Soundspot Oracle

[Basstrup]

Well, I will admit to purchasing it. The claim of THE go to reverb is over the top. However I find it's.. not THAT bad.

It has it's sound, but hey I'm still using a Yamaha SPX-90, which definately was not a LX480 but it has it's use and character that to this day has daily use in major productions.

So I like it...
Why?
1. Used on the right material and context it's good
2. The concept is worth supporting. Having the Imaging controls is something others should take note of.
3, The build in dynamics is quite cool, when used with another verb or dlay. Remember the old David Bowie vocal set up with gated room mic? (which even made it into a plug in) Oracle made it fun - for me at least - adding "something" to only the loud parts of a track, from acc gtr over drums to vox.
4, at the price of cappuccino these days it's worth experimenting.
5, I like their interface design

I'm good with this.

[BRBWaffles]

dreamvoid and plexuss, thank you for your valid contributions!

plexuss, I listened to your "unusable reverb" track (that thread actually initiated my wondering about whether people still know and use the classic hardware pieces, because it seemed that even Vojtech took other plugins and IRs as reference), and while I take my hat off before your creativity and high ability of imagination, the reverb sounded like ITB to me. I would say you could have found a better "unusable reverb" OTB.

Aloysius et al, thank you for your humor!

Of course, it's all related to context. I mainly work on recorded music, from Folk to Hardcore. I often need "real sounding" reverbs, and often more rooms than long reverbs. Interestingly enough, in my experience, it's the small rooms that plugins lack the most in, except for some Nebula offerings like "70 small room". But I also like "unreal" reverbs. Recently, I needed an "epical wash", and I got an incredible sounding one in 10 minutes, with VSS 6 from TC 6000, some KSP-8 and some Sony DRE-S777. I then thought "Well, for epic, 2c B2 is the one!", and tried to replace my hardware "epic reverb" with the B2. I fiddled around for 15 minutes, and I came up with nothing. This is one example that led me to believe that even for "epic", "unreal" etc., hardware is often better.
The Kurzweil KSP-8 for example comes from a synth, and it sounds stellar, also for acoustic music.

But don't get me wrong, I get great results at times with Valhalla, IRCAM, Acon, UAD reverbs, East West Spaces, MTurboReverb & Co. But I am usually much quicker with hardware, and it's most of the times considerably better sounding - to me and my clients.

It's difficult to verbalize audio, but for me, the points to be aware of in a reverb are the following: does it produce depth, or does it sound flat? Does it blur and smear the audio? Does it sound "rooted" and "grounded"? (Exponential Audio reverbs sound "ungrounded and ethereal" to me, for example.) Is there an impression of space, and how does it do that? What does it do with the signal it processes - is the signal "in" the room, or does the reverb sound like added to it? Does it move the signal back in a homogenuous way? How does it "gel" with the rest of the audio? How is the frequency spectrum - how are the lows (most ITB reverbs fail there, UAD Ocean Way for example being an exception to some extent), how smooth are the mids, how do the highs sound? How real / unreal does it sound? How is modulation implemented? (For example, the Bricasti has a lot of modulation, but you often don't hear it that much, and it sounds rather natural - although I don't really seem to like it, but that's more a preference, and not a statement about the quality of that piece of equipment.)

To me, what ITB reverb is mostly lacking is real depth (Nebula, MTurboReverb, Eareckon, and to some extent Valhalla stand out, but don't reach good hardware), groundedness, solidity ("grip", not mere densitiy), naturalness, it potentially smears and blurs the audio, sounds flat and rather unexciting (Valhalla has excitement), and often "doesn't fully sound right", which is of course a completely subjective description. Interestingly enough, the hardware that I have does "sound right" to me much more often than software, or there is at least a much more "right" base to start with. There's much less fiddling involved.

Martin Lind wrote an excellent list of paramaters that are important for him here: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/11315654-post6.html

It is interesting to watch my main studio assistant, who is a bit over 20 (half as old as me), and has a background in EDM. He first considered the music I listen to strange ("That is very strange, it sounds as if the singer stood in front of me!"), but then went into an interesting transformation. From the start, he clearly preferred to use the hardware reverbs, and is now opening up more and more to the subtleties I am hearing (and moving away from his "bedroom producer" background).
It takes time and education to learn how to listen, but it's a great (and endless) path, and well worth it!

