ValhallaVintageVerb 1.7.1. Two new reverb modes (Chaotic Hall, Chaotic Chamber)

[Tp3]

I'm pretty caught up on answering emails right now. If your email hasn't been answered, try sending it again. I get a LOT of emails, and occasionally one falls through the cracks.

Sean Costello

I have sent it here, dude... check your messages

[henge]

Vee3 vs LX480 and R2. Small drum room

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-sho ... t-2-a.html

[valhallasound]

How do we receive the latest beta?

Send me an email, or PM me with the beta request and email address.

Seam Costello

[trance_lucent]

My Size control is in % instead of meters, because the meter measurements in algorithmic reverbs are usually total bull****.

Well, I suspected the reason like this, and I agreed. On the other hand, if VVV supposed to be vintage-like reverb, it is logical that it would use similar approach for estimating size like vintage reverbs it inspired by, at least for easier programming the classic patches.

And we all know that algorithmic reverbs all are shit if speaking of faithful modelling of real spaces, in the best cases the result is the approximation only (very often such approximation is more pleasant than real room) but we agreed to this approximation, so it is possible to agreed with the fake size control. Just for easier programming the classic patches.

And all these L-like reverbs challenges - there are some difficulties setting up all reverbs to the similar sounding patches, also with VVV Size control. BTW, as I can see, VVV acts worthily in this challenges, my congratulations!

Edit. So may be it is possible for you to give approximate coefficients for L-like size estimation, for example: Concert Hall: 100% = 40 meters, and so on?

[valhallasound]

My Size control is in % instead of meters, because the meter measurements in algorithmic reverbs are usually total bull****.

Well, I suspected the reason like this, and I agreed. On the other hand, if VVV supposed to be vintage-like reverb, it is logical that it would use similar approach for estimating size like vintage reverbs it inspired by, at least for easier programming the classic patches.

And we all know that algorithmic reverbs all are shit if speaking of faithful modelling of real spaces, in the best cases the result is the approximation only (very often such approximation is more pleasant than real room) but we agreed to this approximation, so it is possible to agreed with the fake size control. Just for easier programming the classic patches.

Changing the Size control to meters, besides continuing to propagate a lie , would also break all of the existing presets and projects that use ValhallaVintageVerb. So that ain't gonna happen. In general, changing parameter ranges in a plugin is a bad idea once that plugin has been released.

It is worth emphasizing that ValhallaVintageVerb isn't a direct clone of any pre-existing reverb - it is "inspired by" the old reverbs. I changed a lot of things, in order to have a reverb that is easy to use. If I wanted an exact recreation of an older reverb, I would have used a 3D "realistic" GUI, as opposed to a 2D GUI that looks like the paint job on a 1975 Winnebago. I made all sorts of changes to the algorithms and parameters, to simplify the interface and get the sound to where I wanted it to be.

EDIT: The older Lexicons also had a very loose relationship between the parameter values and the behavior of the algorithm. A RTMid time of 2.00 seconds on a 480L, for example, may end up decaying at a rate far different than the scientific definition of RT60, which is how long it takes for the signal to decay to 1/1000th of the initial decay amplitude. The reverb decay rate might also change with the Size setting, such that a 2 second RTMid at a small value of Size might have a far different RT60 than a 2 second RTMid setting at a large value of Size. The filter frequencies didn't necessarily correspond to the display values, either.

I know that Martin Lind worked hard on matching the actual 480L settings in his LX480 plugin. I took the approach of calculating a technically "correct" RT60 (and my guess is that Michael Carnes has taken a similar approach in his plugins).

And all these L-like reverbs challenges - there are some difficulties setting up all reverbs to the similar sounding patches, also with VVV Size control.

ValhallaVintageVerb wasn't designed to compete against other reverbs in a Lexicon sound alike challenge. It was designed to be used by musicians and engineers to make music.

