Bricasti M7 Native Plugin

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Effects Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

toothnclaw wrote:Well, anyway, no matter which algo reverb is -subjectively- better or worse, none of them can hold a candle to a real space. Or a bunch of real spaces. So that's it for all your algos' "realism".
If we really want real 'realism' we wouldn't bother with that pesky recording thing. Live music is better. Distribution and mass playback is a bitch tho. But, euphonic memory is perfect and we'll always have that.

However, since this is a suddenly escalated thread in the effects forum, let's assume we've foolishly crossed the mic/convertor boundary or worse, recorded virtual synth instruments that don't exist. We now find ourselves sitting in our remote studio location - hopefully not in our parent's basement - and we want to add the most realistic reverb possible to our formerly real or currently unreal instruments.

I'll try to keep this short, but it won't happen - real stuff takes longer and has a bunch of annoying details that can't just be scrolled over. Sorry. Anyway, where was I? Is this reality on?

Obviously a real space has the best realism, but most real spaces have more annoying resonances and unpleasant flutter echoes than most algo 'fake' verbs. Especially in our remote studio. I'm not saying it's located in our parent's basement, but let's be honest, it sounds boxy and has some weird flutter echoes, which we're going to treat with the appropriate acoustical treatments when the non-VST budget permits. And it smells funny. Nothing to do with reverberation characteristics, but it just doesn't reek of sonic purity. So, without even leaving our remote studio location we have arrived at a big, very real logistical issue: real presets.

Presets in DSP algo verbs offer huge variety and are easy to access. Our real room presets don't. First we need to find a number of sweet, real rooms. This can be time-consuming to scout. Not as time-consuming as scouting KVR forums, but still some serious effort. Let's assume we're near a major metropolitan center which has a number of decent concert halls, clubs and churches. Let's start with Hall A. It's big. With an all-encompassing, exquisitely natural rt60 of about 1.8 seconds.

We take all our gear from our remote studio, which as I've said before isn't necessarily located in our parent's basement, but we might need to borrow their van. Arrive at Hall A and walk in and start setting up our gear. Suddenly there's this scary looking guy claiming he's security and threatening to really hurt us. It seems our noble quest for the purest rt60 in town costs in the thousands and requires a reservation months ahead. On-demand reverb purity NOT available here. WTF? After all the shouting, arguing and financial outrage, the real stuff, not the internet kind, we're a little frazzled and it's getting late - we have to get the van back before dinner. So, there's that.

Next, we decide that Hall A is off the preset list. We soon discover that Hall B, while cheaper is still more money 'per preset' than a Bricasti. Never mind ITB plugins. And we dented the van on the way back from Hall A and can't borrow it again. So that sucks. And, we're stuck with some cheaper, but really stinky beer-stained rooms that might have suited our previous death-metal-polka project, but just doesn't have the vibe we want now.

What to do? Our real preset list is getting smaller and we're into this project for some serious gas money and nothing to listen to. Can technology help? Yes. If we don't mind wrapping our sounds in dead fish impulse recordings of real spaces, we have some options. IR verbs can capture a 'snapshot' of a real space and through some convoluted trickery place our beloved sounds in the picture. It's like photoshop for sound, almost too good to be true. And it is. It's a still picture of a movie. We're not making posters, dammit, we're making music! Even still, it's allows us to remain in the relative comfort of our remote studio location. Look, why keep asking if it's located in our parent's basement? How is that even relevant?

Sure, now we're getting a little frustrated. It's the real world. It really is like that sometimes. So, we fantasize a little about a better reverberated world.

A world where density, initial reflection energy, tails, dispersion, modulations, stereo field positioning, the rise and fall of decay, the place where early meets late, the very tao of rt60 is tweakable. A better world where previously unimagined reverb possibilities wait beneath our fingertips like sonic playdo created by DSP geniuses, who explored this world and created new, more aurally complete worlds with ears wide open. They have given us the maps, the compasses and the entire geo-soundscape-ography in a plugin and available now for download. It's still early in the 21st century, but we've already won the reverb lottery dream.

F*** that! Me and my ukulele are buying a one way ticket to the Taj Mahal and we're going record the deepest, purest and definitely the most real surrealist dubstep uke that candle holders and their owners have ever heard!
perception: the stuff reality is made of.

Post

Moonlight wrote:How do you know that DSP reverbs have better algo? By ear, or you calculating this mathematically? IMO, the best reverb of all times is B2. It's the only reverb, which can sound like real space without ugly and annoying resonances. All other algo reverbs including Bricasti sound ugly comparing to B2 and they all produce really ugly resonances.
I value the following properties while testing (listening tests and measurements) reverb algorithms :

#1 Spaciousness/Envelopment
#2 Realistic decay characteristics
#3 Low frequency reverberation
#4 Echo density
#5 Coloration
#6 High frequency performance

Very very few plugins master #1, #3 and #4. Almost none, both hardware and software, master #2. I could be completely wrong.

