Bricasti M7 Native Plugin

[kvaca]

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.

thank you for the sound examples,its always nice to hear what all the fuss here is about...
funny thing is your hardware example is lacking in almost all departments mentioned above...reverb overall sounds dull and colorless, early reflections are almost not hearable, low frequency stereo is too wide to my ears /as wide as if I got ears 10m apart/, hi frequency rolloff is too much simplified...but I also can be completely wrong, who knows...
if thats all what is it capable Im sure I dont need that Bricasti reverb at all and its hardly believable to me that so many people /starting with OP/ want it as a plugin...why, if it doesnt sound significantly better than average reverb plugin

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.

here:

http://uloz.to/xyDXYDPD/kk-rev-1-wav

is example of typical average plugin reverb /sorry Ive used pipe organ preset for guitar, but this can be corrected if I got some more time/ I know that my example is also lacking when compared to best realworld reverb /same as your hardware example do/...but I dont think it is lacking something when only compared to Bricasti...

and again - thank you for the test, it opened my eyes

[kmonkey]

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??

I am not on any crusade or jihad I was just shocked on your statement but you made it perfectly clear now as it seems i did not understand you correctly. Don't forget that we still use it in studios as well. I use sw and hw all the time. Believe me i wish i could replace some of my hardware, because i like software environment and everything what goes with it in workflow (when we are at FX section) - but at this point of time, some things doesn't have replacement. I hope you guys (reverb developers) are gonna make it - eventually

Cheers

[kmonkey]

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.

thank you for the sound examples,its always nice to hear what all the fuss here is about...
funny thing is your hardware example is lacking in almost all departments mentioned above...reverb overall sounds dull and colorless, early reflections are almost not hearable, low frequency stereo is too wide to my ears /as wide as if I got ears 10m apart/, hi frequency rolloff is too much simplified...but I also can be completely wrong, who knows...
if thats all what is it capable Im sure I dont need that Bricasti reverb at all and its hardly believable to me that so many people /starting with OP/ want it as a plugin...why, if it doesnt sound significantly better than average reverb plugin

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.

here:

http://uloz.to/xyDXYDPD/kk-rev-1-wav

is example of typical average plugin reverb /sorry Ive used pipe organ preset for guitar, but this can be corrected if I got some more time/ I know that my example is also lacking when compared to best realworld reverb /same as your hardware example do/...but I dont think it is lacking something when only compared to Bricasti...

and again - thank you for the test, it opened my eyes

See...it is such a different taste, we are all different. May i just spit my opinion. I think M7 gels perfectly in that example. What i like the most is that perception of space. It isn't real but it taste good to my ear (in lack of finding better word for experience). Actually i think i have better word. It is really musical LOL

Btw since we are at it, i want to understand what people listen when they listen reverb? So this is genuine honest question to you. For example may i ask

- what kind of space you are sensing there (hall, chamber, what?)
- why do you think stereo is too wide (you are likely aware that stereo wideness is pretty much adjustable) but anyway why did you expected it to be more narrow?
- and lastly this confuse me so i want to know it more then other question - why do you expect to hear early reflection since you really don't know what kind of room is set to be there in that example? In other word why do you persist to hear ER, if for example artist wanted to provide us with some space where ER is not dominant.
- Would you consider it bad musicwise if ER is not dominant?
- Why do you think ER need to be "there"?
- Btw what is dull reverb sound, colorless?
- Would you say it's better if reverb tail is more dense, with more high content. Is that opposite to dull or colorless?


Please note again these are genuine honest question. I'll completely understand if you don't want to answer for any reason. I am not asking you to scale your understanding of reverbs, or to see are you having super ear or that kind of nonsense. I am genuinely interested in other people mind when it comes to reverb and i would like to understand in better way for example why my perception is working how is working. I mean i want better point of understanding that's all.

Thanks in advance. And respect.

I have so much more questions

edit: sorry guys i think i am going offtopic, so if someone want to make another thread it's fine (or should i?) but i think it's interesting. I'll understand if you flame me now...

[mkdr]

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.

Oh, ok. It's good that i got the verb mode right at first flick. I haven't used the 24 early reflection modes that extensively myself. Each of them also have size, color and position adjustments. Or the 14 reverb tail modes.. or the filters.. or the modulation. Thumbs up for me I'm the best.

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.

I just assumed cos he said so..

