Valhalla: specific Range to filter?

[Caine123]

is it possible, without duplicating my instance, with Valhalla Plugins to only reverb for example all frequencies over 800 hz? couldnt find it somehow

[TheKid]

Low-Cut 800 Hz?

[Caine123]

Low-Cut 800 Hz?

ahhh thx, i forgot to mention Vroom , sry!

[ImNotDedYet]

I don't have my DAW open and I'm too lazy to do so and pull up VRoom which I haven't used forever, but this would definitely work...put vroom on a send, filtering out everything below 800 Hz?

[BDeep]

VRoom has a highpass filter, but it only acts on the output of the reverb. If you really need to cut the frequencies before it goes into VRoom, use it on a send like ImNotDedYet said, but put a filter or EQ in front of VRoom to cut out the lower frequencies.

[Neon Breath]

Simply split the frequencies of the track, and insert Vroom or whatever effect on the band of your choice. Simple as that.

[Caine123]

Simply split the frequencies of the track, and insert Vroom or whatever effect on the band of your choice. Simple as that.

yeah but then you need to duplicate the whole instance afaik?

so the send option is really great when a reverb has no LPF, maybe in vroom it could be added?

[valhallasound]

Simply split the frequencies of the track, and insert Vroom or whatever effect on the band of your choice. Simple as that.

yeah but then you need to duplicate the whole instance afaik?

so the send option is really great when a reverb has no LPF, maybe in vroom it could be added?

Just use an EQ in series with the reverb on a send, if your track is <100% wet. If you are running things 100% wet, you can use an EQ in series with the reverb on an insert.

For the effect you are looking for, do the following:

- Set up a send track in your DAW.
- Put in the EQ of your choice, with a highpass filter that cuts out everything below 800 Hz.
- Follow the EQ with ValhallaRoom (or the reverb of your choice).

You can also change the order in the send, e.g. reverb->EQ. The order isn't that important for reverbs. With older reverbs, putting the EQ after the reverb could improve the noise performance.

I'm not adding any parameters to ValhallaRoom (or any of the other Valhalla plugins) at this point, as doing so would break existing DAW projects.

Sean Costello

[statue]

I totally understand not adding any more parameters to your existing plugins, Mr. Costello. However I have to point out that nowadays I almost always notice myself missing a proper highpass (or even a eq with a few bands) option in reverbs. I don't always want to put my reverb on a send, it is just too inconvenient in some cases.

[djscorb]

Hi Sean

I can understand your reluctance to add parameters to VRoom.

However, is it not possible to add parameters and retain existing compatibility by ensuring that any additional controls are added last to the list of parameters? Then existing projects simply leave that new control; in this case an HPF, at zero (which could double as a disable filter value) and leave the sound identical as in previous versions and projects.

Your filters in VVV appear at the far right of the GUI so it seems to me that placing an HPF in VRoom as a last parameter both in the GUI and in the list of automatable controls would not really be a problem with either the interface, workflow or backwards compatibility.

VRoom desperatly needs an HPF in my opinion, the low mids are just too strong in most circumstances. In fact, on a send without any EQ after it I deliberately use this tendency of VRoom to warm up or add low mid thickness to thinner sounds. It works really well as a kind of low mid exciter with fast ambient settings in this scenario.

When I don't want this effect then I am either high passing below 250 - 450hz with a 6dB/oct HPF or scooping out a lot of the low mids with a shelf or bell after VRoom.

In Ableton when using it as an insert I have to create a dry / wet rack in order to remove excess lows in the wet path. This works well but increases the CPU load for channels where I need VRoom as an insert. Also, I suspect this workaround is simply not achievable in many other DAWs.

Cheers

Scorb

[Caine123]

Hi Sean

I can understand your reluctance to add parameters to VRoom.

However, is it not possible to add parameters and retain existing compatibility by ensuring that any additional controls are added last to the list of parameters? Then existing projects simply leave that new control; in this case an HPF, at zero (which could double as a disable filter value) and leave the sound identical as in previous versions and projects.

