KVR Audio

Cimbasso · Post by **Cimbasso** » Fri Oct 02, 2015 9:52 pm

If you want ultimate quality with little to no CPU usage, you have 2 choices afaik: Valhalla verbs and Lexicon PCM.

steffeeH · Post by **steffeeH** » Fri Oct 02, 2015 10:02 pm

I get what you mean. But you still get a good picture of how much CPU different plugins consume compared to eachother, so there's still the same ratio.

flugel45 · Post by **flugel45** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:49 pm

steffeeH wrote:
pdxindy wrote: ...
Learning how to effectively use reverb on sends IS the advanced way
Nah, it's just not my workflow...

Does your workflow allow freezing of tracks? Because the only other alternative is to get a much faster cpu.

Clearly, with your workflow, you've traded one form of flexibility for another.

T-CM11 · Post by **T-CM11** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:01 pm

My workflow needs 200 voices of Diva, without freezing... and 5 real Moog Modulars.

Please help me... and donate!

producer7 · Post by **producer7** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 2:16 pm

TAL Reverb is pretty good....a bit of a one trick pony, but nice trick.

I could freeze the reverb of a sound by itself, but that's a lot of extra work as I don't use normal parallel routing for my reverbs.
Oh and no I can't use reverb sends, it simply doesn't work for these tracks (plus then I'd still have CPU issues from only 1 reverb instance added).

Sounds like its time for a new puter. a reasonable quadcore will solve most of your problems but i have to ask if you noticed different cpu usage for different tracks?

For instance you may get different results with the same plugin on a mono track as opposed to a stereo track and yet a different result on a group bus and still yet another on the master buss. Point being: maybe its more cpu efficient for you to run two mono verbe as opposed to one stereo verb.

Lastly, consider buying a UAD card for reverbs alone. a DUO for $300 -$350 used will work nicely.

And lastly again ALWAYS future proof or "overbuy" when cashflow permits.

pottering · Post by **pottering** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:56 pm

I may be wrong, but I've been told that the reason people always recommend to put reverbs in sends is exactly because they are well-known CPU-killers, hence there aren't any "low-cpu reverbs" really, relative to other VSTs (I think delays are the same). 10+ years old reverb VSTs killing your CPU seems to support that.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 7:39 pm

pottering wrote:I may be wrong, but I've been told that the reason people always recommend to put reverbs in sends is exactly because they are well-known CPU-killers, hence there aren't any "low-cpu reverbs" really, relative to other VSTs (I think delays are the same). 10+ years old reverb VSTs killing your CPU seems to support that.

Putting reverbs on sends is more efficient... you can still eq the wet signal of each track going to the send separately.

It also helps to gel the sound and I think separate reverbs on each track more easily get muddy sounding.

But for me, besides the cpu, the main reason is I consider a lot of stuff over produced and I don't find value in spending hours tweaking the minutia of stuff. Good enough is good enough and I would rather play music.

musiclover55547 · Post by **musiclover55547** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 8:32 pm

LOL Not putting reverb on aux/send is crazy! A reverb unit on each and every track?

Lot of reverb'ing to process!

pottering · Post by **pottering** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 9:01 pm

Gotta say I do understand the reasons OP wants to use lots of reverbs, but a lot of the crazier sound design stuff (methods or tools) just seems not to be usable realtime (like Paustretch for example, you set the params then wait for the tool to process the sound).
I guess it is not a coincidence a lot of sound designers seem to work with tools that manipulate samples (Kontakt, Alchemy).

valhallasound · Post by **valhallasound** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 9:38 pm

pdxindy wrote:
pottering wrote:I may be wrong, but I've been told that the reason people always recommend to put reverbs in sends is exactly because they are well-known CPU-killers, hence there aren't any "low-cpu reverbs" really, relative to other VSTs (I think delays are the same). 10+ years old reverb VSTs killing your CPU seems to support that.
Putting reverbs on sends is more efficient... you can still eq the wet signal of each track going to the send separately.

It also helps to gel the sound and I think separate reverbs on each track more easily get muddy sounding.

But for me, besides the cpu, the main reason is I consider a lot of stuff over produced and I don't find value in spending hours tweaking the minutia of stuff. Good enough is good enough and I would rather play music.

