Soundspot Oracle

[BRBWaffles]

Nobody gives a shit brother. You're in the wrong place. This is a website about plugins in a thread about a shitty plugin. A lot of us ALSO have hardware and we disagree with your conclusions overall. Some hardware sounds better than some software, some software sounds better than some hardware. I'm not sure what you think that reverb hardware is? In essence, it's most often a plugin running on a dedicated computer. To the extent that it is better it's most likely not technology but rather business decisions that are the reason. Hardware can be sold at good profit without risk of loss to piracy.

I will do my best to respond to the things you bring up.

I didn't write about "some". I wrote about good hardware. The best reverb plugins to my ears are not as useful and good sounding as a Behringer V-Verb, for example, which you can get for a few dollars on ebay, or an SPX 2000, which goes on ebay for around $300. All in all, though, plugins are much less expensive than say a TC System 6000 or a Bricasti, which of course is a factor. But even if you can't afford them, I would still recommend to try them out. You will probably learn something, and it might actually improve your usage of the plugins you own.

Hardware reverbs are not similar to plugins. Plugins need to run on a machine that was designed to be used in an office, to write letters etc. A dedicated hardware reverb has DSP that is specially and specificly designed to do reverb, and nothing else. Take a look into the DRE-S777, for example, or the M7, to get an impression of what is involved. This is not "a plugin running on a kind of PC". Don't underestimate the word "dedicated" in your reply!

And yes, I am fully aware that this is a forum about plugins. I expressed some concerns about plugins becoming the sole orientation, and furthermore gave a recommendation. If you don't care, this is your decision, and I fully respect that. I wouldn't express your opinion with such general words as "nobody" and "we", though, but that again is also your decision.

The BS is thick with this one. Do you really think a 10 year old piece of digital rack gear has a hope in hell of comparing to competently written software in 2017 that is intended to be ran on an i5 or i7? In all likelihood your rack gear sounds worse or on par at best. It sounds like you're conflating "dedicated" with "faster" or "more powerful", which fails immediately. The Nintendo Wii is a dedicated device, too. But it doesn't have a hope in hell of beating out my i5 and 980ti. Like, get a grip.

[Rumi]

Ah, yes, of course. And I thought this was better than gearslutz.

[BRBWaffles]

Ah, yes, of course. And I thought this was better than gearslutz.

Unlike the typical gearslutz forum-goer, I'm not speaking from a position of unsubstantiated dogmatism. It's just reality. While I can't precisely tell you what a 10 year old piece of kit will sound like, I can actually tell you with remarkable accuracy what it doesn't sound like, if it is digital. The technological constraints at the time of development put very obvious caps on what DSPs (outboard or otherwise) could do 10 years ago. Constraints that need not still apply, or straight up don't apply, by today's standards. There are some powerful digital reverb plugins with some pretty hefty minimum requirements. It is highly unlikely that a 10 year old piece of digital outboard gear could stand toe to toe with the most sophisticated reverb plugins available in 2017.

[Rumi]

My comment about gearslutz was ironical. As written in my first post, it was not my intent to cause a shitstorm. I apologize to the thread for going OT, and am out.

Edit: For people who come here in order to get real information, I am moved to say clearly that the statement that a TC 6000, a Sony DRE-S777, a Bricasti M7, etc., "is basically a PC with a plugin running on it", is utter nonsense, and shows a substantial lack of knowledge in the matter. A bold and pushy way of presenting that doesn't alter the facts. Sorry for being so direct, but that was a level of misinformation that needed to be set straight.

[ghettosynth]

Nobody gives a shit brother. You're in the wrong place. This is a website about plugins in a thread about a shitty plugin. A lot of us ALSO have hardware and we disagree with your conclusions overall. Some hardware sounds better than some software, some software sounds better than some hardware. I'm not sure what you think that reverb hardware is? In essence, it's most often a plugin running on a dedicated computer. To the extent that it is better it's most likely not technology but rather business decisions that are the reason. Hardware can be sold at good profit without risk of loss to piracy.

I will do my best to respond to the things you bring up.

I didn't write about "some". I wrote about good hardware.

