!!My apologies, Brok, if you were afk. I thought you were just being coy. Thanks for sharing this little exercise. Now post the dang preset!!brok landers wrote:oops ... i was just 5 hours away???? what happened here????
did i drop a bomb or what???
ok, i thought it was clear (i was allways praising the aar, so i thought you know allready) ...
yes, it's the artsacoustic reverb ...
to me (we have a lot of hardware here that i had the chance to compare it to) this comes closest to
our hardware reverbs, in some cases the aar (IMO) is even better ...
i only posted the files here to really check out if someone with a different thinking/approach
could top my needs ...
so, here is the original wave for you guys to go in depth ...
please, don't take it as another "aar rules" thing, i am very curious if other vst reverbs (no convolution) can top that ...
lemme hear your files!!!
Skill trumps gear again. Love it.brok landers wrote:yes, it's the artsacoustic reverb ...
hey, friteuse, lemme hear the hardware results!friteuse wrote: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.
For one he may be using expensive hardware, now is that fair? and if he's using software we need to be able to verify.This is like me saying uad's are'nt that good then give you a file to compress with uad software plug while i use a real fairchild hardware, if you knew i had hardware you probably would'nt waiste your time.If you jump into any type of competition in life its foolish if you don't try to know what your up against, give that some thought.Kingston wrote:Eh? How's it going to help you to know what reverb he is using? He laid out the task quite simple: give him reverb that does a better "roomy" sound.sounddesigner wrote:I agree, it is'nt a fair competition until people know what their up against.It's unfair for him to not reveal what he is using.
That's ALL you need to know.
I just switch the Winamp output to disk writer or whatever it's called. It makes a wave file for ya--you can set the options for output directory, etc.Boulotaur2024 wrote: 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 ?
brok landers just eliminated placebo, that's all. I think the way he started this thread was great. "not fair". bullshit. If you knew what he used you most definitely would've fallen victim to placebo. (like it seems you already are)sounddesigner wrote:For one he may be using expensive hardware, now is that fair? and if he's using software we need to be able to verify.This is like me saying uad's are'nt that good then give you a file to compress with uad software plug while i use a real fairchild hardware
hey, no problems at all ... i was just wondering ...Mikem wrote: My apologies, reg, if you were afk. I thought you were just being coy. Thanks for sharing this little exercise. Now post the dang preset!!
see upper post ...Boulotaur2024 wrote:AAR rules
Nah seriously, could you please post that beautiful patch you used, sir ?
I'm in love with that sound, and yes it does sound very close to that reverb Vangelis used in 'Soil Festivities' ('might have something to do with the pace and mood of the tune you played too), or at least in his early 80's albums.
btw, great thread : )
i am the biggest vangelis fan on the planet (allthough alexander is bullshit imo, i love the analog stuff of vangelis way more) ...living sounds wrote: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.
Your assuming i would've fallin victim to placeabo, if i had the knowledge of what he was using i would've had the same opinion as i have now, wich i also stated above (he's a good tweaker),But if my aim was to prove threw competition how good csr is then yes i still would want the info of what he's using, and i might want to add to the rules of the competition and use more then one type material for processing etc etc (usually based on strenghths and weaknesses of both verbs)Kingston wrote:brok landers just eliminated placebo, that's all. I think the way he started this thread was great. "not fair". bullshit. If you knew what he used you most definitely would've fallen victim to placebo. (like it seems you already are)sounddesigner wrote:For one he may be using expensive hardware, now is that fair? and if he's using software we need to be able to verify.This is like me saying uad's are'nt that good then give you a file to compress with uad software plug while i use a real fairchild hardware
what is it?pethu wrote: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...
Submit: News, Plugins, Hosts & Apps | Advertise @ KVR | Developer Account | About KVR / Contact Us | Privacy Statement
© KVR Audio, Inc. 2000-2026
