A reverb that does not sum to mono

[multree]

WizooVerb has true stereo as well

[polyslax]

WizooVerb has true stereo as well

Yup, a blurb from the SoS review might help to clear up this topic:

W2 is a true-stereo reverb where HDIR IRs are available in both Stereo and True Stereo versions; in standard Stereo mode, the listener perceives the sound as though it is coming from centre stage, as it the case for most reverb units. By contrast, True Stereo mode enables the listener to localise the position of the source, but this requires two stereo IR computations and so doubles the CPU loading. Note that in True Stereo mode, the left and right channels work independently, so a signal fed into the left input will only generate reverb at the left output.

[boin]

Voxengo's Pristine Space has true stereo presets using four convolution channels. Try Debutante's test with it... (works like a charm)

[Debutante]

This is so simple to set up and chek that I fail to see what's happening...

You mean like the very 1st plug on your list?

I didn't say that the ENTIRE signal HAS to go fully hard panned. Buzzroom's wet hard pan sounds more discrete that Ambience, true, but Ambience is STILL ABLE to place at least most of the signal in the right spot, which means YES it is a stereo verb. Why don't you measure it up aginst Glaceverb to see the difference? You can make it even more apparent by tweaking settins a little, but you may not always get something as clear cut as BuzRoomverb.

Here is an example preset I made JUST for you with Ambience:

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=BXSYXOY9

[pdxindy]

The topic title says a reverb that does not sum to mono... plenty of stereo reverbs do not sum to mono, that does not mean you can hard pan it to one channel. If you have a dry sound coming from the right side, you are going to hear reverberation on the left side as well as the right.

ArtsAcoustic is a stereo reverb.

[dreamkeeper]

I didn't say that the ENTIRE signal HAS to go fully hard panned.

With this claim...

All of these plugins will place your reverberated signal where you position your instrument

... I expect, that 100% left means 100% left. But I can see that there was some misunderstanding going on because you folks of course could not know, what exactly the OP is after - the discussion began on the Sonar forum. So, sorry for any confusion I may have added to.

werner

[Debutante]

I didn't say that the ENTIRE signal HAS to go fully hard panned.

With this claim...

All of these plugins will place your reverberated signal where you position your instrument

... I expect, that 100% left means 100% left. But I can see that there was some misunderstanding going on because you folks of course could not know, what exactly the OP is after - the discussion began on the Sonar forum. So, sorry for any confusion I may have added to.

werner

No Problem. In my trials I've found that it really depends on what you're after from the reverb and the parameters available on the plugin. The ones I listed DO recognize left from right. The effectiveness of the panning on the wet signal depends on the settings and the depth of your pan. Half-panned signals are not as discrete, but a full left or right will show that there is a difference to be had.

Keep in mind, I'm a noob like most here, but in my trials with different verbs, this is the very first thing I always try to determine. In doing so you find varying responses. Most of the time short reverb times will give you a better panning response, I find, and as you would expect. Longer reverbs tend to spill onto both channels no matter where the dry signal is, and the longer the verb time, the less discrete it becomes. Ambience is an example of this kind of behaviour, and with very short reverb times it's able to give a response similar to BuzRoomverb.

With larger verbs this becomes even more convoluted. Once again depending on your settings, the relationship seems further determined by the plugins ability to seperate late and early reflections. Early reflections responded much better to panning in the R2 from Silverspike, if I remember correctly, and the very late reflections paid absolutely no mind to where the dry signal was. I found the same thing with the R66.

I think maybe someone was looking for a way to have a very large wet reverb panned. Then you probably have to pan it yourself, and probably also reduce it's width, because I'm yet to find a reveb that will take a huge room effect and isolate it purely behind your instrument. That doesn't happen and I wouldn't expect it to.

