Best reverb, for all jobs? (ongoing process)

[hibidy]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/860 ... RB-DRY.wav

Is this the starting point? I hear a little loop in the beginning and then claps like uncle E's posting.

I don't want to be disqualified ( ), so trying to figure out what to do.

One thing I will say is that after the journey, I don't know shit about reverb compared to what I thought.

[Uncle E]

I hear a little loop in the beginning and then claps like uncle E's posting.

Those are the dirac impulses from Stian. I believe it's more accurate to use those for testing than that loop. In codec_spurt's own words, "the algorithms have a life of their own that is brought out by different inputs" and the good thing about an impulse is it's relatively neutral.

Besides, trying to match the reverbs was hard enough already with just that impulse.

[hibidy]

So, that last part is what we are supposed to recreate?

[Uncle E]

Try to re-create this:

http://acondigital.com/audio/verberate_small_hall.flac

From this:

http://acondigital.com/audio/dirac_m.flac

[Warp69]

Could someone enlighten me what we're supposed to demonstrate with this test?

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

[stian]

Hi Martin,

Could someone enlighten me what we're supposed to demonstrate with this test?
http://www.relab.dk/downloads/sound/SmallHall.wav

That does sound nice... Is that your algorithm? It sounds a bit like the M7 to me. My point was to demonstrate that there are significant differences between the algorithms available. If the impulse response of the plug-in doesn't resemble a measured impulse response of a real acoustical space at all, it is not likely that it will sound very natural. Eric's example clearly illustrates that many algorithmic reverbs are quite far away from real world measurements.

Best,
Stian

[Uncle E]

Could someone enlighten me what we're supposed to demonstrate with this test?

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

I think most of us would have guessed that yours would be one of the best.

Here are the reverbs that were used in my example:

1. Toraverb
2. Studio One's Room Reverb
3. Stian's Verberate file
4. RC 48
5. Ozone 5 Reverb
6. Studio One's Mixverb
7. RC 24
8. TAL-Reverb 2

The ones that surprised me the most were Toraverb and Ozone 5 Reverb. Toraverb proved to be extremely flexible and of these has the widest range of sounds available. Although it missed the mark in my particular test, I wouldn't be surprised if D16 themselves could get closer than I did due to this flexibility. Most of the others missed the mark and I believe are also not flexible enough to be made to sound much closer than I got.

This was the first time I'd ever used Ozone 5 Reverb and I was shocked at how great it sounds. As Stian correctly pointed out, it's a hybrid impulse/algorithmic reverb and that's what gives it such a smooth sound but it also limits its flexibility. Still, the sound is excellent and it provides some interesting options that aren't commonly available (I love the M/S feature), I'll definitely continue to use it from now on.

Even though I used Stian's example here, I've been liking Verberate a lot, too. The interface is innovative, the "lock dry and reverb levels" when browsing presets is super helpful, and the sound is so smooth!

[Warp69]

My point was to demonstrate that there are significant differences between the algorithms available.

That's expected - there're alot of differences between the various algorithms. Even extremely small differences in internal values (but keeping the topology) will result in a lot of differences.

If the impulse response of the plug-in doesn't resemble a measured impulse response of a real acoustical space at all, it is not likely that it will sound very natural. Eric's example clearly illustrates that many algorithmic reverbs are quite far away from real world measurements.

I would say that no algorithmic reverb come close to the sound of real spaces - not even convolution engines with IR from a specific space. If you convolve a piece of music with a measured IR from a space and compare to the same music recorded in the same space played through speakers, you'll get very different results. The recorded music have way more spaciousness, more low frequencies reverberation and 'stronger' (maybe not hte best word) early reflections. My point is that this test can't stand alone and say very little about the overall quality of different algorithms. As we also use various noise bursts, dirac, steady state, music etc.etc. when testing.

It's the LX480 RHall HD.

[stian]

That's expected - there're alot of differences between the various algorithms. Even extremely small differences in internal values (but keeping the topology) will result in a lot of differences.

Indeed, and it was my intention to demonstrate exactly that.

