KVR Audio

kilroy · Post by **kilroy** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:57 am

greendoor wrote:The hardware Princeton reverbs have a lot more algorithmns than the stereo room one.

Er, no. Just three algos on the 2016. Two rooms, one a stereo input version that allowed you some control over early reflection positioning, and a rather good high density plate.

The "new" release 2016 has three additional algos that are basically upscale versions of the originals, only taking advantage of the additional DSP available to give longer, higher quality decay times and better diffusion control.

kritikon · Post by **kritikon** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:59 am

But I would be curious to know A/ what algortithmns they use, and B/ whether the VST version of stereo room sounds anything like the real hardware.

It's all to easy to slap a brand name on a VST plugin and try to sell it for a high price.

Robert Randolph used to have one, he said...and he was initially extremely taken with the Princeton (not seen him around these parts for quite a while). He was extremely picky about his reverbs - that was one of the things that made me check it out (normally I don't bother checking native reverbs, I'm always disappointed by them, so I gave up looking).
From what I remember of their initial blurb, it was a direct porting of the Eventide algorithms, as someone there was involved in the design of the h/w...could be wrong though, but it sounds good enough to be an actual Eventide algorithm.

In fact the only reason I've not bought it is because of the limitations (i.e. no choice of algorithms...I'd rather splash out on a decent h/w unit and have a bit more choice). But if I was to buy a native reverb, then the Princeton would be the one - the others still sound too wishy washy or metallic or horrible in a mix. Princeton are the only ones that create a reverb that sits in any mix even at high levels to my ears. I'd even be happy using something 100% wet with the Princeton - I wouldn't touch any other native with a bargepole for that type of specialFX. I'm still waiting for a native algorithmic reverb that can actually do more than one thing decently...

greendoor · Post by **greendoor** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:17 am

Er, no. Just three algos on the 2016. Two rooms, one a stereo input version that allowed you some control over early reflection positioning, and a rather good high density plate.

The "new" release 2016 has three additional algos that are basically upscale versions of the originals, only taking advantage of the additional DSP available to give longer, higher quality decay times and better diffusion control.

Exactly what I meant - the VST plugin 2016 is NOT the same as the hardware. It's a VST approximation - and there isn't any high quality Plate. I think Protools TDM users can buy the others - but there is still no guarantee that it sounds anything like the hardware. When the Massenburgs and Randolphs of this world say they like the 2016, i'm sure they like the Hardware one.

And using it 100% wet - are we actually talking about the same thing????? I would have accused Kriticon of working for Princeton, if he didn't live in NZ ... Each to their own I suppose ...

robertb · Post by **robertb** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 7:26 am

I bought it in the group buy. After some initial setup problems (due to some issues on my computer, I got this thing working this weekend. It is the best sounding native reverb I have ever used. If they ever offer the other versions (currently Protools only), I will buy them!!!

steffensen · Post by **steffensen** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:27 am

tee boy,

hey man!
how are u doin mate?
first a new Virus, and now a Roland SRV330. lucky bastard, won on the lottery lately?

kevvvvv · Post by **kevvvvv** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:31 am

robertb

If they ever offer the other versions (currently Protools only), I will buy them!!!

It'll certainly be interesting, won't it.

Let's hope the recent group buy success has spurred this on.

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:50 am

greendoor wrote: Exactly what I meant - the VST plugin 2016 is NOT the same as the hardware. It's a VST approximation - and there isn't any high quality Plate.

Err... it's a port of the real code, by the same person who did the new hardware version. Hardly an approximation.

greendoor wrote: When the Massenburgs and Randolphs of this world say they like the 2016, i'm sure they like the Hardware one.

Can't say about Massenburg and his preferences as I can't recall what he said/wrote about it (I do recall reading his comments somewhere), but afair Robert compared it to the hardware and commented it sounding identical - which is the point as it is the same friggin' algorithm after all

Personally, it's not the mother of all reverbs (I'm waiting for the other algorithms to appear some day in VST) but for the limited purpose it serves, it's a good one.

Regards,

JMH

kilroy · Post by **kilroy** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:53 pm

I am actually a bit surprised that the room algo was chosen for this VST version. I prefered the plate sound on the 2016, and I would have thought it might have had greater appeal to reverb aficionados.

The basic sound of this emulation is fairly good actually. As to whether that sound is something you care for is, of course, a matter of preference...as we see soooo often on this forum.