You're missing the point, I don't know how I can make it more clear. Not all hardware that you think is "good" will sound better than good software. Do you really think that the good folks at IRCAM don't know what they're doing? Maybe they should contact you for some advice? After all what's a few dozen PhDs compared to your years of experience in the studio?

The best reverb plugins to my ears are not as useful and good sounding as a Behringer V-Verb, for example, which you can get for a few dollars on ebay, or an SPX 2000, which goes on ebay for around $300.

Which is an opinion, that you're entitled to have, but you aren't entitled to your own facts. As I said, many of us here have different opinions and, some of us, like to support our opinions with factual data.

And yes, I am fully aware that this is a forum about plugins. I expressed some concerns about plugins becoming the sole orientation, and furthermore gave a recommendation. If you don't care, this is your decision, and I fully respect that. I wouldn't express your opinion with such general words as "nobody" and "we", though, but that again is also your decision.

You're new here, you won't enjoy yourself by trying to tell everyone about your amazing experience. You aren't showing anyone the light my friend, I'm trying to help you get acclimated, nobody cares is close enough.

[do_androids_dream]

The BS is thick with this one. Do you really think a 10 year old piece of digital rack gear has a hope in hell of comparing to competently written software in 2017 that is intended to be ran on an i5 or i7? In all likelihood your rack gear sounds worse or on par at best.

This is COMPLETELY flawed logic. There are plenty of hardware reverbs (much older than 10 years I might add) that sound much better than any software reverb I've ever heard/used.

[Rumi]

The BS is thick with this one. Do you really think a 10 year old piece of digital rack gear has a hope in hell of comparing to competently written software in 2017 that is intended to be ran on an i5 or i7? In all likelihood your rack gear sounds worse or on par at best.

This is COMPLETELY flawed logic. There are plenty of hardware reverbs (much older than 10 years I might add) that sound much better than any software reverb I've ever heard/used.

Hahaha! You're putting oil into the fire, my friend. I shouldn't have posted at all. And I agree, there's been quite a bit of interesting logic stated here. (For the ones interested in those topics: You might read posts from Casey from Bricasti, Martin Lind from Relab, or ask Sigi Welzenbach, the developer of the Quantec QRS and QRS-XL, who recently told me that it would be very difficult to adapt the code of the original QRS to a PC.)

All I intended was to suggest to try out a good hardware reverb, and see for yourself. It seems that some already take that as offensive. And the fact that I've spent decades comparing and collecting reverbs doesn't mean that I'm arrogant, it just means that this is an important topic for my work.

I really wouldn't mind having a great reverb plugin that makes the expensive hardware obsolete, but for my ears and my taste and the kind of music I am working on in my daily work, this hasn't happened yet. We are getting closer, though, but it's still some distance to go.

And I apologize for being so OT, I guess the people starting to post better alternatives made me do the foolish step of suggesting to try hardware.

[BRBWaffles]

The BS is thick with this one. Do you really think a 10 year old piece of digital rack gear has a hope in hell of comparing to competently written software in 2017 that is intended to be ran on an i5 or i7? In all likelihood your rack gear sounds worse or on par at best.

This is COMPLETELY flawed logic. There are plenty of hardware reverbs (much older than 10 years I might add) that sound much better than any software reverb I've ever heard/used.

If the unit is digital, than I highly doubt it. The amount of dedicated throughput required for a 10 year old unit to approach what a good modern reverb plugin can do on modern processors seems unlikely to me. I mean, even affordable consumer grade processors at the time would choke on a lot of the VSTs ran today, especially some of the more complex reverbs. I just find it hard to believe that even more processing power was being crammed into rack gear at the time. I've used plenty of outboard reverb units, and virtually all of them sounded lackluster when compared to modern VSTs. Especially when simulating smaller spaces. I'm open to being proven wrong, though. Could I have an example of a 10+ year old unit demonstrating heights that modern software has yet to reach? Maybe a YouTube video?

[dreamvoid]

(... or ask Sigi Welzenbach, the developer of the Quantec QRS and QRS-XL, who recently told me that it would be very difficult to adapt the code of the original QRS to a PC.)