+1 to everything pdxindy just wrote. Running reverbs on sends is:

- more efficient
- allows for more sonic shaping of the reverb (EQ, dynamics processing, etc.)
- creates a more unified sonic space
- is just better form

This serves as a reminder to finally post the video that Don Gunn made for me, demonstrating how to take advantage of reverb sends to create an AWESOME drum sound:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpFTriuCQSA

Sean Costello

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:34 am

Cimbasso wrote:If you want ultimate quality with little to no CPU usage, you have 2 choices afaik: Valhalla verbs and Lexicon PCM.

to be fair, i would add 2 others to that list.

Exponential audio and overloud breverb 2.

See alot remember breverb 1, which was average (besides the reverse module which was and IS fantastic), and sure, those algorithms are still optional in Breverb2, but overloud added new space modes which are just fantastic, and use no cpu.

AFAIK the exponential audio stuff is lean like PCM (same programmer), and many swear it's the absolute best verb on the planet.. one is supposed to be amazing at lushness and noticeable verb and the other is supposed to be THE most transparent verb on the market.

I use earverb for the latter which is also excellent (http://www.eareckon.com)

RP verb is not so light on cpu but is quite excellent as an all rounder IMO. (natural and light or drenched and heavy and swirly).

These days I am mostly using UAD stuff through (140/224 and the AKG (best spring plugin on planet).. which use zero of my cpu hehe. Just being cheeky.

Oh for some reason, when i want a quick fix for drums though, i use none of the above. I open up tsar 1 light - i don't know what it is, it just always works with 2 knob twists. Softube NI 224 and 480 are not exact emulations but are fantastic plugins in their own right.. Ultimate lex everything is having PCM, UAD 224 and Relab 480.. (yes i love lex).

jens · Post by **jens** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:49 am

pottering wrote:I may be wrong, but I've been told that the reason people always recommend to put reverbs in sends is exactly because they are well-known CPU-killers, hence there aren't any "low-cpu reverbs" really, relative to other VSTs (I think delays are the same). 10+ years old reverb VSTs killing your CPU seems to support that.

You are wrong inasmuch as that it doesn't really apply anymore - nowadays most reverbs are super-light on the CPU in comparison with advanced emulations of analog devices such as consoles, compressors and what not...

V³ gets barely noticed on my machine.

jens · Post by **jens** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 8:53 am

valhallasound wrote: - creates a more unified sonic space

true - but it can work great together with additional insert revebs...

sends to glue the tracks and then inserts for the big sound...

- is just better form

Better form?

Dunno - I say whatever works...

steffeeH · Post by **steffeeH** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 12:59 pm

producer7 wrote:For instance you may get different results with the same plugin on a mono track as opposed to a stereo track and yet a different result on a group bus and still yet another on the master buss. Point being: maybe its more cpu efficient for you to run two mono verbe as opposed to one stereo verb.

Sounds really interesting, I'll definately take a look into this

And no, I don't insert a reverb on evey mixertrack, only where I think the sound needs reverb, otherwise I might as well just use delays or leave it dry with some room blended in.

jancivil · Post by **jancivil** » Mon Oct 05, 2015 5:40 am

pottering wrote:I may be wrong, but I've been told that the reason people always recommend to put reverbs in sends is exactly because they are well-known CPU-killers

Well, sends is how it was done from a real board, with a return channel (or channels). So you have levels that you send and a level on the return, which is simply about control. Now the channel/the bus sent to has the reverb device inserted on it, so that's the return channel covered; you have two places you enjoy control over. As to "good form", the reasoning is you are acting like here's this room where everybody is situated; and this is deemed a clean modus operandi. There's going to be more to worry about with extra reverbs (reverse, slapback etc). Now, I do some special sound design that is separate from this basic room concept and I typically treat drums differently than everybody else in the mix. Drier for the most part.

So noting that single room as the target for numerous sends isn't per se dogmatic. The thread is verbs are killing my CPU, and there's little than can be done other than freeze, stop doing so much, or maybe think outside the box for a solution. VE Pro is going to improve this situation per se. I use VSL Hybrid Reverb, which has a fairly lite footprint; although this more elaborate FX verbs instance I isolate in order to devote more cores to.

I can't relate to an insert for every inst. that needs reverb; first of all I want a lot of control. I think this isn't enough control for a situation that, well it looks a bit dodgy to more than one of us here. If it's the same reverb, why not do sends. It's hard to feature a better flow having probably more to deal with and every instance is what a 0dB level send is.

My reverbs are killing my CPU....