Funkybot · Post by **Funkybot** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:00 pm

I think there's still the chance we'll get the plate algo as well, at least I'm hoping there is.

gareth_fx · Post by **gareth_fx** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:16 pm

Bear in mind the original 2016 was a hardware reverb which has recently been reissued.

The original unit is a mid 80's model so does not offer the pristine sound quality of modern units.
This has been recreated pretty well imho and has a nice dirty almost grainy quality. It is however extremely 'musical' which is the most important aspect. Check out of the good late 80's early 90's reverbs from AMS , Quantec , Lexicon , Eventide. They all still sound great today.

I like the princeton sound a lot in the context of a mix it brings colour and interest in a market flooded with sterile cold convolution based verbs.

just my thoughts

Gareth_FX

kilroy · Post by **kilroy** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:56 pm

gareth_fx wrote:I like the princeton sound a lot in the context of a mix...

That is an important distinction. When Alesis first came out with that midiverb rack it was not at all uncommon to see them snuggled up next to Lexicon and Eventide boxes in high profile studio racks. I thought they sounded pretty dreadful.

Then one fine day I walked into the middle of a mix session when the track was being played back on some big Quested soffit mains and the engineers had this great drum sound happening. "What do have over the drum buss?", sez me. The bloke leans over and taps the face of this midiverb...one of three in the rack.

<------- kilroy with egg on face...not for the first time.

Nuther funny illustration, me thinks...

I used to hate having artists in on mix sessions because they would often be jumping in with all sorts of "advice" whenever you soloed their track. Right distracting it was, that. They had little sense of context, and what it sometimes takes to get things fitting in a mix properly. I finally got properly fed up and made a sign that I used to set up on the console meter bridge whenever mix sessions were "attended"...

"Of course it sucks!!"

kritikon · Post by **kritikon** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:47 pm

And using it 100% wet - are we actually talking about the same thing????? I would have accused Kriticon of working for Princeton, if he didn't live in NZ ... Each to their own I suppose ...

Yes, absolutely. There are almost no s/w reverbs I'd use wet, but Princeton is one of them for sure.

And from what I remember of Bob Randolph's initial reaction - he was a bit skeptical when it was first announced. Once he'd actually demo'd it, his last comments were along the lines of selling his h/w unit and replacing it with the Princeton. That means to me that it was most likely a direct port of the alogrithms, and it's a very good recommendation.

And gareth_fx stated:

The original unit is a mid 80's model so does not offer the pristine sound quality of modern units.

Good point...I've never had the pleasure of using a h/w 2016, so I don't know for sure...but if you consider how much converters have improved over the years, and how bad some of them used to be in the 80s, it's entirely possible that a good setup with a decent soundcard and pristine converters could actually make the Princeton better than the original. Converters are not quite so important in a big noisy synth, but with something delicate like reverb, it's going to be more crucial.

Anyway, it's pointless arguing about reverb...there's so much personal judgement involved. I mean, I really don't like TC reverb (if you gave me one, I'd probably sell it immediately and buy something else), yet others would kill for one of their units. Some people apparently don't like Lexicon reverb. It's a funny old world innit?

greendoor · Post by **greendoor** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:32 am

Fair enough. I love TC, so we obviously have different tastes. It totally depends on the source material and the genre too. Good point about Midiverbs - I never liked them either. But I was suprised to hear that the famous Enya vocal harmony sound was done by mixing about 80 tracks of vocals with Midiverb reverb. So that lush "expensive" reverb sound was a cheap Alesis box that I despised - go figure.

multree · Post by **multree** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:38 am

greendoor wrote: And using it 100% wet - are we actually talking about the same thing????? I would have accused Kriticon of working for Princeton, if he didn't live in NZ ... Each to their own I suppose ...

honestly it works good on some vocals.... the first verb that could do that for me

tee boy · Post by **tee boy** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:55 am

steffensen wrote:tee boy,

hey man!
how are u doin mate?
first a new Virus, and now a Roland SRV330. lucky bastard, won on the lottery lately?

Im very well thanks mate!

Nope, no lottery win here. I have to save my pennies like everyone else. I think the key thing is that I dont blow all my budget on every new VST that comes out

The Roland was £135 off ebay, less than the Princeton I believe. The Virus was £315, but I'd just sold a couple of pedals so I only put about £200 to it. Again, not much more than a couple of VSTs.

If you spend your cash wisely you can usually get what you want without breaking the bank. That is unless you have a taste for boutique outboard... then you're screwed!

Princeton 2016 love