KVR Audio

pethu · Post by **pethu** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:09 pm

Well, I'm not much for these "my reverb is longer than your's" type of threads, but since I sorely needed to practice the art of creative tinkering with my reverb anyway:

http://www.pethu.se/music/ReverbTest.mp3

And oh yes -- this is definitely software...

kmonkey · Post by **kmonkey** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:22 pm

And yes you have faaar to much of predelay....

Right now i can get very very close result with AA reverb. But have no space to upload

friteuse · Post by **friteuse** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:24 pm

Ok, so far from here, I did some testing with System 6000 Reverbs (VSS4/VSS3/Reverb3/Reverb2) and ProTools (D-Verb).

D-Verb comes closest, then VSS3, but still there's a big difference. Damn, wtf are you using, brok?

When I look on your equipment list, I see only the big lexis that I couldn't test. So, 224???

The CSR version above sounds good, indeed. But far less musical, in a way and imho.

pethu · Post by **pethu** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:25 pm

kmonkey wrote:And yes you have faaar to much of predelay....

Right now i can get very very close result with AA reverb. But have no space to upload

Yeah, mine's AAR also. Probably a bit much in the predelay department as you said...

Or rather, too much (long) attack. Predelay was at 0ms, attack at 55%...

ObsoleteAcc99 · Post by **ObsoleteAcc99** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:31 pm

[DELETED]

EJo · Post by **EJo** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:33 pm

(removed)

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 5:54 pm

brok, I'll put it through the 300. Can you tell me the settings you've used? I'm quite convinced it's the 224, I instantly recognized that lush, warm, heavenly sound from the old Vangelis records.

brok landers wrote:
friteuse wrote:Hi brok, you must be really satisfied in terms of reverb
well, up to now IMO nothing comes close ... but let's wait for more files ...
friteuse wrote:If it's a 224, so why to switch to CSR? You got all you need!
the fact that some of the reverb guru's here think it is a 224 leads me to my thinking that i am not so wrong at all with my ears ...
friteuse wrote:But anyhow, interesting thread. living sounds: would you mind to do a 300 demo with brok's sound? Just curious...
yeah, burning curious!
living sounds, let us hear a comparsion file with the 300 please!

TO ALL: in general i'd like to hear comparsionfiles of native reverbs ...

ericj23 · Post by **ericj23** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:19 pm

ive tried all the powercore things - which sound as thick but with a metallic feel or no high end

and csr is nice and easy to use in comparison

but wtf is that main reverb - and how good are you at dialling in those settings

or were those out of the box presets ?

MacQ · Post by **MacQ** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:24 pm

Personally, knowing how many times Brok has posted about AAR being the native reverb he uses, I'm convinced it's AAR. Otherwise, why would he stipulate that the shoot-out had to be with native reverbs? Come on guys, read between the lines.

Still, it just confirms the old truth that it's not the tools that make the music, it's the talent.

~MacQ

Boulotaur2024 · Post by **Boulotaur2024** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:25 pm

brok landers wrote:long reverb

Oh my god, this is exactly the kind of reverb I've been searching for ever.

That long lush tail just makes me horny.

living sounds wrote:Can you tell me the settings you've used? I'm quite convinced it's the 224, I instantly recognized that lush, warm, heavenly sound from the old Vangelis records.

Exactly.

edit : I must be stupid but I didn't get sfz, Vsampler or any soft sampler to load mp3 files... And Audacity, at least the version I have installed, doesn't seem to support vst, how the hell did you guyz get by ?

kuniklo · Post by **kuniklo** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:29 pm

ttoz wrote:YES, cause I have both! Now I just need some more help in learning to program them! LOL!

Wouldn't be the first time Brok took something we all thought was pretty ordinary to a whole new level.

pethu · Post by **pethu** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:32 pm

MacQ wrote:Still, it just confirms the old truth that it's not the tools that make the music, it's the talent.

~MacQ

...and to a large extent, people's preconceptions of what they SHOULD hear, based on what they HAVE BEEN TOLD about the equipment used!

Meffy · Post by **Meffy** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:35 pm

=@.o= /me hides his long lush tail and goes... over there for a little while. In the other direction.

Mikem · Post by **Mikem** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:43 pm

The more I think about this thread, the more I think it's BS. If he really wanted to test CSR, he'd be talking about specific settings he used to give people at least a ballpark idea of what he'd like us to match. I know each piece of software/hardware is different, but he could be talking about cutoff frequencies, hi or lo pass filter settings, modulation, etc.

If you want to see if something can be "matched", then post some settings, not just an audio example that we have to unravel.

And if it's software, he should have started with posting the preset or something. Like I said before, enough games. Sorry to spoil anyone's guessing game fun.

But if it's a $2k or more hardware unit, then it's all pretty pointless, since no one has claimed CSR or any other native reverb can match expensive hardware yet.

kmonkey · Post by **kmonkey** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 6:46 pm

Rrrrrrratatatatatataaaaaaaaaaaaa....ratatatatatatatatataataaaaaaaa..... (rafal fire

)

CSR - pants down