Of course you're right that several hardware reverbs do sound much, much better than software plug ins, that it is the reason I stick with Quantec, TC6000, SREV1 and EMT additional to plug ins. Of course the DSP power is not up to par with modern CPUs or GPUs, but the algorithms are what make these machines so good. These algorithms are NOT available in plug ins for several reasons. There are examples of algorithms successfully ported from devices to plug ins -> Lexicon PCM-96 -> LexiconPlug In Reverbs. Sometimes I do productions with only plug in reverbs, but most of the time, when highest quality is key, I use the hardware reverbs and clients and listeners clearly hear the difference. The more the artificial room or reverb is free standing the more people hear the difference. Exponential Audio is very close to expensive hardware IMO, mentioned as a good example. If you do work like me around 50% in surround, the difference is even more striking - the aformentioned hardware boxes are unbeatable.

But: Quantec reverbs were developed by Wolfgang Buchleitner, recently deceased.

[dreamvoid]

Could I have an example of a 10+ year old unit demonstrating heights that modern software has yet to reach? Maybe a YouTube video?

Just listen to a unit from around 2000, the TC 6000 with its VSS6 reverbs and compare it to any plug in. If you cannot hear the difference in density, clarity and smoothness, then I don't know ... do it in a good studio by yourself. YT videos can be manipulated and the processing may cover the differences by making everything less good sounding.

[ghettosynth]

(... or ask Sigi Welzenbach, the developer of the Quantec QRS and QRS-XL, who recently told me that it would be very difficult to adapt the code of the original QRS to a PC.)

Of course the DSP power is not up to par with modern CPUs or GPUs, but the algorithms are what make these machines so good. These algorithms are NOT available in plug ins for several reasons.

This is a valid argument, however, there is a clear distinction to be made between those algos not being available, which is more often than not true, and those algorithms being the "best" for any particular purpose, which may or may not be true.

Research doesn't stand still. Whether or not ten year old algorithms from market leaders can beat contemporary algorithms from researchers, or frankly, even independent devs, is a context dependent question. There are numerous plugins developed by leading devs who either work with, or have worked for, the market leaders.

Moreover, it's challenging to evaluate because, wait for it, you don't have access to the algorithms and so you're relying on your perception which is almost certainly biased.

[dreamvoid]

This is a valid argument, however, there is a clear distinction to be made between those algos not being available, which is more often than not true, and those algorithms being the "best" for any particular purpose, which may or may not be true.

Research doesn't stand still. Whether or not ten year old algorithms from market leaders can beat contemporary algorithms from researchers, or frankly, even independent devs, is a context dependent question. There are numerous plugins developed by leading devs who either work with, or have worked for, the market leaders.

Moreover, it's challenging to evaluate because, wait for it, you don't have access to the algorithms and so you're relying on your perception which is almost certainly biased.

Every perception is subject to bias, this is trivial. Believe me, I would throw out all reverb hardware if they doesn't have an audible benefit, like I did with hardware samplers, which I used as a dozen in the old days. There is nothing that comes remotely close to a Quantec reverb and this algorithm is over 30 years old. It is not like reseach has stand still but the fact nothing like a Quantec showed up in 20 years as a plug in from other companies should tell you something.

[Aloysius]

Soundspot Oracle sucks

[BRBWaffles]

Every perception is subject to bias, this is trivial

Believe me, I would throw out all reverb hardware if they doesn't have an audible benefit

These two statements are at odds. The appreciation or perception of a benefit is entirely predicated on the biases of the listener. So, the subject of bias in not trivial as it relates to the latter statement. If a $50 plugin and a $5000 outboard unit had sufficiently similar enough sonic characteristics as to render them indistinguishable to the average listener in the mix, I would submit the hardware as having no audible benefit. Does that mean they're the same in isolation? No. Does it mean they're similar enough not to care? It probably depends on the context. If there are hardware reverbs that sound better than software, I would reckon their uses are so incredibly esoteric that the discussion would immediately be made irrelevant to 99% of the people reading this thread.

[starflakeprj]

Soundspot Oracle sucks

The correct sentence is: "I THINK Soundspot Oracle sucks".