Voxengo Pristine Space Light (alpha)

[OMU]

in the light version you can't use more than one stereo impulse file and you can't use multi-channel operations. These are the only differences present. For $59.95 (or lower) this is pretty reasonable.

Man, it's awsome
Bring it on

[daverich]

I bought the impulse plug in the analogflux suite purely because I needed a pristine space light.

Impulse works for me but I'm glad to see folks will now have the option.

Kind regards

Dave Rich.

[fac]

I think I'm in. Pristine Space was too much for me, but the Lite version should be perfect (especially for $50 - f*ckin Waves IRL costs $300!). Thanks, Aleksey.

[waiting man]

waiting man, you are right, that's why I released alpha version in public - to ask which features are needed (except true stereo and multi-channel functions because these compete with the full version).

ok, dropping "rant" mode.

[jens]

oh so i can load a stereo impulse and pricess a stero audio file properly? that's all i need.

When will you sell it?

if i go back to mac.

is your latest copy of Reason sold yet?

[greendoor]

Please clarify: to my mind, a true stereo reverb is where the left and right dry channels affect the left and right wet channels independantly. As opposed to many cheap hardware reverbs that summed the L & R dry to mono before creating the wet sound. Without true stereo, you always get wet sound out of left and right, even if the dry sound is panned hard left of right. That destroys the pan and is pure evil. Most plugin reverbs - including SIR - are true stereo in that regard. So SIR - with a single stereo wave file impulse - can deliver True Stereo (true independant Left and Right). How will this new Voxengo operate while using a single stereo impulse file? Why would you want four channels to deliver true stereo? Seems to me that you are suggesting a very strange non-realworld stereo situation..? A stereo impulse is a true stereo impulse of the room. Using two stereo impulses would introduce phase issues and be inconsistent with real world??

[greendoor]

Do you mean that it will be two channel true stereo, but not capable of dual mono-to-stereo? That's not a problem, because we could run two instances. But it has to be True Stereo using a stereo impulse, otherwise it's not in the running.

[waiting man]

So SIR - with a single stereo wave file impulse - can deliver True Stereo (true independant Left and Right).

no, it is a stereo processing but incomplete imo.
normally, if you make a noise at my left also my right ear will get the reflections, no matter the angle or distance.
that's the true stereo. you need 2 stereo Irs, one stereo Ir of a channel fully left, one stereo Ir fully right.

if you use the quote button, we understand better who you're talking to.

[JeffSanders]

Man...I just can't get my head around the full PS. Even with "true stereo" preset and two IR's loaded, I only hear verb on the side the signal's panned to...
I'd love to hard pan a guitar to the left and still hear the verb on the right.

[waiting man]

to anybody with a decent education on the matter ...
Am I making a fool of myself?

Jeff, are u using just the first stereo irs you've found, or two true stereo irs? you need a specific stereo Ir for L and another one for the R.

[greendoor]

normally, if you make a noise at my left also my right ear will get the reflections, no matter the angle or distance.
that's the true stereo. you need 2 stereo Irs, one stereo Ir of a channel fully left, one stereo Ir fully right.

I can see your point but respectfully have to disagree. Reverb being used as a send effect in a mixer is possible of unnatural, physically impossible, effects - so I agree that it's unnatural to have zero reverb on the right channel if a sound is panned hard left into a stereo reverb unit.

For practical mixing purposes, we want complete control of dry and wet panning and stereo width - regardless of how natural or possible that is. A great reverb trick is to have a dry sound panned, say left, and it's mono reverb tail panned, say right. That's not natural, but it works well.

The cheap mono-summed input to stereo reverb output would give you a full stereo width even if the dry sound was panned hard left or right - but that is a big compromise of flexibility, and actually muddies the stereo seperation of a mix.

Back to real world stereo - a stereo impulse is usually created from a single point source and captured with two mics. The mixer mono send effectively emulates the point source. On a stereo track, while it's possible to pan the send hard left of right, that would be an example of something not possible in the real room in which the impulse was sampled.

I don't see how two stereo impulses (4 channels) can be more real. It seems to me to be more fake, and asking for phase issues. Considering the whole thing about reverb send is fake anyway, I see the most 'real' effect would be a mono send into a single stereo impulse.

[waiting man]

I'm at everything into music until it comes time to talk about phase, sorry.

anyway, differently from reverb boxes, a convolver doesn't code the transition from left to right or opposite.

[greendoor]

My experience with convolution reverb has been mainly with SIR, and Voxengo Impulse (which is very limited but sounds better). I'm very interested in a better Voxengo one, as long as it has all the functionality of the freeware SIR. (Including backwards and choosing the starting point )

As far as I can see, a stereo impulse can have difference left/right activity - and this activity is applied to the left and right channels respectively. I don't really wish for more, unless I wanted totally different reverbs for different purposes - in which case I run another instance.

Phase issues simply mean that if two or more similar sounds are mixed together, there may be a slight delay in which case some parts of the sound will cancel out and it sounds bad (a comb filter basically).

A four channel reverb, in my mind, equates to either four mics in one room (asking for phase issues) or two totally seperate rooms with two mic's in each.

I don't want to cause a problem - i'm just struggling to see why Aleksy doesn't consider two channel reverb to be 'True Stereo'.

Or am I missing something very basic?

[waiting man]

I don't know what you mean with "difference".
in your case your hearing the normal stereo ir wetting
with no real stereo placement, no cross-reflection.

they're not 4 random placed channels, but a traditional stereo config, only made with 2 stereo mics. the theory (I suppose) requires two time-aligned Irs (sampled at the same time and trimmed identically), so I don't see the phase concern. I know about the phase inversion or comb-filtering curiously, without deeply knowing the phase argument.
ok, off to beddie, now...

[greendoor]

Sorry - I meant 'different'. The stereo impulse of the room, taken with two mics, is only going to be 'real' for a point source applied at exactly the same location as the original impulse. So for the purpose of realism, the effect will only be 'real' with a mono send that is centered between left and right. If we wanted to avoid the 'unreal' situation of a hard panned dry sound causing unbalanced stereo wet sound, all we need to do is reduce the stereo pan of the send, so that we don't send 'nothing' to one side of the reverb. The extreme example of this would be simply summing the Left and Right before sending to the reverb.

I can't, for the life of me, see any logical purpose in using 4 channels (2 x stereo impulses). If one of these impulses is a perfect clone of the other, that is a huge waste of processing power. If they are somehow faked psychoacousticly from the original stereo impulse, that too is A/not real, and B/a huge waste of processing power.

Maybe there is a good reason, but I'm not seeing it yet