[dreamkeeper]

Thanks for the further explanations, Debutante, I appreciate it. I agree with most everything in your last post. Let me just add that the stereo balance of the wet signal often depends on the spectral content of the source, because the different delay lines will resonate in various ways, leading to almost unpredictable results. Of course we're talking here a few % left or right, just enough to be noticeable.

werner

[Debutante]

Thanks for the further explanations, Debutante, I appreciate it. I agree with most everything in your last post. Let me just add that the stereo balance of the wet signal often depends on the spectral content of the source, because the different delay lines will resonate in various ways, leading to almost unpredictable results. Of course we're talking here a few % left or right, just enough to be noticeable.

werner

Agreed. And for testing purposes I always use just a simple mono one-shot hit, like a closed hat to be able to determine the first nature of a reverb. It's always different with stereo signals. I believe that if you want the 100% rule you mentioned earlier, then you probably have to apply those changes to the reverb itself, and treat the combined signal as a single event in your mix.

I do maintain that it can be a very desirable effect. I'm at the point where I'm trying to get my very first full and thorough composition (I mostly doodle ... to learn how stuff works, of course). I would hardly want that ALL my reverberated sounds, all short and long reverbs from all synths, effects and drums, to be completely centered in the way it happens with units like Glaceverb. It's one direction I'm taking in choosing the right reverb for a job; it's ability to create depth, but also its willingness to help with discretion might be quite important as well depending on the situation.

[dreamkeeper]

I would hardly want that ALL my reverberated sounds, all short and long reverbs from all synths, effects and drums, to be completely centered in the way it happens with units like Glaceverb. It's one direction I'm taking in choosing the right reverb for a job; it's ability to create depth, but also its willingness to help with discretion might be quite important as well depending on the situation.

Horses for courses, I say. If I want room sim or creating depth, then I'll choose a verb that does just that. For that I'll rarely pan the sends on the tracks, or maybe just a bit. The perceived direction comes from the dry signal anyway, the verb has no direction (which does not mean it's "centered"). If OTOH I want verb as an effect to change the sound of a track (similar to the verb unit in a guitar amp), I'll use it as insert and preferably with different settings on each track.

For the latter application anything goes, for the former (room sim) I wouldn't want any strong stereo separation, which imho defeats the purpose of providing depth. Having said this, I too prefer a verb that reacts in some way on the balance of the source, it sure helps with finetuning the perception of space. But that shouldn't be a one-dimensional response like panning, but more like interweaving the source signals.

werner

[sinkmusic]

KarmaFX reverb.

[aciddose]

when he said 'sum to mono' he was refering to the input signal.

reverbs which do sum to mono (have stereo field interactions) tend to give a much greater depth in their output than independant-stereo reverbs.

[three_eyed_otter]

Thanks for the response and the links.

have a good one
3Eo

[egarrard]

I think it would also depend on the type of "reverb" wanted. A dense, heavy one would destroy the localization for the most part. Something like a subtle ambiance or smaller room wouldn't.

[sascha]

I don't get some of the comments here right. Is that 'independant-stereo reverb' thing supposed to be an artificial/artistic-only approach?
If I place myself in a room and talk to a wall, I can be pretty sure one can hear me at the opposite wall. Likewise, if I throw in a monaural signal (such as my voice) into a feedback-delay network / mesh structure that is capable of surround reverberation and I tap 10 or even 12 outputs, all the outputs carry the original signal (as a function of the diffuse field).
With a stereo input, it's pretty much the same. I just have two diffuse fields and a big overall diffuse field consisting of the two. Now, if I hook on a true-stereo reverb box, I want it to output that big one instead of calculating two discrete reverberation schemes.
I think it's very naive to expect the reverb signal to be on the same side as the original source (and only there). That doesn't follow the rule of physics. I would instantly diss a reverb that does so. 'Real' rooms (and 'realistic' algos likewise) achieve modal density over time by acting as the signal's boundaries. It's just like playing snooker.

So, with such a 'real world' approach, it doesn't make that of a big difference if the input is summed to mono or not. Okay, it plays a starring role with small rooms where ER localization is a vital thing but is not that prominent with large rooms/halls.