It would be appreciated if you posted a test where your favorite reverb is more realistic and without the ugly and annoying resonances.

www.relab.dk/downloads/sound/Dry.wav
www.relab.dk/downloads/sound/Hardware.wav

The hardware is the Bricasti.
Last edited by Warp69 on Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post

Nice post, mandolarian! I'm a happy user of algorithmic reverbs, so you don't have to sell the concept to me. However, I still think my statement above was correct, no matter how much sarcasm one may throw at it.

Post

Warp69 wrote:I could be completely wrong.
My new KVR signature. :hihi:

Post

toothnclaw wrote:The pros were talking about realism, so... I thought I should give some sense of perspective. And in some cases realism is important, e.g. in movies.
If realism was important in movies they wouldn't spend a sh*t-ton of money on post-processing - they'd just use the dialogue as recorded. It's the illusion of space that's important but directors will ask for 'super-real' for maximum effect (eg super-dryness for close, quiet, claustrophobic dialogue that's otherwise shot in a cathedral). You can't do that with only a sound stage.

Post

well, to be fair, a recorded sound isn't necessarily the most realistic...
I don't know what to write here that won't be censored, as I can only speak in profanity.

Post

Warp69 wrote: It would be appreciated if you posted a test where your favorite reverb is more realistic and without the ugly and annoying resonances.

www.relab.dk/downloads/sound/Dry.wav
www.relab.dk/downloads/sound/Hardware.wav

The hardware is the Bricasti.

Whiii! A Reverb Shootout!

Here's TC Electronics
VSS3: https://app.box.com/s/7a51sxaqa8ompkql50vu
MegaReverb: https://app.box.com/s/l7vljgrfqr4dwh7apyxz
FabrikR: https://app.box.com/s/qphaxl9o5opaf7z2dhtq

Those are just quick dial-ins to get a close enough naturalistic sound.



Btw. The coolest sound demos I've heard of Bricasti M7 were of some drum recordings that had that super tight reverb around them. I feel this guitar demo doesn't differentiate M7 enough from the lesser verbs like these TC ones. It sure is naturalish sounding, but not quite what i think is the best part of M7, from what I've heard. The thing why I'd get one :)
www.mkdr.net

MophoEd - the BEST DSI Mopho Editor VSTi

Post

mkdr wrote:Whiii! A Reverb Shootout!

Here's TC Electronics
VSS3: https://app.box.com/s/7a51sxaqa8ompkql50vu
MegaReverb: https://app.box.com/s/l7vljgrfqr4dwh7apyxz
FabrikR: https://app.box.com/s/qphaxl9o5opaf7z2dhtq

Those are just quick dial-ins to get a close enough naturalistic sound.



Btw. The coolest sound demos I've heard of Bricasti M7 were of some drum recordings that had that super tight reverb around them. I feel this guitar demo doesn't differentiate M7 enough from the lesser verbs like these TC ones. It sure is naturalish sounding, but not quite what i think is the best part of M7, from what I've heard. The thing why I'd get one :)
I think there're alot of differences between the TC and the Bricasti. As pointed out earlier - #1 and #3 is missing in your tests compared to the Bricasti. Please listen with headphones.

Thank you for the test.

Post

kmonkey wrote:
Galbanum wrote:
The only rational explanation for custom hardware is that it can not be pirated. i.e. it is a business decision, not an engineering one...
Jesus Christ :-o

Tell me you are joking and that you are not finding this as only rational explanation for hardware reverb.

How can you say that? Maybe i am not understand you correctly and in that case i apologize but in every other way i will ask:

What about musicians and their needs? :shock:

Do you think that people using rack reverbs on stage or in studio (without need for computer, additional AD/DA, latency, stability etc.etc.etc.) are not rational?

There are many reasons (other then sound character) why hardware FX unit exist. Not only because of anti piracy. For Christ sake these existed far before software reverb piracy..I am really shocked with your statement (from a musician point of view).

The perspective of my statement is from the studio side. My goal is, and always has been, to make the best sounding algorithm, using the latest generation of processor technology. Often this involves using significant processing power. Thus my statements are geared toward desktop/workstation/server/studio use. (or powerful laptop i suppose...)

(Tangent: another thread regarding exploring what exactly is the state of the art in hardware is here: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 3&start=15 we are waiting on numbers.)

I happen to be a musician btw, and am aware of musician's needs. (Though admittedly, thus far, my work is almost entirely studio work...)


The orrginal topic is "Can something like an M7 exist in software?" Therefore I thought we were talking about software/plug-ins by default? I concede there may be reasons for racks of gear for live shows.


Let's try to avoid crusades and jiahds ok??