To repeat: I would recommend to listen to the classic and well-respected hardware pieces (not IRs of them), and improve your understanding of reverbs and you own hearing in the process. And develop your preferences!

And to reply to a statement made earlier: If I had to choose between an engineer with 35 years of experience in audio work, and someone with a PHD, to mix my music, or make a valid statement about the quality of a reverb used for mixing, I would of course choose the one with the actual experience.

dreamvoid, it was my understanding that Wolfgang Buchleitner was more involved with the marketing side, but I might be wrong. I will ask Sigi for details (we will probably meet next week). What I know is that you should send your broken QRS and QRS-XL to Sigi, and avoid Quantec for that. The Yardsticks are fine pieces of equipment, though, and I know that Sigi was not involved in the development of those (Sigi speaks highly of the 2496).

And if you're looking for the original QRS sound, I would recommend the free u-he Protoverb (in conjunction with a low pass). That's quite an interesting plugin!

I have somewhat different values, I suppose. My perspective is that if the listener won't know the difference or won't care, then there is likely no appreciable loss with choosing less expensive or less elaborate options. This is also why I switched from real amps to 100% amp sims. Over the years, as the technology got better I realized that very very few people who claimed to care about the differences could honestly hear them. I would pull stunts on clients wherein I would reamp their DI tracks through sims without telling them and they would brag about how good their tone was. Meanwhile it was Amplitube, BIAS, or even LePou's free stuff. So, I've grown very very skeptical of people who claim to have golden ears that can discern between such things, because they almost invariably get it wrong when they're actually tested. I realize the case for the reverbs is different, but not enough to change my attitude, yet. Which (in the context of this discussion) is that select software reverbs of 2017 are very likely to be better quality than most (if not all) the hardware reverbs of 2007 and back. I listened to a few of the models you guys listed on YouTube, and based on what I heard I'm not yet prepared to say that software can't deliver those offerings. I haven't heard a single clip that I felt I couldn't get with the right software and the right settings. There was one TC 6000 video where the artifacts on the reverb tail on this snare drum were no better or worse than what I'm used to hearing from the average algorithmic reverb. The only exception was small room simulation with algorithmic reverbs. The hardware did seem only slightly better at this, but I'm not willing to go back on what I said. Convolution or hybrid reverbs can do small rooms just fine, usually. Again, I'm totally open to being shown wrong, and I state everything as being the best of my knowledge and not facts that are written in stone. I just haven't seen anything compelling as of yet.

I also take slight offence to the professional producer/bedroom producer dichotomy you invoked. There are people like me. I went from a big professional studio to bedroom producing because I did not feel compelled by the supposed benefit of a giant studio. I started as a naive assistant eager to work in a big studio about twelve or more years ago, and I eventually became an employee. I had plenty of experience with outboard gear, console mixing, etc. That's how I learned, and I learned a great deal. But as plugins and software tools got better over the years, I found myself reaching for hardware less and less. Eventually I figured "to hell with it, why am I coming to work in this big studio and actively choosing not to use these hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of tools every day?". Over time, I was doing mixes close to 100% in-the-box and sitting there for sixteen hours a day. Eventually, I decided that I could do that work at home if that was the case, so I left.

[Armagibbon]

Ah, yes, of course. And I thought this was better than gearslutz.

Aw man you deleted your posts. Guess if the quotes are true... was gonna say I agree it's different strokes for different folks you know? Just sayin anyway. Then you went and got yourself dog-piled ahahahaha
Whatever the internet is fulla cool cats and boneheads right? No point getting all up in that shit. Peace.

[Rumi]

I have somewhat different values, I suppose. My perspective is that if the listener won't know the difference or won't care, then there is likely no appreciable loss with choosing less expensive or less elaborate options. This is also why I switched from real amps to 100% amp sims. Over the years, as the technology got better I realized that very very few people who claimed to care about the differences could honestly hear them. I would pull stunts on clients wherein I would reamp their DI tracks through sims without telling them and they would brag about how good their tone was. Meanwhile it was Amplitube, BIAS, or even LePou's free stuff. So, I've grown very very skeptical of people who claim to have golden ears that can discern between such things, because they almost invariably get it wrong when they're actually tested. I realize the case for the reverbs is different, but not enough to change my attitude, yet. Which (in the context of this discussion) is that select software reverbs of 2017 are very likely to be better quality than most (if not all) the hardware reverbs of 2007 and back. I listened to a few of the models you guys listed on YouTube, and based on what I heard I'm not yet prepared to say that software can't deliver those offerings. I haven't heard a single clip that I felt I couldn't get with the right software and the right settings. There was one TC 6000 video where the artifacts on the reverb tail on this snare drum were no better or worse than what I'm used to hearing from the average algorithmic reverb. The only exception was small room simulation with algorithmic reverbs. The hardware did seem only slightly better at this, but I'm not willing to go back on what I said. Convolution or hybrid reverbs can do small rooms just fine, usually. Again, I'm totally open to being shown wrong, and I state everything as being the best of my knowledge and not facts that are written in stone. I just haven't seen anything compelling as of yet.

