KVR Audio

Beardedone · Post by **Beardedone** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:43 pm

No dongle! No way! Never!

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:46 pm

I've seen the Wizooverb recommended a lot here actually (probably by you among others

).

I tried the demo, and thought the initial preset - and some of the others - was fantastic.

However, the more I played with the demo the less I actually liked it. It seemed to me to be really "in yer face" stuff.

It will be interesting to see what happens with it now that Digidesign have bought out Wizoo (especially interesting to see what happens to VST support...)

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:47 pm

Beardedone wrote:No dongle! No way! Never!

Agreed

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:49 pm

Wizoo is good, but read the thread topic...

diverdee · Post by **diverdee** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 2:52 pm

they can all go deepthroat the dongle that they dangle.

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:00 pm

[DELETED]

Beardedone · Post by **Beardedone** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:01 pm

Please note that I don't condone or wish to encourage any insults to my friends at esoundz. Dave, Dan, Kim and everyone I have spoken with at SR are good people whom I respect. I do not think that they are responsible for IKMM's choice of copy protection. Obviously they must support this choice. I appreciate their efforts and know they are motivated to provide us with the best products possible. My frustration is directed at IK MM. My views on the use of dongles is based on a fear that they will destabilize my hard won system as I have seen countless times with the Steinberg implementation. I see no advantage to this form of copy protection and see it as a gross invasion and at best a major inconvenience if it indeed is trouble-free-which strongly doubt.

eduardo_b · Post by **eduardo_b** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 4:56 pm

sghoughton wrote:You know though, its either going to be good enough to justify the cost or not...Its also very easy to determine if its better or not - just compare the demo to other verbs you know are good or that you like.

It's not like anyone who owns other highly regarded verbs will really find anything significantly better in this one. The price reflects an attempt to present a new product as being so good that it's worth every cent. It won't be -- and I can say this without having heard it. I don't care how many ways there are to code a verb -- eventually the differences in the best ones (which itself is based on subjective opinion) become so obscure that any of them will be good, and it will come down to loving or hating the GUI or presets. How many verbs can this rather small market support, and who really has another $400 to get rid of on yet another one?

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 5:32 pm

hifiboom wrote:found this: it is a shoot out between the Sonic Timeworks P-100 Reverb and the PCM80. The IK Reverb should sound nearly exactly the same....

i am downloading it right now.... 30mb WAV files......

http://www.brasstusk.com/gearslutz/reverb_shootout.zip

here is the discussion on planetz...
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... &start=220

I just took a listen to these and have to say that I pretty much prefered the lexicon in all the examples. It has less of that 'ringing' and has a more appealing tone (think EQ) of the tail. Density seems about equal but the lexicon has that nice 'light' feel to it that I would guess sits in the mix better than the Timeworks reverb.

It's of course hard to draw any valuable conclusions from this test but my first impression was much in favour of the lexicon.

Cheers!
bManic

fritzman · Post by **fritzman** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:13 pm

bmanic wrote:
hifiboom wrote:found this: it is a shoot out between the Sonic Timeworks P-100 Reverb and the PCM80. The IK Reverb should sound nearly exactly the same....

i am downloading it right now.... 30mb WAV files......

http://www.brasstusk.com/gearslutz/reverb_shootout.zip

here is the discussion on planetz...
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... &start=220
I just took a listen to these and have to say that I pretty much prefered the lexicon in all the examples. It has less of that 'ringing' and has a more appealing tone (think EQ) of the tail. Density seems about equal but the lexicon has that nice 'light' feel to it that I would guess sits in the mix better than the Timeworks reverb.

It's of course hard to draw any valuable conclusions from this test but my first impression was much in favour of the lexicon.

Cheers!
bManic

Hm,

I like the Lexicon way more. While it's not great but good for me it does the job much better then the Timeworks.

Best wishes, FRitz

hifiboom · Post by **hifiboom** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:48 pm

jeah but there are over 50 parameters, maybe its hard for the tester, to exactly tune these two reverbs so they sound exactly the same.... lets wait for the demo and then do a conclusion....

MacQ · Post by **MacQ** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:26 am

Hopefully they'll have a 30-instance demo for people with the Syncrosoft dongle already (like what Steinberg does with Hypersonic & Halion for Cubase SX users). I can't see them doing a dongle-less demo, but I guess we'll find out soon enough.

~MacQ

diverdee · Post by **diverdee** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:36 am

In that case one would need to already own or purchase a dongle in order to demo the product?
yuck.

brianbrian · Post by **brianbrian** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 12:45 am

I would NOT take that shootout too seriously. First of all, the P-100 is based on the PCM91 plate algo, and the PCM91 is quite different sounding than the PCM80. The PCM91 uses a slightly different architecture and has digital outputs. The A/D converters in reverbs make a noticeable difference in the sound character. The 80 has more overall character (less transparent) than the 91, at about any given setting. On top of those differences, they guy that did this comparison simply tried to match the PCM80 presets with whatever P-100 presets sounded closest, without really doing much tweaking to get them sounding closer.

Anyway I am anxious to see how the CSR sounds. IF it can stand up against the likes of a 480 or RMX 16, it will surely be worth the asking price. I don't think anybody who makes their living mixing/producing would complain about that price-to-quality ratio. I guess we can find out soon...but I don't care quite so much anymore now that I have access to a 960L besides the 480, 300, 81, and 91

.

BTW anybody who works with a 480 would surely love the idea of the same sound with a much better interface (and one without a ton of lag when moving sliders at first!).

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 1:00 am

hifiboom wrote:jeah but there are over 50 parameters, maybe its hard for the tester, to exactly tune these two reverbs so they sound exactly the same.... lets wait for the demo and then do a conclusion....

Well, IMO, from those audio demos you do get a sense of the 'basic' sound of the reverb. No matter how you tweak damping and EQ or early reflections there usually is a basic sound to the thing and this is what I thought sounded quite a bit better in the lexicon.

- bManic

CSR-1 Classik Studio Reverb