But while we are talking about god, can someone talk to him and ask him make it stop raining in the Adironcdacks? I don't want drive 20 hours to sit in a hotel room! :D

Post

I think reverb makers are artists of the highest level. Reverb is the ART.
I think the art cannot be classified to departments like: natural, non natural, synthetic, etc.
I tried to use real sampled spaces in music production but it didn't worked. Reality sometimes sounds too cold.
That is why I am stating that Music is a painting, and reverbs are like colors for that picture.
You are the artist, and decisions are only Yours. Period. No marketing!

Post

xtrax wrote:I think reverb makers are artists of the highest level. Reverb is the ART.
I think the art cannot be classified to departments like: natural, non natural, synthetic, etc.
I tried to use real sampled spaces in music production but it didn't worked. Reality sometimes sounds too cold.
That is why I am stating that Music is a painting, and reverbs are like colors for that picture.
You are the artist, and decisions are only Yours. Period. No marketing!
Very nicely put...

The discussion here is on a very high level where minute details (to the layman) make big differences (to those trained ears) in the world of professional developers. In the end (as stated) it's down to individual choice when using these fantastic tools. And to be honest I find it difficult to discern between a modulated or unmodulated tail:( If it feels right then thats ok with me.

Post

Warp69 wrote: I think there're alot of differences between the TC and the Bricasti. As pointed out earlier - #1 and #3 is missing in your tests compared to the Bricasti. Please listen with headphones.

Thank you for the test.
Yes, definitely there are differences! I wasn't saying there wasn't. But they are not as pronounced as with other type of sound material. The difference in context (a proper mix) might be very hard to notice. And those verbs were very quickly dialed in.. almost straight default preset from VSS3 for example. There's so many verb modes in that thing that there might have been something closer sounding too.


Run some drums through short thick verbs on the M7.
Those are eargastic :P
We wan't to earsturbate :oops:
www.mkdr.net

MophoEd - the BEST DSI Mopho Editor VSTi

Post

Galbanum wrote:The orrginal topic is "Can something like an M7 exist in software?" Therefore I thought we were talking about software/plug-ins by default? I concede there may be reasons for racks of gear for live shows.
Maybe hardware developers have another approach to reverb design?

They might think 20 years ahead regarding their designs - the new reverb unit should not just exceed current products in quality, but be able to compete with designs which will be released 20-25 years in the future. To achieve that goal they need to invest 3-5+ years of research and development and around $50.000 - $100.000 for conducting experiments in concert halls and churches around the world. Expensive simulation software packages etc.
Their target marked for such a high-quality product is probably been estimated to 1000 - 2500 customers - which way is the best to recoup their investment? Software or hardware?

Post

mkdr wrote:There's so many verb modes in that thing that there might have been something closer sounding too.
There is nothing in those reverbs' settings that would make them sound closer in those regards.
Run some drums through short thick verbs on the M7.
Don't assume he's using an M7, he has most if not all high-end hardware reverbs at his disposal.
"Music is spiritual. The music business is not." - Claudio Monteverdi

Post

Warp69 wrote:
Galbanum wrote:The orrginal topic is "Can something like an M7 exist in software?" Therefore I thought we were talking about software/plug-ins by default? I concede there may be reasons for racks of gear for live shows.
Maybe hardware developers have another approach to reverb design?
Of course. They have a lot of other things to think about that us software guys don't have to think about. We delegate ADA conversation to our sound cards and external converters, we don't worry about psu's or generally any EE issues at all, most of us don't worry about inventory or shipping, some of us don't worry about channel sales, etc etc. software has less to worry about. Agreed.

I would argue this might actually allow more time to focus on alg design...
Warp69 wrote: They might think 20 years ahead regarding their designs - the new reverb unit should not just exceed current products in quality, but be able to compete with designs which will be released 20-25 years in the future.
I think that is a highly romantic goal in 2013. Technology expands at least exponentially probably more like double exponentially. If you can predict what state of the art will be in 2033 or 2043, more power to you!

If ultimate realism is the goal, then most people like us know digital waveguide mesh can make physical models with arbitrary precision. It still requires a supercomputer. But maybe in 20-30 years those of us that live in Elysium will have quantum computers on our intergalactic mobile phones/watches/implants...?

I am NOT convinced ultimate realism is the ultimate goal though, nor am I convinced that the majority of people will notice a difference beyond where we are now or will be in another couple update cycles.
Warp69 wrote: To achieve that goal they need to invest 3-5+ years of research and development and around $50.000 - $100.000 for conducting experiments in concert halls and churches around the world. Expensive simulation software packages etc.
Their target marked for such a high-quality product is probably been estimated to 1000 - 2500 customers - which way is the best to recoup their investment? Software or hardware?
Agree. As I said before there may be very valid BUSINESS reasons to make/sell hardware.

I simply don't think it is superior from a computational-performance or "alg-enabling" standpoint in 2013.

From iPhone. Excuse any typos.

Post Reply

Return to “Effects”