I also take slight offence to the professional producer/bedroom producer dichotomy you invoked. There are people like me. I went from a big professional studio to bedroom producing because I did not feel compelled by the supposed benefit of a giant studio. I started as a naive assistant eager to work in a big studio about twelve or more years ago, and I eventually became an employee. I had plenty of experience with outboard gear, console mixing, etc. That's how I learned, and I learned a great deal. But as plugins and software tools got better over the years, I found myself reaching for hardware less and less. Eventually I figured "to hell with it, why am I coming to work in this big studio and actively choosing not to use these hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of tools every day?". Over time, I was doing mixes close to 100% in-the-box and sitting there for sixteen hours a day. Eventually, I decided that I could do that work at home if that was the case, so I left.

Hi BRBWaffles,

thank you for your valuable contribution! This is a much more fruitful conversation than what happened initially. I ask for forgiveness for any contribution from my side to the first "waves".

It's great if it works for you to be almost 100% ITB. It clearly didn't for me, and I went back to more and more OTB over the years. One aspect apart from my impression of the sonics is workflow and speed - I am quicker with outboard, and even with an analog desk.

I sold my EMT 246 when I bought East West Spaces, thinking that now has come the time to rely mainly on software. I have regretted that sale since, and over time have bought many hardware reverbs again.

I use mainly ITB EQs nowadays, and find that there are software EQs that are on par with very good outboard EQs (the EQ plugin from Barratt Audio is exceptional, regardless of ITB vs. OTB). For reverbs and compressors, we are not yet there to my ears.

The point about clients not hearing things is an important one. I see this whole thing as education, and I ask my clients if I can involve them in that way. They often are open.
The experiences with my assistant have been very interesting to me. It taught me a lot about different approaches (what I call punchy he called lame and thin, what he called punchy I called "hypercompressed mush lacking all transients"), but also about recognizing quality. Some of it is simply different tastes, but there is also quality. There is high quality hypercompression, and low quality hypercompression, for example. And then there is low quality that suits the tune perfectly...
I still believe in audio quality, even though many customers will only listen to my work as m4a on a laptop. I would work in a different area altogether if I decided to aim at those people in my audio work. I am just not interested in that. That is a subjective decision that is very clear to me, but others might find this approach unreasonable or unnecessary.

And finally, there is great music coming out of bedrooms! Maybe I described that shift too much as a dichotomy. I find it interesting (in the neutral sense), and in some aspects potentially problematic. But it's certainly far from being the most problematic aspect in shifts that have occured in the last 30 years.

[Rumi]

Ah, yes, of course. And I thought this was better than gearslutz.

Aw man you deleted your posts. Guess if the quotes are true... was gonna say I agree it's different strokes for different folks you know? Just sayin anyway. Then you went and got yourself dog-piled ahahahaha
Whatever the internet is fulla cool cats and boneheads right? No point getting all up in that shit. Peace.

Thank you! Yes, we can let it rest again now, please.

And yes, I was a little shocked about the initial reactions to my post, and tried to delete my account, to be honest - which I found out you can't. I deleted my posts before realizing that your first response didn't make sense anymore because of that. I'm sorry for that. I am thankful that it has now turned into a more fruitful conversation.

And somehow I would still like to find out to what extent "different strokes" applies here - give someone who swears by reverb plugins a month's time with those high end hardware boxes, and then listen to what he or she has to say...
But anyway!

All the best to you all,
Rumi

Edit: Since it will stay here anyway, I put my posts back in, to the best of my ability.

[ghettosynth]

And yes, I was a little shocked about the initial reactions to my post, and tried to delete my account, to be honest - which I found out you can't.

