Reverbs!

[ATN69]

Tone boosters have a relatively cheap but good reverb. It sounds nice and the reason I like it is because it has a very graphic interface. It’s easier to shape and create the kind of reverberation I want because of the graphical interface.

I also want to mention UVI Spark verb. It also have a graphical interface and it is a very creative reverb with many options. I don’t know if it is still on sale or not but it sure was a sale a few days ago.

[Mister Natural]

I know - I've been playing with a couple of the latest verbvst inside my current project tune

I have no judgements at this time, besides mad love for Valhalla Verbs like everyone else here
have recently experimented with MAX4Live convolution and ecquired in 2017 :
LittlePlate
OrilRiver
UltraVerb

really can judge them right now but will follow up on this topic later

peace

[dandezebra]

Another vote for Reverberate 2 for convolution. MConvolutionMB is nice as well.

[Kalamata Kid]

Liquidsonics Reverberate 2 does all that you ask, and does it beautifully. It is my favorite, and I own many - including the awesome Seventh Heaven Pro.

H-Reverb would be my second choice, great graphical editor/easy to maneuver, covers huge ground of great sounds.

Also here with H-reverb and Reverberate 2 but cannot decide which one I prefer.

[drwx]

VSL Hybrid Reverb. Big subject, I don't feel like a lot more typing today. But it's very efficient on CPU while delivering a huge benefit and there is probably something crafted for yer use case scenario. Rooms, chambers, churches, plates, 'scoring stages', special (reverse taps for instance), the whole shebang. Control over algo tail from convo'd early reflections like nobody's bizness...

Thanks for the addition! Is it a VST plugin though or it can only be used inside Vienna Suite?

[drwx]

Thanks everybody for your insightful answers! I'm demoing reverbs as we speak...
I just realized CPU is important to me given how CPU intensive reverb plugins can be, so I'm looking for something that is not too CPU greedy...

In terms of IR... I use Cubase. I'm not sure we have an equivalent of Logic Space Designer in Cubase... I tried REVelation (algorithmic) and the Pro version comes with REVerence (convolution)...

EDIT: I just found REVerence can import IRs so it would be the equivalent to Space Designer. Thanks Ploki.

Otherwise which convolution plugin would you recommend to load IRs?

[Ploki]

revelation iirc is algorithmic, Reverence is convolution which would be the equivalent of Space Designer

[drwx]

revelation iirc is algorithmic, Reverence is convolution which would be the equivalent of Space Designer

Sorry, I just corrected that!

[Ploki]

Well convolution reverbs usually sound as good as the impulse response.
the "expensive" solution is Altiverb, but I suspect REVerence will be fine, and the better question is "where to get some nice IRs for these"

as for that, its hard to say. I just have a folder named "IR" where I chuck in stuff I found around and are interesting.

[dandezebra]

I've pulled a lot of IRs out from other other installs and added them to my IR directory. Also got some free ones and paid for some also. The nice part of convolution is that you don't necessarily have to use an actual IR...

[dreamvoid]

Well convolution reverbs usually sound as good as the impulse response.

In a perfect world - yes. But as Casey from Bricasti pointed out, convolutions, especially in Plug Ins, can sound different. There is a conversion from the time domain into the frequency dpmain and back done. It depends how good this is done. As we all know, conversions can have some loss, e.g. in sampling rate conversions. This is why hardware convolution, done in the time domain, sounds so great and the reason I still use the Yamaha SREV1.

[frizzbee]

Well convolution reverbs usually sound as good as the impulse response.

In a perfect world - yes. But as Casey from Bricasti pointed out, convolutions, especially in Plug Ins, can sound different. There is a conversion from the time domain into the frequency dpmain and back done. It depends how good this is done. As we all know, conversions can have some loss, e.g. in sampling rate conversions. This is why hardware convolution, done in the time domain, sounds so great and the reason I still use the Yamaha SREV1.

convolution is a strict mathematical formula. and converting the signal into the frequency domain is quite standardized too due to fft. so i think the basic process can be neglected. i'd more look onto the feature set a convolution reverb offers (manipulating the ir, true stereo, sample rate conversion).

anyways valhalla, fabfilter and zynaptiq adaptiverb are great.

[dreamvoid]

Nobody ist doubting perfect mathematical functions being the same, no matter what computing platform. It is all about, what is implemented and how, with which compromises. I don't want to bore you with subjective sentences from my side like "SREV1 sound audible better with the same IR than plug in concolutions", even if would be quite easy to hear. I'm not a programmer, I let the specialists talk:

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showpos ... stcount=12

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showpos ... stcount=11

"The software based convos first convert the audio into the frequency domain and then back again into the time domain in order to reduce the DSP requirements to make them practical to run on a Mac or PC.
While in theory these two methods can be made equivalent, it is quite possible that they are not, due to differing implemenations."

[Ploki]

Well convolution reverbs usually sound as good as the impulse response.

In a perfect world - yes. But as Casey from Bricasti pointed out, convolutions, especially in Plug Ins, can sound different. There is a conversion from the time domain into the frequency dpmain and back done. It depends how good this is done. As we all know, conversions can have some loss, e.g. in sampling rate conversions. This is why hardware convolution, done in the time domain, sounds so great and the reason I still use the Yamaha SREV1.

Doesn't matter in this case - he was asking for plugins and not hardware based solutions. I'll go into this anyway.

also a relevant thread:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-sh ... iverb.html

although the thread is full of GS usually biased nonsense, there's voice of reason at the end.
there are two relevant clips here that actually do a side-by-side:

SREV1 Epicurus studio
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachm ... studio.mp3
REVerence Epicurus studio:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/attachm ... studio.mp3

quote from the dude who posted REVerence: "The Reverence reverb in Cubase and Nuendo uses the same impulse responses as the Yamaha SREV1, and guess what? They sound the same. Any difference is thanks to MP3 compression."

Doing something the hard way doesn't mean its by default the best way - or that its better enough to be worth it. (considering there's no hardware convolution units in production... it's a moot point altogether.)

"The software based convos first convert the audio into the frequency domain and then back again into the time domain in order to reduce the DSP requirements to make them practical to run on a Mac or PC.
While in theory these two methods can be made equivalent, it is quite possible that they are not, due to differing implemenations."

"it is quite possible that they are not"
can be paraphrased into
"it is quite possible that they are"

So I would agree with frizzbee here, feature set (especially in a plugin) is the only defining factor of a convo loader.

[Ploki]

Why don't you render a few IRs with SREV1 and a few with a software convolution solution (flat-with same settings), and upload raw audio? dry file + 100% wet files (so we can listen to them also isolated)