If people want to have plugin shootouts, fine by me, but I'm not changing the VeeThree parameters in order to make things closer to another plugin. I trust that the people creating the tests will use their ears to dial the settings in. The different plugins out there have different approaches to calculating parameters, and dialing things in by ear will be a better way of matching things than relying on the displayed parameter values.

Sean Costello

[trance_lucent]

Changing the Size control to meters, besides continuing to propagate a lie , would also break all of the existing presets and projects that use ValhallaVintageVerb.

I meant may be you can just give (in the Forum, for example) approximate Lexicon-associated sizes in meters appropriate to corresponding VVV algorithms.

ValhallaVintageVerb wasn't designed to compete against other reverbs in a Lexicon sound alike challenge.

Yes, I know. But it happens that VVV sounds very well in these comparisons with the reverbs that have much higher price.

[valhallasound]

Changing the Size control to meters, besides continuing to propagate a lie , would also break all of the existing presets and projects that use ValhallaVintageVerb.

I meant may be you can just give (in the Forum, for example) approximate Lexicon-associated sizes in meters appropriate to corresponding VVV algorithms.

Ahh. I see.

I'll work on some values tomorrow. I don't really remember the minimum and maximum ranges. I'd have to figure out how Lexicon maps their delay lengths to size.

I know that 100% in the Concert Hall / Bright Hall modes maps to around 40 meters. 50% wouldn't correspond to 20 meters, as the minimum size is somewhere around 6 meters or so.

Sean Costello

[digitalboytn]

ValhallaVintageVerb wasn't designed to compete against other reverbs in a Lexicon sound alike challenge. It was designed to be used by musicians and engineers to make music.

If people want to have plugin shootouts, fine by me, but I'm not changing the VeeThree parameters in order to make things closer to another plugin. I trust that the people creating the tests will use their ears to dial the settings in. The different plugins out there have different approaches to calculating parameters, and dialing things in by ear will be a better way of matching things than relying on the displayed parameter values.

Sean Costello

[markheath]

Just a very quick bug report - I noticed on my VVV (version 1.0.0) that the mouse-over tooltip for the EQ High Cut control doesn't show. All other controls do. Size of the GUI doesn't make a difference. I'm using REAPER (x86) in Windows 8. Not a particularly big deal, but something you might want to fix with your next update.

[mandolarian]

ValhallaVintageVerb wasn't designed to compete against other reverbs in a Lexicon sound alike challenge. It was designed to be used by musicians and engineers to make music. If people want to have plugin shootouts, fine by me, but I'm not changing the VeeThree parameters in order to make things closer to another plugin. I trust that the people creating the tests will use their ears to dial the settings in.
Sean Costello

Amen! I'm trying to bite my little typing paws...but I can't help but scream through the stinky sock I put in mouth so it wouldn't be so loud: Reverb comparo shootout tests???!!! WTF? Really?

I can think of really stupid stuff to do in my spare time, but not this pointless and sonically irrelevant. Is the point to demonstrate differences? Isn't that what demo versions are for, to test on your time, with your own tracks, with your own settings?

Does context not mean anything anymore? It used be everything, but now it's "Hey look at me and my pig. I've put three different brands of lipstick on my little pig, can you tell which is the more vintage pig lipstick?"

I apologize to any I may have offended, who feel the above 'tests' furthers the cause of the scientific method. I'm not feeling it with this group of piglets, sorry. Like most things musical, reverb is an artistic creative tool. Without a musical context it's just knob twiddling reduced to a disconnected spectator sport over the low bitrate internet.

/rant

[mandolarian]

Just a very quick bug report - I noticed on my VVV (version 1.0.0) that the mouse-over tooltip for the EQ High Cut control doesn't show. All other controls do. Size of the GUI doesn't make a difference. I'm using REAPER (x86) in Windows 8. Not a particularly big deal, but something you might want to fix with your next update.

Confirmed. Also not displaying in 1.0.1b7 with the 32bit Windows version.

