KVR Audio

vata44 · Post by **vata44** » Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:20 am

Hello, I am a long time fan of Valhalla plugins, and I always see updates for Room and Vintage, but never for the much loved Shimmer...

Please Sean, do not forget this shimmering beauty.

Krakatau · Post by **Krakatau** » Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:28 am

As far as i can judge, perhaps it isn't equally relevant to introduce new reverberation algorithms to such an hybrid tool that Valhallashimmer is, most of updates were of that kind for both the pure reverbs units, right ?

vata44 · Post by **vata44** » Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:16 am

Not sure... just hoping for some more thoughts and ideas to flow towards Shimmer as well...

I have no idea what to even suggest for Shimmer other than more Shimmer

valhallasound · Post by **valhallasound** » Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:21 pm

There won't be any new algorithms for Shimmer, for two reasons:

1) I didn't leave any algorithm *slots* in Shimmer. The algorithm control in my plugins is mapped to the 0.0-1.0 range. In Shimmer, the four algorithms fill this range entirely. In VRoom, I left space for 12 algorithms (I've used 11). ÜberMod and VintageVerb have 24 algorithm slots.

2) I don't have any more ideas for Shimmer algorithms. Honestly, the Mono, Big Stereo and Medium Stereo cover all of the range that sounds good with this topology, in my opinion. I don't particularly like the Small algorithm - not enough diffusion.

I may add a few controls in the future, but I would have to test these controls and make sure that they add to the sound before I commit to this. As it currently stands, I like the simplicity of Shimmer. I've got a 1.0.3 build that I have been working on in the last week, but it is solely to add OSX VST64, and to get the code base up to date (I had last compiled Shimmer in December 2010, and a lot has changed in Juce since then).

Sean Costello

vata44 · Post by **vata44** » Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:00 am

Okay, more than a sufficient answer. I love it as it is regardless.

Thank you.

I know nothing about Reverbs or DSP, but is there any headroom left for making the sound quality even better than amazing? Just curious. I see a lot of other High CPU super sounding synths (Diva, LuSH) and I am wondering if you were to let Shimmer eat another 5-6% of CPU if it would be even creamier? More pure?

Just dreaming...

valhallasound · Post by **valhallasound** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:40 pm

As far as making Shimmer lusher, just run a few instances of the plugin in series, using the BigStereo or MediumStereo modes, and with the mix set to 100% wet. Make sure that each instance has a somewhat different Size setting, so that the internal delays aren't the same. The architecture of Shimmer lends itself to running things in series without causing coloration.

Sonic improvements: I could put a different interpolation function in Shimmer that would get rid of a few artifacts, and actually make things lighter on the CPU. I might do that, as I don't think that the artifacts are aspects of the sound that people rely upon - but one never knows.

I'm going to look into oversampling the pitch shifting blocks by 2X, so that there is no aliasing. The pitch shifting costs almost no cycles (it is REALLY efficient), so this wouldn't cause much of a CPU boost. It WOULD change the sound, in that things would be far less noisy for long decays, and this may be part of the sound that people like. I'll give it a try and see if it is a useful change.

Sean Costello

Sendy · Post by **Sendy** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:47 pm

I guess if these changes could be turned on and off with switches it wouldn't pose a problem to those who need the sound as-is.

valhallasound · Post by **valhallasound** » Sun Mar 10, 2013 10:54 pm

Sendy wrote:I guess if these changes could be turned on and off with switches it wouldn't pose a problem to those who need the sound as-is.

Adding switches involves changing the GUI, which is a more complicated operation than modifying the DSP (and makes the plugin more complicated to use).

Sean Costello

vata44 · Post by **vata44** » Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:50 am

Okay, then just keep it as is...

I would hate to change this beauty... i was only curious.

However, your ideas do sound very cool.

BDeep · Post by **BDeep** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:38 am

valhallasound wrote:'ve got a 1.0.3 build that I have been working on in the last week, but it is solely to add OSX VST64, and to get the code base up to date (I had last compiled Shimmer in December 2010, and a lot has changed in Juce since then).

Excellent news, great Sean!

I think Shimmer is fine as it is. Sure, everything can be altered but nothing would ever be finished. Although a preset browser would be nice, but I can see that being loads of work.

taoyoyo · Post by **taoyoyo** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:26 pm

BDeep wrote:
valhallasound wrote:'ve got a 1.0.3 build that I have been working on in the last week, but it is solely to add OSX VST64, and to get the code base up to date (I had last compiled Shimmer in December 2010, and a lot has changed in Juce since then).
Excellent news, great Sean!

I think Shimmer is fine as it is. Sure, everything can be altered but nothing would ever be finished. Although a preset browser would be nice, but I can see that being loads of work.

Pretty much agree with this... I'm very happy with the sound as is and a 64bit VST build.

A browser would be lovely but not essential (doesn't sound like something that can be easily added?).

kelvyn · Post by **kelvyn** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:43 pm

Yeah! Preset browser would be great:) Please!

audientronic · Post by **audientronic** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:47 pm

valhallasound wrote:...It WOULD change the sound, in that things would be far less noisy for long decays, and this may be part of the sound that people like. I'll give it a try and see if it is a useful change.

Sean Costello

Yeah, I would never want to lose that crazy, thunderous "symphonic" sound. Feel like there's something about that noise that contributes to that.

Shimmer's my favorite

.

valhallasound · Post by **valhallasound** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:36 pm

audientronic wrote:
valhallasound wrote:...It WOULD change the sound, in that things would be far less noisy for long decays, and this may be part of the sound that people like. I'll give it a try and see if it is a useful change.

Sean Costello
Yeah, I would never want to lose that crazy, thunderous "symphonic" sound. Feel like there's something about that noise that contributes to that.

My guess is that most of the "symphonic" noise comes from the granular pitch shifting, versus the aliasing. I'll test and see if this is the case.

Sean Costello

taoyoyo · Post by **taoyoyo** » Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:19 am

valhallasound wrote:
audientronic wrote:
valhallasound wrote:...It WOULD change the sound, in that things would be far less noisy for long decays, and this may be part of the sound that people like. I'll give it a try and see if it is a useful change.

Sean Costello
Yeah, I would never want to lose that crazy, thunderous "symphonic" sound. Feel like there's something about that noise that contributes to that.
My guess is that most of the "symphonic" noise comes from the granular pitch shifting, versus the aliasing. I'll test and see if this is the case.

Sean Costello

Did you have the time to do those tests Sean?

Not that I'm foaming at the mouth for 64bit VST Shimmer or anything!

(that was a half-joke btw, I know you're a busy fella!)

Can we see new Algo's for Shimmer?