Your filters in VVV appear at the far right of the GUI so it seems to me that placing an HPF in VRoom as a last parameter both in the GUI and in the list of automatable controls would not really be a problem with either the interface, workflow or backwards compatibility.

VRoom desperatly needs an HPF in my opinion, the low mids are just too strong in most circumstances. In fact, on a send without any EQ after it I deliberately use this tendency of VRoom to warm up or add low mid thickness to thinner sounds. It works really well as a kind of low mid exciter with fast ambient settings in this scenario.

When I don't want this effect then I am either high passing below 250 - 450hz with a 6dB/oct HPF or scooping out a lot of the low mids with a shelf or bell after VRoom.

In Ableton when using it as an insert I have to create a dry / wet rack in order to remove excess lows in the wet path. This works well but increases the CPU load for channels where I need VRoom as an insert. Also, I suspect this workaround is simply not achievable in many other DAWs.

Cheers

Scorb

signed! for me compatibility with older projects is also very important but if you add a HPF on 0 then nothing is changed !
and a reverb on send does sound different than an inserted reverb... i dont want to always rely on send. this would make vroom perfect and i mean i only use Valhalla reverbs so far, dunno why i should switch. but adding suck little thing would make a BIG difference . as i said, just a HPF set to 0 so nothing changes in older projects, which is important!

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

What if the problem isn't "what do with the new hipass filter in existing projects" but is instead "some DAWs won't recall settings from existing projects?" I believe the latter was previously mentioned as being the case here, and if so, then my answer is, "no, don't add a hipass filter."

That said, if Sean were to add a parameter or two in a ValhallaRoom v2, or were to release a version with a new plugin ID that could be run in parallel to the existing version, I would certainly welcome the update.

[valhallasound]

What if the problem isn't "what do with the new hipass filter in existing projects" but is instead "some DAWs won't recall settings from existing projects?" I believe the latter was previously mentioned as being the case here, and if so, then my answer is, "no, don't add a hipass filter."

EXACTLY.

When I released ValhallaÜberMod, people asked about ping pong delays. Within a month or so of the initial release, I released an update that added a new control that allowed for ping pong delays. For most users, this worked well. For some users, this update wreaked havoc with their existing DAW projects. It turns out that at least one DAW added "invisible" parameters to the end of the parameter list, that had significant DAW functionality. The new parameter in ÜberMod was overriding one of these invisible parameters.

The ÜberMod update happened when the plugin was fairly new, so people were able to adapt, and only a few people were affected. ValhallaRoom has been out for 3 1/2 years at this point. The ValhallaRoom user base is way bigger than the ÜberMod user base was at the time I made that update. Updating the plugin with a new parameter would be irresponsible.

Plus, the new parameter would add NOTHING that can't be added through using a send. There are a lot of great reasons to use sends for reverbs: CPU efficiency, the ability to create a more cohesive sonic image, and (most relevant to this conversation) the ability to EQ/compress/etc. the reverb to your heart's content.

Sean Costello

[robertszalapski]

If you just want to thin out a Valhalla Room reverb, set the low frequency to x0.25 and set the crossover to the frequency you want. Easy enough...

[djscorb]

Hi again Sean

Fair enough!

You're right, VRoom has been an established part of many users' workflow for a long time now so best to avoid any disgruntled customers whose DAWs will not play nicely with an added parameter.

I love VRoom and I can't think of a single mixing project where I haven't used it. Perhaps this is why I am sensitive to this low mid tendency, using it so often and daily

My workaround is ok for me in Ableton and I use it both on sends and as an insert.

One trick I like is to put VRoom on a crusty old breakbeat as an insert with a very low dry wet ratio and then compress / saturate the living daylights out of it. It really adds a lot of character, turning the sound into something that's more glued and unified. This is just one of many scenarios where using it as a send is not possible to get the desired effect.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation. Such a shame that DAW programmers think it's ok to go adding "invisible" parameters though. It shows a lack of foresight and must create unnecessary headaches for third party devs.

Far too many things in this world seem to be governed by giving precedent to minority cases, what a shame for the rest of us! What DAWs are the main culprits here by the way?

Cheers

Scorb