse or rimshot or whatever trough a reverb doesn’t tell anything about how it works within a mix. If reverb A has a denser tail than reverb B it doesn’t mean that B is worse. Same goes for the apparent ‘realism’ of a reverb. If reverb A sound more like a true accoustic space than reverb B it still doesn’t mean that B is worse.

Now it IS possible to quickly dismiss some reverbs as truly bad, that would only work as special effects. They ring, have a metallic tail that is constantly boosted at some frequencies (needing a lot of eq) and mess with the overall mix, creating nothing but problems. No doubt about it, there are bad reverbs. However, the reverbs you mentioned are all far beyond this class (yes, I like your REV7000 very much too, it’s simply, superb) so how do you compare them?
What I’ve learned trough some trial and error during the past few years is that if the perception of “good” is left “as is” for an audience without experience and not presenting the sources within their targeted working area (within a mix) makes for a very distorted ‘blind test’ and if used for purchasing decisions will most likely back fire. You easily get the classic “wow this synth sounds phat but damn it doesn’t work in any of my mixes!” situation.
A good example is the Quantec Yardstic reverb. Held by some people to be the best reverb of all time. If one reads carefully trough some of the prosoundweb forums and other sources where experts talk about it one can quickly conclude that it seems to be a one-trick pony. Yes it’s lush, yes it’s dense, yes it’s extremely realistic sounding. Does it work every time in a mix? Nope, not at all.

My point is.. well, hell, I already forgot what my point was but you get my point… umm, I’ll get me coat now. :fades away:

Cheers!
bManic

[kmonkey]

Holly at the same time somone is thinking like i the choosen one
(loomchild)

[Kingston]

Looking forward to the answer to that blog question.

But then, I don't find it hard to believe at all that REV7000 could rule in certain situations, especially over the dated L480. A few things about certain ancient directx reverb by Hyperprism come to mind...


But I'm still looking for the one good native reverb. I'm not satisfied with any of the current crop, although sometimes good impulses might even do the trick (rare).

[dasdeck]

i wanted a VST of this Reverb from the forst time i heard the demos. I think it sounds superb! but this can hardly be the only reason to use reason, as i dont like this closed rewire app

VST verb & VST Redrum please or VST Reason, like fruity does it, I dont want to save and manage two songs all the time, also i cant use the nice vrb in my vocal tracks etc.

D3CK

[nuffink]

As a slight aside:-

There is a difference between a piece of music prodution equipment like a synth or reverb and a piece of music reproduction equipment such as a monitor amp or speaker.
An opinion on the production equipment is always subjective. By contrast, there is a yardstick for reproduction equipment; the original performance (however abstract that concept might be).
Therefore I'd say that it is possible to say that one speaker is objectively superior to another but not possible with reverbs.

[Hovmod]

I'd say that it is possible to say that one speaker is objectively superior to another but not possible with reverbs.

I'd say the RV7000 is objectively superior to the spring in my old practice amp.