Please list True Stereo Reverbs

[Andrew Souter]

B2 is a duel stereo reverb I believe.

B2 is everything/anything thus-far mentioned in this thread... as well as other things...

For example if you would like to have 4 discrete channels (ala Bricasti or Quantec), check out the "4C" factory preset folder. This gives full and specific control over:

L->L & R->R (via A engine)
L->R & R->L (via B engine)

All other configs thus-far mentioned are possible too...

Have it your way...

[valhallasound]

I thought all the Exponential Audio reverbs were true stereo. Maybe Michael Carnes can weigh in. They sound fantastic. I just wish they weren't ILok.

Yes, they're true stereo. The nature of the stereo output reflects the nature of the stereo input in terms of the way the signal propagates through the system.

Wasn't there some guy over at another forum arguing with you that the Lexicon reverbs, and your reverbs, weren't really "true stereo"?

Hang on a second...<google google google>...ah, yes, HERE WE ARE!

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/music-co ... 3-1-a.html

The definition this person proposes for "true stereo" is the exact opposite of what Warp69 has proposed. I think there is too much ambiguity with the term "true stereo" to say that Warp69 is right, but it is pretty clear to me that this other guy is WRONG.

Sean Costello

[Andrew Souter]

I think there is too much ambiguity with the term "true stereo"...

...which is why I say "True Stereo" is kinda 101 (i.e. basic) stuff in 2014...

I would say if a verb is capable for creating 4 different mono IRs (L-L, R-R, L-R, R-L) then is qualifies for this general term. However, there are lots, and lots of structures than can accomplish this in many different ways. The details of this stuff is part of what separates "good" from "great"...

as a marketing term "true stereo" in nothing special for any of the designers in this thread... the implementation details may be, but that is generally "secret sauce"...

[Warp69]

The definition this person proposes for "true stereo" is the exact opposite of what Warp69 has proposed. I think there is too much ambiguity with the term "true stereo" to say that Warp69 is right, but it is pretty clear to me that this other guy is WRONG.

I don't agree that the reverb term 'True Stereo' is undefined and there's too much ambiguity regarding this very term based on a post on the internet.

Do anyone actually use the term as a marketing point?

[Andrew Souter]

I don't agree that the reverb term 'True Stereo' is undefined and there's too much ambiguity regarding this very term based on a post on the internet.

We are all saying the same thing. It's like a bunch of Protestants arguing over which denomination understands the bible better... It's semantic nonsense at this point. We all know there are subtleties to this stuff. Who cares how exactly the marketing term is defined? People NEVER agree exactly on such things.

Do anyone actually use the term as a marketing point?

Sort of... I have the following on the info for Aether but I wrote this in 2008 and made additions in 2010 for 1.5.0 and have not touched it since then:

http://www.2caudio.com/products/aether#_features

Ster-E-Oh-My-God

Most software reverbs on the market are effectively Mono-to-Stereo processes and even when they are inserted on a stereo track, the stereo input is first summed to mono and then fed into the reverb. This is fine for mono sources, such as lead vocals that are panned dead center, but it is generally not desirable for stereo sources or for use on send busses where several panned instruments share the same reverb. The problem with this is that the stereo image of the source is collapsed and lost in the diffusion of the omnidirectional reverb. In such cases the spatial information and panning of the source is disregarded and all sources are assumed to come from one point within the reverb. Ultra high-end hardware companies have known this for decades and offer advanced modes including True Stereo and Dual Mono. Aether offers the same modes in software form, and goes one step further by offering "Cross" and "Width" controls that allow the reverb to blend seamlessly from Dual Mono, to effectively a Summed Mono input, to Dual Mono with reversed channels, and anywhere in-between. Finally, Aether also offers the traditional Mono-to-Stereo mode to reduce CPU usage when needed. For more information on this topic, please download the Aether Manual available in the Links and Downloads section above and read the "Understanding Cross and Width" section.

Aether 1.5 now offers the choice of four stereo modes for both ERs and LRs. Furthermore, these modes can be set independently, which when used with the new Cascade control, can create an entire universe of interesting new spatial effects.