Not sure what you expected? You jumped into a thread about a $13 plugin on a forum that is chock full of software developers and technical professionals where you had barely a dozen posts to make wild and unsupported claims about the nature of hardware and software.

Perhaps you don't realize this but many of us here have been writing software and building hardware for as long or longer than you've been running studios. So, if you didn't know it before, you know it now, hardware reverbs are just plugins running on dedicated processors. There is nothing intrinsically special about most digital hardware, per se. Now, some vintage hardware may use designs that make it challenging to clone all of the attributes, but that doesn't make it better, just different. I'm not a purist, I don't care about cloning old hardware, I just like gear that sounds good.

Now, is the Bricasti an awesome reverb, you bet! Could there be a software variant of it (and I mean an algorithmic one, not Liquidsonic's product), maybe, maybe not. The dev himself has discussed this and thinks that there's probably too much going on for current processors. However, that's a current high end, top of the line if you will, reverb and that assertion will not be true forever. Will he sell a software version in a few years when CPUs catch up? Maybe, maybe not, as I said, that kind of thing is often driven by business issues more so than anything else. Just because a particular algorithm isn't available in a plugin does not necessarily mean that it couldn't be.

Now, when we're talking about decades old technology, we don't have to guess. We can look at the service manual for the SPX2000 and make a solid educated guess. We can't say much about the chip because it's a Yamaha chip and so there's no datasheet available AFAIK. It's using one fairly slow DSP chip, one generic CPU to control it, and bog standard converters. There is nothing in that box that wouldn't run in a CPU friendly plugin if that's what Yamaha wanted to do. There's no magic in "special purpose DSP chips" other than efficiency and that's not going to buy you anything with respect to decades old hardware.

Regardless of whether or not many or most of us have used the very best hardware, I would say that a solid percentage of us here have used hardware in the same range as the KSP-8 and the SPX2000. I used to own a K2600, and yes, I was blown away by the reverb....in 2001. I don't think that it compares to what's available in software today. Just because you aren't able to dial it in doesn't mean that it isn't possible.


Not even people who like hardware agree with you BTW.

That being said, technology has gotten much better since the PT MIX / Dual 1.25 G4 days. And a lot of PLUGIN verbs out there can totally smoke the KSP8. Yes the plugin verbs of today will eat the KSP8 alive.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-en ... -ksp8.html

As I said, some hardware IS better than some software, and some software IS better than some hardware. For me, and I suspect for a lot of us here, there's no advantage to almost all "average" hardware and that includes the vast majority of decades old digital hardware. That doesn't mean that we don't use it when it's more appropriate, but it's not a sacred cow around here.

With respect to this thread, however, there are numerous software reverbs that are much better than Oracle and suggesting hardware is absolute nonsense to someone looking at a $13 reverb is just way off the map. If you want to go on a religious hardware crusade, gearslutz is definitely the place for that.

[Rumi]

ghettosynth, thank you for taking your time to reply. What you write doesn't correspond to my experience. Can we just agree to disagree?

And I agree, it probably would have been better to not post here.

And if you're moved, I would be interested in some links to your studio, music that you have mixed, the audio plugins that you have developped, etc. But only if you're moved to share, of course. I have given the URL of my studio in one of my posts, and to me, seeing some of the background of a poster helps you understand where his/her statements are coming from.

[Gamma-UT]

I use mainly ITB EQs nowadays, and find that there are software EQs that are on par with very good outboard EQs (the EQ plugin from Barratt Audio is exceptional, regardless of ITB vs. OTB). For reverbs and compressors, we are not yet there to my ears.

How much can change in a few months:

I've worked with this EQ for a while now, and have come to the conclusion that it sounds far better than any other algorithmic ITB EQ I own (which include DMG Equilibrium, Pro-Q, and many others). In comparison, they all have this papery distorted flat brittle sound that we know so well from ITB EQing. The Barrat EQ gives the instruments space around themselves, like a halo of clarity and 3-dimensionality, and it sounds very polished - which on the other hand could also be seen as the only negative point in its sound: It can sound too polished. I guess the new analog modeling Lachlan is developing will address that.

But, now ITB EQs other than the Barratt are OK also? They don't have that papery distorted flat brittle sound of ITB? Those must have been some significant code updates in the past few weeks.

In the meantime, do you think you could fill in a few more audio quality clichés? I'm nearly there on Mixing Bullshit Bingo but I'm currently missing "warm" and "veiled".