[trance_lucent]

I can think of really stupid stuff to do in my spare time, but not this pointless and sonically irrelevant. Is the point to demonstrate differences? Isn't that what demo versions are for, to test on your time, with your own tracks, with your own settings?

Actually blind tests are great things, helpful to destroy various myths, such as "analogue is better than digital", "expensive plugin (or may be from famous developer) is better than cheap" and some other. Often in these tests fun things appear: i. e. analogue apologists can fault by messing analog and digital synthesis/processing. Or often people can say that this particular sample sound expensive, rich, so it is certainly is <famous_developer>, but actually it can be cheap plugin.

The problem is that humans are very prejudiced, biasing toward better looking GUI (also many people like 3D photorealistic GUI), higher price, famous developer, great reviews and so on. And blind tests is the best thing to make tests objective.

[mandolarian]

I can think of really stupid stuff to do in my spare time, but not this pointless and sonically irrelevant. Is the point to demonstrate differences? Isn't that what demo versions are for, to test on your time, with your own tracks, with your own settings?

Actually blind tests are great things, helpful to destroy various myths, such as "analogue is better than digital", "expensive plugin (or may be from famous developer) is better than cheap" and some other. Often in these tests fun things appear: i. e. analogue apologists can fault by messing analog and digital synthesis/processing. Or often people can say that this particular sample sound expensive, rich, so it is certainly is <famous_developer>, but actually it can be cheap plugin.

The problem is that humans are very prejudiced, biasing toward better looking GUI (also many people like 3D photorealistic GUI), higher price, famous developer, great reviews and so on. And blind tests is the best thing to make tests objective.

I agree. In certain contexts blind tests are great. Comparing A/D converters in a blind test makes sense.

However, the above test is in no way rigorous enough to to be used in a blind test - Low bitrate, level mis-matches makes it a non-starter. But, even if these sound files were uncompressed and level matched to .1dB how would it help, from a subjective artistic point? What can one random drum loop tell you that will help your creative process with your own music?

A blind test for a reverb? Is there an objective international standard for reverb testing? Removing subjectivity from a creative tool, renders it useless, for me.

All reverbs are in essence distortion devices - they are distorting the signal. So they are all bad misbehaving plugins and we shouldn't waste a penny on any of them. Or should we?

We want them to change the signal. We can only argue which plugin distorted the signal best, in our opinion. Viva La Subjectivity! Which shade of blue is best? What is the best musical genre? How do we test that? And does it matter?

I argue that it only matters within your own personal context. For me, judging a reverb using some other person's random drumloop or vocal out-take does not inform me at all about how it would work in the context of one of my own tracks.

Anyhow, I've ranted enough. I'm an idiot for even taking the 'test' and a bigger idiot for whining about it here. For that I'm sorry and hope in future I will think first and type later, since KVR is epitome of civil and objective discourse about the highly subjective world of audio manipulation and distortion.

[ostfront]

how would it help, from a subjective artistic point?

What is art?

The way I see it, such tests are an intellectual and sensory game, people trying to use their intellect and senses to gain knowledge and pleasure. Reasoning alone, on any topic, brings wisdom. But even more so with reverbs, which are all about space, time, sound and other domains of philosophy. You know.

[mandolarian]

how would it help, from a subjective artistic point?

What is art?

The way I see it, such tests are an intellectual and sensory game, people trying to use their intellect and senses to gain knowledge and pleasure. Reasoning alone, on any topic, brings wisdom. But even more so with reverbs, which are all about space, time, sound and other domains of philosophy. You know.

I can tell you what art is. But, it's only relevant to my context. You have to find out what art is to you, on your own. Then you can select the tools to assist you in composing that 'art'.

If that test brings you pleasure, great. For me, it offers neither pleasurable sensory input, nor useful knowledge. That's my reasoning. I prefer other more interactive and pleasurable time/space sensory verb games.