KVR Audio

jens · Post by **jens** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 7:12 am

I'm wondering why some of you aren't hearing the subtle beauty of this fx - to say it does nothing just because your ears aren't trained enough to hear it is pretty lame...

pethu · Post by **pethu** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:16 am

What I want to know is, does it do it better at 96 kHz??

jens · Post by **jens** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:21 am

pethu wrote:What I want to know is, does it do it better at 96 kHz??

yep - definetely: the simulation is even far more realstic at 96k

it's a wonderful plugin if you're looking for putting something special in your track

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:21 am

The total result probably will.

Space Boy · Post by **Space Boy** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:38 am

stefancrs wrote:
Wide Boy wrote:I know it's a joke but even an Anechoic room doesn't sound like that.
Yes it does. If it's ideal.

I don't entirely agree. Since we use tools to artifically add reverb to a dry sound, I would expect a tool which implies to provide an anechoic effect to completely remove all trace of reverb from a mix. (possibly by deconvolution)

There are few occasions that we hear a completely dry sound without reflections. Even in headphones, the sound stage is often simulated by the stereo effect and applied effects.

A direct feed from guitar to your headphones also is not the same as an anechoic chamber because the frequency response of the headphones and audio circuitry is in the loop.

The desert is a good place to try for hearing the anechoic effect.

duncanparsons · Post by **duncanparsons** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:49 am

hlmst wrote:yeah but since 1st of april is over by now, why not remove it? :(

Given that

a) this was released in 2004
b) until further notice, every year has an April 1st

I see no reason for it to be taken down..

Actually BetaBugs has a DI simulation waiting in the wings, which massively improves on the ARC algorithm...

DSP

opiadream · Post by **opiadream** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:50 am

arguru · Post by **arguru** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:51 am

I would expect a tool which implies to provide an anechoic effect to completely remove all trace of reverb from a mix. (possibly by deconvolution)

Deconvolution would work if you process the mix with the -exact- impulse response wich was used for apply the original reverb, (wich leads to a pointless scenario), otherwise is impossible task for the current technology, but who knows, using black voodoo, etc

haydxn · Post by **haydxn** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:53 am

still, an anechoic room is barely going to alter the signal. so if i play a reverberant recording in one, it's not going to remove the reverb. therefore it's not exactly a misnomer, is it?

duncanparsons · Post by **duncanparsons** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:53 am

Wide Boy wrote:
stefancrs wrote:
Wide Boy wrote:I know it's a joke but even an Anechoic room doesn't sound like that.
Yes it does. If it's ideal.
I don't entirely agree. Since we use tools to artifically add reverb to a dry sound, I would expect a tool which implies to provide an anechoic effect to completely remove all trace of reverb from a mix. (possibly by deconvolution)

There are few occasions that we hear a completely dry sound without reflections. Even in headphones, the sound stage is often simulated by the stereo effect and applied effects.

A direct feed from guitar to your headphones also is not the same as an anechoic chamber because the frequency response of the headphones and audio circuitry is in the loop.

The desert is a good place to try for hearing the anechoic effect.

I disagree.

Using your favourite means, record a large snare hit, and push it through a humungous reverb - 10 seconds+... Now put a speaker in your anechoic room, and play the sound.
Now what should happen?

Will you hear the snare hit only?
Or
Will you hear exactly what you recorded with no additional reverberant effects?

I would plump for the latter myself...

This is where ARC comes in..

HTH
DSP

2windy · Post by **2windy** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:55 am

I know how good these chambers sound. So what does one lok like then?

haydxn · Post by **haydxn** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:56 am

it should be called "actually magic reverb stripper" for anyone to get all stuffed up about it not doing what it's described to do.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:57 am

Wide Boy quoth
I don't entirely agree. Since we use tools to artifically add reverb to a dry sound, I would expect a tool which implies to provide an anechoic effect to completely remove all trace of reverb from a mix. (possibly by deconvolution)

This is a plugin which produces the reverb effect of an anechoic chamber. It is not a device which removes reverb; anechoic chambers do not remove reverberation they simply do not produce any.

I would suggest that what you are requesting is a de-echoic chamber simulator, but as far as I know, only Tesla ever succeeded in actually building such a device, although it is rumoured that Leon Theremin was given access to his schematics...

Kim Lajoie · Post by **Kim Lajoie** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:05 am

duncanparsons wrote:This is where ARC comes in..

Forever,

Kim.

duncanparsons · Post by **duncanparsons** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:10 am

ARC...

shame it wasn't the Anechoic Room Simulation Effect really..

DSP

Smart Electronix Anechoic Room Simulator