[Rumi]

Do you work as a detective when you don't post here? I was mainly referring to the Barratt Audio EQ. Most other ITB EQs have flaws, but so do many outboard EQs. Many ITB EQs are useful, as are some ITB reverbs, to some extent. Compared to the Barratt and some very good outboard EQs, other ITB EQs tend to show the bespoken aspects. Of course, written like that, it can sound like an exaggeration. It's not that those plugins jump at you saying "Listen how flat and papery I am sounding", but I have spent many hours trying to correct that specific sound ITB, whereas on a good analog desk, this kind of sound simply doesn't occur.

I am sorry to say that "warm" is not an attribute that can be given to the Barratt EQ, so I can't please you with that. "Veiled" is an adjective that can be useful in describing the sound of some audio devices.

But it's getting ridiculous, and it seems to me that this was your intent. So there you have it. I guess I'm out again. There seems to be a reason why I have posted here 21 times in over four years. I will remember that the next time I have some inclination.

To get back more on topic, my initial intent was to point out that for some of you, it might be beneficial to explore hardware. And I described some experiences and observations in relation to that. Do with that what you like.

[ghettosynth]

ghettosynth, thank you for taking your time to reply. What you write doesn't correspond to my experience. Can we just agree to disagree?

Not sure what you want to "agree to disagree" about? Taste is taste, whatever works for you is fine. It's only a problem when you project onto others or try to claim something as fact when it isn't. No amount of your experience is going to change the schematic of the SPX-2000. It's online, you can verify what I'm saying for yourself. The DSP is yamaha's own, but they use if for a variety of purposes, not just reverb. The DACs are the same as have been used in numerous audio interfaces including some low end units like the EMU404.

I don't know when the SPX2000 came out, but, Sound on Sound reviewed it in 2004 so well over a decade ago. So we know the chip is older than that. In fact, the very same chip is used in the AW4416 which came out in 2000. So, at best, the DSP chip in the SPX is late 90s technology. If Yamaha could make faster chips than everyone else in the 90s they'd own everything today. It's a bog standard late 90s DSP chip and pretty much anything that runs on it will run easily on a modern CPU.

The SPX-2000 a small computer in a box with a low noise audio chain and bog standard conversion and some software running on its dedicated DSP. That's what it is, those are facts and no amount of experience using the gear is going to change that. There is no technical reason whatsoever why those algorithms wouldn't work in a plugin if Yamaha wanted to sell plugins based on those algorithms.

[ghettosynth]

In the meantime, do you think you could fill in a few more audio quality clichés? I'm nearly there on Mixing Bullshit Bingo but I'm currently missing "warm" and "veiled".

ROFL, in fairness though, that's the first time that I've ever heard about this "halo of clarity."

[Gamma-UT]

Do you work as a detective when you don't post here?

Yes.

It's not that those plugins jump at you saying "Listen how flat and papery I am sounding", but I have spent many hours trying to correct that specific sound ITB, whereas on a good analog desk, this kind of sound simply doesn't occur.

That sound doesn't occur in desk EQs because they don't offer the same range as the typical parametric. Back in the real world, people back off the boost and Q values to levels that you see actually in a desk EQ. The SSL desk EQ, for example, is practically a gain knob with a tilt function. What you're buying in a hardware EQ today is a good selection of pre-selected parameters.

To get back more on topic, my initial intent was to point out that for some of you, it might be beneficial to explore hardware. And I described some experiences and observations in relation to that. Do with that what you like.

You may wish to consider whether people already have rather than making blanket assertions about bedroom producers. I've got the equivalent of a KSP8 currently sitting in the PC3 keyboard sitting next to me - it is neither dramatically different nor better to options I have in software. I had the prior generation of SPX. Again, nice but not a must have. So I don't have it anymore.

But don't let anyone stop you. Because comparing an M7 or TC6000 to a 20-buck item that people were already saying isn't really worth the effort is always good for a laugh for us fans of motte-and-bailey argument techniques.

[Aloysius]

Soundspot Oracle has potential, if they can improve the algorithm. Otherwise ...

[Michael L]

I got a reply to my email, that they are looking into some new algorithms. I wish them success!

[Aloysius]

Awesome. I wrote to Plugin Boutique (see earlier post) and they said they were contacting Soundspot and were aware of this Thread (which is about Soundspot Oracle for those who don't know).