KVR Audio

MeldaProduction · Post by **MeldaProduction** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:18 pm

EDIT: As soon as I released the results, people started tampering with them

. Bricasti and Lexicon had almost no votes

. Nevermind, so much for blindtesting

.

Hi folks, so here's a little experiment, most of the reverbs are presets from the upcoming MTurboReverb, but there's fair share of other reverbs as well. All of them approximately 3 seconds reverb time, 50% dry/wet, normalized to -16LUFS to avoid loudness trickery. Please choose as many as you want. Let's see what people like

. I'll reveal which is which after we have some reasonable results

.

PS. It's the hardcore test loop, if people find this post useful, next time I'll do something else

.
And sorry for the number of them, it's hard to choose just a few

Boone777 · Post by **Boone777** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:36 pm

What's tricky is that sometimes it's not necesserily a bad reverb but it does'nt fit the clip. So I tend to vote for what works. Some of them I liked the sound but did'nt like the tail. To my taste half of those sounds are usable.

mljung · Post by **mljung** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:45 pm

I tried my best - but I agree this is not easy to do right. In general, maybe due to the sample used, they all sounded a bit flat and uninspiring. I voted for the darker ones as the hi-hat sample sounded very bad 'washed out' in some of the examples, but maybe the hi-hat sample itself is the main reason (spiky as it is).

::
Mads

Gregorius · Post by **Gregorius** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:23 pm

Only one very specific sample where even the dry sample has reverb on it, random presets with 50% reverb - that's not a good reverb test...

Chris-S · Post by **Chris-S** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:26 pm

I like the dry one.

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:34 pm

Chris-S wrote:I like the dry one.

Most of the examples are certainly too drowned in reverb, for the percussive application. Makes it hard to judge really. I guess i'd vote for the one with the least reverb on it then.

MeldaProduction · Post by **MeldaProduction** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:54 pm

Hehe it needs to be loud enough so you can actually hear the details in the reverb. The goal isn't really to choose the recording ready to print on CD

. And these are not random, i always tried to find the settings that would be reasonable. At the end it will certainly be about a personal taste, but that's the point of the poll after all

dmbaer · Post by **dmbaer** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:33 pm

Just a suggestion for a survey like this ... If you went to an optometrist for an eye evaluation, you wouldn't be asked: here's twenty different settings to read line 3 on the chart - tell me which is best. Instead, you'd be given a series of choices: which of these two is better. I would structure a test like this the same way - otherwise it's extremely difficult to respond in a meaningful (or accurate) manner. Just my 2 cents.

Also, I think the sample clips are too wet for a realistic evaluation. My preference would be to hear them at (or maybe just a tiny bit above) what would be used in a real-life mix. The way the reverb overwhelms the audio, the clips sound rather dreadful, whereas they might sound far more acceptable if not oversaturated with the effect. Again, just my 2 cents.

MeldaProduction · Post by **MeldaProduction** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:50 pm

Hard to say, I think the 50% drywet is a good choice, otherwise one couldn't hear the details. Anyways yes/no test would be better, but I don't have time to implement anything like that. This is purely a curiosity matter

jens · Post by **jens** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:28 pm

dmbaer wrote: otherwise it's extremely difficult to respond in a meaningful (or accurate) manner.

I would have thought the same, but then didn't find it very difficult, because -to my ears - most Sound rather dreadful and there's only a handful that really stand out.

Also I think it's good that it is so wet, because it makes the dreadful ones less endurable.

Looking forward to find out whether my guess is (at least partly) correct that those which stand out are not Melda.

MeldaProduction · Post by **MeldaProduction** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:32 pm

Hehe yeah, this loop really likes to promote the worst of every reverb

. But I don't mind it, maybe because I got so used to it over the time

.
Hehe we'll see about your guesses, but you need to remember which these were

. Wait KVR stores it, nevermind

.

jens · Post by **jens** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:52 pm

Easy - 2, 4, 5, 9, 15

(with 5 probably being the most universally useable... )

MeldaProduction · Post by **MeldaProduction** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 9:59 pm

Is this some kind of number sequence?

I mean like a fibbonaci numbers or something?

jens · Post by **jens** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:18 pm

You tell me - you're the one who decided which number each example gets...

nonnaci · Post by **nonnaci** » Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:30 pm

The one that had the fastest low-frequency decay.

KVR Audio

Poll: Comparing reverb sounds - blindtest

Which do you like?