Bricasti M7 Native Plugin

[meloco_go]

with captute technique we are usually using best studio monitors, which unfortunately cannot completely replace typical real world musical instruments...at least their radiation pattern is very different /=in the case of musical instruments is way more complex - to say it simplified/
i.e. - if we managed to have monitors with exactly the same radiation pattern as piano /or guitar...etc/....then - I only think - theres only little need for increasing mics distance for IR capture
and yes - there were some experiments done with multiple monitors capture /made by Altiverb creators at the beginning/...but the results were unnatural to me and also these devs seems abandoned that technique now

another problem arise from using only dry mono audio /sometimes even dry stereo is not enough/ before convolution, which simply CANNOT represent well any bigger musical instrument in all its complexity...that complexity ALWAYS transtate into reverb in natural space /which is missing in any artificial reverb/ and can create some additional "spaciousness" or "liveness" so typical for location music record

I agree with the above, and clearly you won't get same results when you, say, record real drums in a room or apply IR of the room on close miced drums.
But if I understood Warp69 correctly, he compared recording of a musical piece from the speakers (i.e. recording of a playback) in the room field, vs applying IR of the room created on the same equipment?

[Warp69]

Is the required distance only for IRs? I.e. you have to place mics wider (to capture IR) then what was used to record a piece of music on location to get impulse with realistic characteristic?

Correct - both the directional and omni mics were place 1m apart for the music recording. We changed the distance for the IR capturing if the goal was to match the envelopment.

Do you have any ideas why it happens? It seems it would capture a different ER structure?

I still think it's related to variance in air pressure, even though I couldn't get it to match with the modulation. I didn't continue the investigation, since it was not the primary goal, so it might be something else. The IR's was different when using the wider distance, but it was minimal since I only used rather large spaces.

[Warp69]

unfortunately other people measurements /f.i.when I look at IRs from Waves/ are very similar to mine in that regard...
btw - technically I have NOT used hi-pass filtering if you care

I have different convolution products and I tested most large spaces and all of them had way more low frequency content than your test. Although none of them was from Waves, so I decided to download the Waves IR-1 product and again I arrived to the exact same result :

http://www.relab.dk/downloads/sound/Waves.wav
http://www.relab.dk/downloads/sound/Berlin.wav

I would appreciate if you could tell me which presets you're using in Waves IR-1 to get similar high-pass filtering as your test.

[PatchAdamz]

I have to say, this is one of the more interesting threads I have read in some time and educational.

Still, I want my Bricasti M7...

[kvaca]

I have different convolution products and I tested most large spaces and all of them had way more low frequency content than your test. Although none of them was from Waves, so I decided to download the Waves IR-1 product and again I arrived to the exact same result :

http://www.relab.dk/downloads/sound/Waves.wav
http://www.relab.dk/downloads/sound/Berlin.wav

your second file here /Berlin/ exhibits the same bass feature on side channel as almost all mine recorded IRs, so its not true that you have never encountered this filtering
btw - Im just curious-why is the start of that Berlin sample so much detuned-compared to the rest of the file?

I would appreciate if you could tell me which presets you're using in Waves IR-1 to get similar high-pass filtering as your test.

again-technically its not hi-pass filtering but something inbetween gentle slope hi-pass and gentle lo-shelving filter /around -5db on side signal/
Im not using Waves plugins anymore, but I still have their 3 free IRs and 2 of them exhibit exactly same bahaviour as mine IRs...these IRs are called Herbert Zipper AB W /matching-filter frequency is needed around 100 Hz/ and Belle meade church AB W /filter frequency around 200 Hz/
third free IRs called Spa pavilion doesn exhibit these feature, maybe different AB micing setup? I dont know...and dont care, too

Im mostly using AB setup with 90 cm space between mics because I prefer the same natural image like when doing wet sampling or recording...but in the past I also experimented with some crazy mic placing /like 2m, 4m and more/ but I was never satisfied with obtained IRs and it doesnt matter that this placing allowed me to avoid that bass filtering on side channel

btw-needed to add that for mono dry signal I usually prefer ORTF IRs which typically exhibit much worse filtering on side channel /with filtering frequency typically around 900 Hz/ because ORTF glues better with dry mono signal for me not speaking about benefits for easier mixing with other instruments

[kvaca]

But if I understood Warp69 correctly, he compared recording of a musical piece from the speakers (i.e. recording of a playback) in the room field, vs applying IR of the room created on the same equipment?

Ive overlooked this detail, but if thats true then only nonlinearities should be the reason for some differences...the same reason why some people prefer chorusing in reverb

[kvaca]

I have different convolution products and I tested most large spaces and all of them had way more low frequency content than your test.

sorry,I ve overlooked that patch I have used /only slightly corrected/for my testfile got also some low freqency dampening on reverb tail /that should simulate similar feature of some big cathedrals with big one glass windows/...so you are right that concert halls usually got more bass

here is corrected file /also better matched to your first M7 testfile/:

http://ulozto.cz/x9So4b51/kkrev1-dull-wav

Im curious, tell me-is it better for you? /because I dont like it, the same reasons as with your M7 testfile:because of dulness, lack of crisp in reverb...etc/

[izonin]

Any news about Henry Olonga's M7 Nebula programs? The ones on Acoustica-Audio's site sounded a bit weird. Not better than IR's IMO.