I would say that no algorithmic reverb come close to the sound of real spaces - not even convolution engines with IR from a specific space. If you convolve a piece of music with a measured IR from a space and compare to the same music recorded in the same space played through speakers, you'll get very different results. The recorded music have way more spaciousness, more low frequencies reverberation and 'stronger' (maybe not hte best word) early reflections. My point is that this test can't stand alone and say very little about the overall quality of different algorithms. As we also use various noise bursts, dirac, steady state, music etc.etc. when testing.

Well, some are definitely closer than others and convolution is still the best when it comes to realism even if the LTI assumption doesn't necessarily hold 100%.

It's the LX480 RHall HD.

Nice, that's a great improvement over the original!

Best,
Stian

[antithesist]

We have Martin's LX480 and SSL Duende X-Verb here, along with many others.

The HD algorithms in the LX and X-Verb are my favorites for density.

[sounddesigner]

Could someone enlighten me what we're supposed to demonstrate with this test?

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

I think most of us would have guessed that yours would be one of the best.

Here are the reverbs that were used in my example:

1. Toraverb
2. Studio One's Room Reverb
3. Stian's Verberate file
4. RC 48
5. Ozone 5 Reverb
6. Studio One's Mixverb
7. RC 24
8. TAL-Reverb 2

The ones that surprised me the most were Toraverb and Ozone 5 Reverb. Toraverb proved to be extremely flexible and of these has the widest range of sounds available. Although it missed the mark in my particular test, I wouldn't be surprised if D16 themselves could get closer than I did due to this flexibility. Most of the others missed the mark and I believe are also not flexible enough to be made to sound much closer than I got.

This was the first time I'd ever used Ozone 5 Reverb and I was shocked at how great it sounds. As Stian correctly pointed out, it's a hybrid impulse/algorithmic reverb and that's what gives it such a smooth sound but it also limits its flexibility. Still, the sound is excellent and it provides some interesting options that aren't commonly available (I love the M/S feature), I'll definitely continue to use it from now on.

Even though I used Stian's example here, I've been liking Verberate a lot, too. The interface is innovative, the "lock dry and reverb levels" when browsing presets is super helpful, and the sound is so smooth!

I've been using and loving Verberate since its release. The most natural ITB reverb I've heard, very alive sounding, more so than other algorithmic reverbs I've heard but also melds with the source better than convolution. Stian is a reverb genius without a doubt IMV. No Native reverb I've tried has satisfied me like Verberate, and it is non-dongled and at a killer price.

I have Ozone 5 reverb as well, It's only OK to me. It's usable but definitely can be surprising with its results at times I agree. I prefer the Plate 140 emu in Nectar 2 wich is pure algorithm made from impulses. Really deep sense of space to it. Izotope is definitely on the right path with their technique, I'm sure Ozone 6 will be coming soon. Atleast I hope so.

I haven't tried the juggernaut Warp69's latest offering but I'm sure LX480 is a beast and amongs the best. I just wish it was available for SCOPE ..

[hibidy]

Not that it matters much but I changed the thread title since it's an ongoing thing

[stian]

I've been using and loving Verberate since its release. The most natural ITB reverb I've heard, very alive sounding, more so than other algorithmic reverbs I've heard but also melds with the source better than convolution. Stian is a reverb genius without a doubt IMV. No Native reverb I've tried has satisfied me like Verberate, and it is non-dongled and at a killer price.

Thanks a lot for the nice feedback! I'm glad you're still passionate about Verberate.

Best,
Stian

[Echoes in the Attic]

I've gone back and started using the NI RC-24/48 and was surprised to find how much I like them. They sound quite natural for being modeled after vintage gear. And I'm surprised to say it, I find they mix with the source even better then VVV.

I think overall B2 is my favorite though. I'm surprised it hasn't come up more in this thread. Some people say it's CPU intensive, which can be true, but it can also be very light. I find lowering the quality still results in great results.

[Uncle E]

I've gone back and started using the NI RC-24/48 and was surprised to find how much I like them.

Those are actually the ones I've stopped using after doing that test.