• L-R Mono: A Mono-to-Stereo process where Cross controls the Left-Right input balance. For example, add reverb to only the Left channel input from a stereo input, or collapse the input to center and use this mode to save CPU usage.

• L-R Stereo: A Stereo-to-Stereo process where Cross controls the relative input position of the source. This mode achieves true stereo, dual mono, reversed panning, partial mixing of channels to give variable degrees of source separation, and complex 3D dimensionality when used with Cascade.

• M-S Normal: A Mid-Side process where Cross controls the Mid-Side input balance! For example, add reverb to only the side signal from a stereo input, or the mid signal, or some mix of the two. This allows centered mono instruments to stay dry while adding extra reverb or ambience to the supporting instrumentation, and is excellent for mastering needs!

• M-S Relative: A Mid-Side process where Cross controls the relative Width of the reverb signal and Width becomes an output panner! For example, feed Aether a mono signal, and receive a mono output. Feed it a wide stereo signal, and receive the same output. Or reverse the behavior! This mode is excellent on omni-directional sounds such as synth pads and ambiences or dense mixes which already contain complex spatial information, and is excellent for special FX use!

In late 2008, this WAS an interesting topic in plug-ins. Six years have passed since then. B2 is in fact more sophisticated than Aether in these topics.

[valhallasound]

I don't agree that the reverb term 'True Stereo' is undefined and there's too much ambiguity regarding this very term based on a post on the internet.

We are all saying the same thing. It's like a bunch of Protestants arguing over which denomination understands the bible better... It's semantic nonsense at this point. We all know there are subtleties to this stuff. Who cares how exactly the marketing term is defined? People NEVER agree exactly on such things.

Well said, Andrew!

Do anyone actually use the term as a marketing point?

Sort of... I have the following on the info for Aether but I wrote this in 2008 and made additions in 2010 for 1.5.0 and have not touched it since then:

http://www.2caudio.com/products/aether#_features

I use "true stereo" in my marketing blurb for ValhallaRoom. It can do a few of the various things that have been called "true stereo" in this thread (parallel decorrelated stereo with no crosstalk, stereo that crosstalks over time, mixing left and right channels together in an interleaved way, L->L/L->R/R->R/R->L), so I'm not particularly picky about the definition.

TSAR-1 uses "True Stereo" as part of its NAME, so I guess it counts as a marketing point. It's a pretty cool name. Although not nearly as cool of a name as Tom Erbe's "ErbeVerb." I'm jealous of that name. If Mark Verbos ever comes out with a reverb Eurorack module...

[mystran]

The definition this person proposes for "true stereo" is the exact opposite of what Warp69 has proposed. I think there is too much ambiguity with the term "true stereo" to say that Warp69 is right, but it is pretty clear to me that this other guy is WRONG.

I don't agree that the reverb term 'True Stereo' is undefined and there's too much ambiguity regarding this very term based on a post on the internet.

Do anyone actually use the term as a marketing point?

The whole term is a pure marketing term.

In terms of convolution reverbs I think most people understand it as referring to a dense IR matrix with unique elements. That definition would work perfectly fine for the typical "nearly LTI" algo-reverbs too, but apparently people want a more vague definition.

[codec_spurt]

Well, I'll be impertinent again.

This is my third or fourth attempt to contribute something more to this argument.

All I know is, when I load an impulse or preset into Reverberate, I get stereo out> The sound coming out of the speakers/headphones is spread across the stereo field, even if the original source is mono.

It is almost as if people are getting hung up on inputing two stereo files on each channel - equalling four channels of stereo output. My head is spinning. I don't know.
That description was really bad too.

I think I am going to give up here.

Reveberate Le does everything I want and more. It has much better latency than SIR.

But then again I don't really mess around with convolutions so much these days.

I love:
Audio Damage ADverb.
Audio Damage Eos.
Valhalla Vintage Verb.
MVerb
Tila2
OldSkoolVerb


My next reverbs to buy are Valhalla Room and Shimmer.

I can't think of anything else that comes close that I would consider.
That is for algorithmic reverbs.

For convolution/IR I am definitely going to buy http://www.liquidsonics.com/software_re ... stereo.htm this one.