[toothnclaw]

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.

So they aim for realism after all. Who would have known!


Meanwhile, in another thread:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5521513

[Warp69]

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!

I imagine you would have said the exact same thing in 1985 or 2002, right? Have it ever been any different? As mentioned earlier - even Intel is moving away from pure performance to other metrics.

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.

Again, have it ever been different? The majority of people doesn't notice or care about the highest quality because of the pricetag associated with those products. No one believes that M7, 480L, Yardstick etc. are mass market products, but that hasn't stopped the developers.

[mkdr]

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

Computers can be quite slow when doing DSP stuff. The numbers you get out of "benchmarks" don't usually mean much. You can clearly see that by running a few reverbs. The numbers i quoted earlier about M7's processor power were quite large figures. People who deal more with reverbs on the code level can prob tell you more about this (though i have coded few simple reverbs too).

[Shy]

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.

I just assumed cos he said so..

Oops, sorry, didn't notice that in the post.

http://uloz.to/xyDXYDPD/kk-rev-1-wav

is example of typical average plugin reverb /sorry Ive used pipe organ preset for guitar, but this can be corrected if I got some more time/ I know that my example is also lacking when compared to best realworld reverb /same as your hardware example do/...but I dont think it is lacking something when only compared to Bricasti... :wink

I think it's very obviously lacking in that it has far too obvious chorus-like modulation and much worse stereo image. I could mention more, but the most important factors are already much worse, so it's not important.
Your complaint about the frequency response in Warp69's sample has nothing to do with the sound quality or capabilities of that reverb, it was simply set to a realistic decay frequency in the 3kHz range, same as would be in a concert hall. It could easily be set to a frequency response similar to your example.

[kvaca]

See...it is such a different taste, we are all different. May i just spit my opinion. I think M7 gels perfectly in that example. What i like the most is that perception of space. It isn't real but it taste good to my ear (in lack of finding better word for experience). Actually i think i have better word. It is really musical LOL

Btw since we are at it, i want to understand what people listen when they listen reverb? So this is genuine honest question to you. For example may i ask

- what kind of space you are sensing there (hall, chamber, what?)
- why do you think stereo is too wide (you are likely aware that stereo wideness is pretty much adjustable) but anyway why did you expected it to be more narrow?
- and lastly this confuse me so i want to know it more then other question - why do you expect to hear early reflection since you really don't know what kind of room is set to be there in that example? In other word why do you persist to hear ER, if for example artist wanted to provide us with some space where ER is not dominant.
- Would you consider it bad musicwise if ER is not dominant?
- Why do you think ER need to be "there"?
- Btw what is dull reverb sound, colorless?
- Would you say it's better if reverb tail is more dense, with more high content. Is that opposite to dull or colorless?


Please note again these are genuine honest question. I'll completely understand if you don't want to answer for any reason. I am not asking you to scale your understanding of reverbs, or to see are you having super ear or that kind of nonsense. I am genuinely interested in other people mind when it comes to reverb and i would like to understand in better way for example why my perception is working how is working. I mean i want better point of understanding that's all.

Thanks in advance. And respect.

I have so much more questions

edit: sorry guys i think i am going offtopic, so if someone want to make another thread it's fine (or should i?) but i think it's interesting. I'll understand if you flame me now...

please listen again carefully to my audio example above /and with good headphones/- there you will find aswers to majority of your questions...regarding dull sound, too wide bass reverb,missing ER etc, because in my example I have tried to improve all important areas of Bricasti reverb example I found deficient or unnatural sounding...if you still want detailed answers to all your questions just please tell me, I can sent you these via PM so to not bother other readers with long OT

[kvaca]

I think it's very obviously lacking in that it has far too obvious chorus-like modulation and much worse stereo image.

that all can be set similar to Bricasti, but I dont like that superwide image with easily hearable reflections...so Ive tried to improve that in my example, but I accept you dont like it - no problem

Your complaint about the frequency response in Warp69's sample has nothing to do with the sound quality or capabilities of that reverb, it was simply set to a realistic decay frequency in the 3kHz range, same as would be in a concert hall. It could easily be set to a frequency response similar to your example.

no, I think it cannot /at least not wihout making all hearable reflections harsh and unnatural or without using more chorusing/

[Shy]

I have no idea what you mean by easily hearable reflections. If you mean distinct echoes popping out, there are none in that sample. The stereo image is not superwide at all, it's a fairly realistic standard stereo image similar to that of real reverberation in a large hall, definitely much more than in your example, which sounds very unrealistic. I could give many examples of even "wider" real recordings which were made with standard mic techniques (not weird, phasey stuff).

