A Good All-Round Reverb Plug-in

[e@rs]

Don't remember anything lower than that, but what's your point?

Answered here:

But I remember the editor of Computer Music making the point when asked why reviews are so often positive that they don't normally bother doing reviews of complete stinkers.

Fixed. It's in the thread martinjuenke posted above. Page 2.

[Gamma-UT]

Don't remember anything lower than that, but what's your point?

Answered here:

But I remember the editor of Computer Music making the point when asked why reviews are so often positive that they don't normally bother doing reviews of complete stinkers.

Fixed. It's in the thread martinjuenke posted above. Page 2.

But that's not what I was referring to: https://www.soundonsound.com/people/balanced-output

[ghettosynth]

Don't remember anything lower than that, but what's your point?

It's not clear? If there's nothing below a five and, in fact, seldom anything that's even as low as five then the bottom half of the scale is not informative, hence, just subtract five. "Oh, but I like that ten point scale." Ok, then multiply by two, done!

[e@rs]

I offered you the answer of Joe CM above. If the product is garbage, they don't bother publishing it. So no bad marks appear in the mag.

[e@rs]

Answered here:

But I remember the editor of Computer Music making the point when asked why reviews are so often positive that they don't normally bother doing reviews of complete stinkers.

Fixed. It's in the thread martinjuenke posted above. Page 2.

But that's not what I was referring to: https://www.soundonsound.com/people/balanced-output

I know, but it also applies to CM.

[ghettosynth]

I offered you the answer of Joe CM above. If the product is garbage, they don't bother publishing it. So no bad marks appear in the mag.

But you don't get it, yes they do, a five is a bad mark. If that's as bad as they get then it's the worst mark, i.e., it may as well be zero. That's, in fact, how everyone reads them. A seven in CM is the kiss of death. All of that justification is bullshit, it's all about selling advertisement. They can't give that seven rated plugin a four because it would impact their advertisement income.

The numbers intrinsically have little meaning. It would be better to connect them to a scale that conveys something that people connect to more consistently, e.g., letter grades A-F. But that also varies by country and even region.

Consumer reports gives a very useful, again only five point, scale. I don't think that any of these magazines have the balls to use such a rating scale.

https://www.consumerreports.org/consume ... -the-test/

FWIW: I think that I will start using the consumer reports rating scale when discussing how I feel about plugins.

[chk071]

I offered you the answer of Joe CM above. If the product is garbage, they don't bother publishing it.

Well, that's the PR answer. The actual answer is that it is a small market, mags which write for that small market deviver to a small market, and it's a give and take between the mags and the developers. Imagine they rated half of the products as garbage, what influence would that have on the market which is so important for the mag, because it wouldn't exist without it?

Apart from that, i've seen plugins which actually received a 3/10, and a 5/10 rating, and, i've also seen a few receive a 7/10 rating (very rare though). I won't get into the quality of those plugins, you can figure. Let's just say if the plugin is rated 7/10 and below, then it's very questionable if anyone should even bother demoing it. And, of course those ratings are very bloated. Reasons stated above. You wouldn't bite the hand that feeds you. And no developer wil hand out free demo copies when they get a sh** rating.

[e@rs]

Guys, I'm not born yesterday; I have an idea on how things work with the reviews, the compromises the reviewers have to make and the strategies the developers adopt. You don't have to explain them to me like I was 12 or something.

The only thing I don't get is why here on KVR only CM has a bad reputation. THAT'S IT!

And I'm not going to continue with this one, as it's way off topic.

[elxsound]

So back to plates... Do all EMT 140 plate verbs sound the same?

I have never worked with a real EMT 140 plate, but Soundtoys modeled Little plate from 5 different ones, the Abbey Roads plates are modeled after 4 different modified EMT 140 plates and the many IRs I've heard of EMT 140 plates sound different (which admittedly can be attributed to recording equipment and environment too).

With that said, if someone says they got closer using Valhalla Plate to the EMT 140 they used than other plugins, I'd believe its possible simply because there are so many variables involved in using analog equipment than can affect the sound, that it sounds different from another person's experience.

Valhalla Plate with tweaking can very close to Abbey Roads (Waves) and Little Plate... so much so, that the differences probably wouldn't be noticeable in a mix.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of plates. I love Little Plate for its ease of use. I love Valhalla Plate for its ease of use and its versatility in sound.

Valhalla's verbs hold up very well. Yeah there are some that love Lexicon, and Lexicon and more Lexicon, but I'm glad there's Sean with the Valhalla's.

Lexicon after all are digital reverbs that people found musically appealing and made its place in music processing history that's still ongoing.

Is there room for more than one algorithm for reverb? I think so.

[Ah_Dziz]

VRoom is my favorite all around reverb. It does realistic small rooms and large halls, to massive modulated spaces. Aside from that I’ve been having fun recently with meldas multiband convolver. It can do some very weird things. Also Turboverb has yet to let me down with any task I’ve tried to use it for. It just takes a while to design a reverb algorithm from their language.