[kmonkey]

Any news about Henry Olonga's M7 Nebula programs? The ones on Acoustica-Audio's site sounded a bit weird. Not better than IR's IMO.

I never liked Nebula for reverbs. To much of weird clicks and noises in tail. It's fantastic for EQ - my imho

[izonin]

I never liked Nebula for reverbs. To much of weird clicks and noises in tail. It's fantastic for EQ - my imho

Have you demoed the VNXT EMT140 set? It's a beautiful plate. If only we could get this same guy to capture the Bricasti!

[fese]

I have to say, this is one of the more interesting threads I have read in some time and educational.

Is is also one of the most nerdy threads that I have read read here right up with that long one about compressors with Dave Gamble...
Still, good to know that there are people that care enough about some topic to give us others, who cannot tell apart a non-resonating reverb tail with 37% modulation from another (insert techy stuff here) reverb tail without modulation, cool gear, be it HW or SW.

[Warp69]

your second file here /Berlin/ exhibits the same bass feature on side channel as almost all mine recorded IRs, so its not true that you have never encountered this filtering
btw - Im just curious-why is the start of that Berlin sample so much detuned-compared to the rest of the file?

The test is from QL Spaces, so I can't comment on how they performed the
IR exstraction.

Im curious, tell me-is it better for you? /because I dont like it, the same reasons as with your M7 testfile:because of dulness, lack of crisp in reverb...etc/

I think it's much closer to the sound of real halls than your first attempts. I was surprised that some thought low frequency content equals 'dullness'. But I agree - the Bricasti M7 would probably not appeal to you.

[kvaca]

I was surprised that some thought low frequency content equals 'dullness'.

seems you have misunderstood me: not only this...but in conjuction with missing hi-frequency content and missing ER...then yes - it is dull, at least to me
btw - there exist real spaces which sounds extremely dull /similar your hardware sample/ and there are halls which sounds more bright /like your hardware 2 or your waves and berlin samples/ and there are also spaces extremely bright /like my first sample/...there are no hard rules which is better...it only depends on personal preferences and needs...from all samples posted here to me the closest to a good sounding real concert hall is your waves sample...followed by your hardware 2 sample

But I agree - the Bricasti M7 would probably not appeal to you.

why do you think so?
based on your hardware 2 sample which finally convinced me that it CAN sound very good?
but based on the small difference in sound between M7 and average plugin reverb /including free and stock DAWs plugins/ its off course for me not worth the difference in price...so overall you are right
but...be it in a plugin form /like OP and many people asked here/ Im sure its still worth the middle-range price /about 100-200 euros/ for me...but not much more...I know many people here will disagree with this...

[Warp69]

Even Intel implements audio DSPs functions into their next CPUs - Broadwell.

http://vr-zone.com/articles/meet-intels ... 60323.html

[Andrew Souter]

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.

Before there were personal computers accessible to everyone and anyone things may have been different, and easier to forecast farther into the future. It is more difficult these days IMHO. Things simply move faster every day.

But generally, yes, my tendency would be to say it is quite difficult to make such long range predictions at any point in past/preset/future...

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.

My point is more that "most accurate match" to an exact physical space is not always the goal or even most desirable. Much of the DG lit talks more about psychoacoustics than matching spaces exactly. The ultimate goal IMHO is "whatever sounds best" for the particular musical source. Not trying to match Abbey Roads or Royal Albert Hall perfectly with 100% accuracy. The best real spaces are built with psychoacoustic goals in mind. But they are constructed using whatever the limitations of budget and engineering know-how is at the time. It is quite possible the best real spaces are not 100% perfectly desirable psychoacousticly.

Furthermore there are entire styles of music that have little affinity for or attachment to real acoustic concert halls. Almost all EDM productions are NOT "natural" in this sense. Moreover, the majority of the other effects we use in production are NOT natural. Is a phaser, flanger, multi-tap delay, pick-you-favorite-distortion-effect, etc etc, natural? What is the "correct" space for the stereo output of a synth pad from Diva?? Do dance music people care about the accuracy of low frequency reverb, when for the most part the verb is high-passed anyway to make room for the kick and bass? Is side-chain compression or gating "natural" etc etc etc. Is "tape compression" which everyone "needs" to have via emulation now, "natural" in the acoustic sense?

Regarding idolized hardware of yester-years and the question of matching it in software, take for example 480L. Your own work proves it can be done easily (computationally speaking) in software these days. The alg itself is relatively simple compared to current designs AFAIK. You know MUCH more than me regarding this device, but as I understand it is not computationally expensive, correct? What perhaps IS computationally expensive is going to all the great lengths that you went to model all the EE stuff in the actual hardware box in effort to get as close as absolutely possible to the exact sound as the original. That's a pretty extreme undertaking, and I sincerely commend you on your effort and obsession to achieve perfection with it. It's a great product!

M7 is really the only one out there that is even questionable if it can be done AFAIK. I suspect it can, but I concede it could be challenging.