[Warp69]

please listen again carefully to my audio example above /and with good headphones/- there you will find aswers to majority of your questions...regarding dull sound, too wide bass reverb,missing ER etc, because in my example I have tried to improve all important areas of Bricasti reverb example I found deficient or unnatural sounding...if you still want detailed answers to all your questions just please tell me, I can sent you these via PM so to not bother other readers with long OT

I think that kmonkey asked alot of very good questions that could help me understand what you hear - it would really be appreciated if you could answer some of them.

Is this better?

http://www.relab.dk/downloads/sound/Hardware_2.wav

[kmonkey]

..regarding dull sound, too wide bass reverb,missing ER etc, because in my example I have tried to improve all important areas of Bricasti reverb example I found deficient or unnatural sounding...if you still want detailed answers to all your questions just please tell me, I can sent you these via PM so to not bother other readers with long OT

Yes please if you have time. I think you misunderstood me a bit. I don't want to know why you think one example posted here is better then other posted here. That's pretty normal since we are all different. Obviously at some time example is needed but i am at stage where i want to know a bit about other people perception and their personal description of it.


For instance to me your example is really blurry, i don't like it i think that instrument itself lack focus and definition in your reverb/tail, reverb isn't wrapped around it. It's like artificial waves of sameish soundprint are surrounding instrument. Do not be mad with my description it's only my IMHO nothing to be worried about.

However what i do want to know is what do you expect from reverb, and why which is why i listed these questions I am aware that my questions are confusing (when i look them second time) but really it will help me to understand what other people look in reverb. How they valid is it good, bad, less ER, more ER, colored, what??

Btw i am not a developer, just to clear this out. And i don't have some sort of upcoming reverb to rule them all LOL.

I am asking out of curiosity and to wide up my experience. I think other people opinion is really important just as mine is. So i want to know about it. Reverb does interest me a lot, and it's my love which is why i am always looking a lot about it. You can answer here or at PM not a problem. Thanks for your time.

Nice thread after all

edit: i tried to fix typing errors...sorry guys..

[kvaca]

I have no idea what you mean by easily hearable reflections. If you mean distinct echoes popping out, there are none in that sample.

nope - please listen to start of the M7 audio sample - at 1.25 sec I can easily count about hundret of muffled reflections, it sounds like a broken glass grains pouring on plastic floor - something you really dont hear in good concert hall

The stereo image is not superwide at all, it's a fairly realistic standard stereo image similar to that of real reverberation in a large hall, definitely much more than in your example, which sounds very unrealistic.

OK, I made wider example for your pleasure:

http://uloz.to/xqnQjxTd/kk-rev-1wide-wav

I could give many examples of even "wider" real recordings which were made with standard mic techniques (not weird, phasey stuff).

yes, you can do these wide recordings with AB setup and when the distance between both stereo mics is more than 4m, which is what I call unnaturally wide, because it causes me headache especially during longer listening on headphones...

[Shy]

I have no idea what you mean by easily hearable reflections. If you mean distinct echoes popping out, there are none in that sample.

nope - please listen to start of the M7 audio sample - at 1.25 sec I can easily count about hundret of muffled reflections, it sounds like a broken glass grains pouring on plastic floor - something you really dont hear in good concert hall

That's the build envelope's setting which is probably at maximum, causing the late reflection of the 5 transients that come before that section, it's not distinct echos or artifacts. Listen to Warp69's second sample with a more balanced build envelope.

OK, I made wider example for your pleasure:

http://uloz.to/xqnQjxTd/kk-rev-1wide-wav

That doesn't sound like "wider" reverb at all, just more nauseating .

yes, you can do these wide recordings with AB setup and when the distance between both stereo mics is more than 4m, which is what I call unnaturally wide, because it causes me headache especially during longer listening on headphones...

Like I specifically said, I don't mean idiotic micing techniques with 4 meters between mics or such. I mean proper micing with some centimeters distance between mics, at most. I don't know how, if you've been in real concert halls, say that the stereo width is "hyper" or "super" real. It's not even as "wide" and "spacious", just remotely close.