Eventide SP2016 Reverb

[jens]

funny i found it boring
not better than valhalla room for me

I'm somewhere in the middle I suppose. I like the original 2016 room, but the new plugin doesn't really add much. I don't care about the mono algorithm and I don't really like the plate. It's on the short list of Eventide plugins that I don't really care about and I should have just waited for the next version of their bundle.

Oh, but they sound nothing alike?!

To me it seems they have vastly improved it in the meantime. I was never a fan of the original Eventide Stereo Room (I have no experience with the earlier Princeton Digital one but would guess it's pretty much identical).
It's no secret that a) Tony Agnello generally strieves to nail the original hardware converters and all, and b) is not yet really satisfied with all of their software emulations, so it doesn't really come as a surprise to me. I read so many great things about the hardware and when trying the 2016 Room was wondering what all the fuss was about. NOW I get it.

[jens]

B.t.w.: to me "Dark Space" in VRoom seems to be closest to 2016 Stereo Room, but Stereo Room is brighter - "Dense Room" I could also manage to get somewhat similar sounding, but it has "high initial echo density" (as apposed to "sparser initial echo density" in Dark Space") - So I guess it would have to be a cross between those two algos...

[ghettosynth]

funny i found it boring
not better than valhalla room for me

I'm somewhere in the middle I suppose. I like the original 2016 room, but the new plugin doesn't really add much. I don't care about the mono algorithm and I don't really like the plate. It's on the short list of Eventide plugins that I don't really care about and I should have just waited for the next version of their bundle.

Oh, but they sound nothing alike?!

Really!? No, when set to the same settings and choosing the vintage algorithm they sound pretty much the same to me. Whether you think that the modern algorithm sounds better is a matter of taste I suppose. It sounds more modern, but not better than so many other reverbs that I already have.

Part of this calculus is that the original Stereo Room was free. I like it for the niche that it fills at the price that I paid for it. I do not think that the new reverb was worth $29 more. I would NEVER choose this as a plate reverb.

So, to my ears, only the vintage/modern setting of the stereo room algorithm is of any interest, and even there, I don't care much, the modern algorithm doesn't sound as good as any other number of reverb plugins.

I think that I've got a better idea now why they didn't release all of the algorithms when they released the 2016 room. It's fifty subtle shades of gray.

[Russell Grand]

Completely disagree. They couldn't sound much more different. And I really like the SP version; more than the original Stereo Room to be honest.

[dermage]

Come on, anyone thinking the Stereo Room 2016 sounds like SP2016 Stereo Room should have another good listen.
Much less artifacts, much more consistent feel.
Just compared the three you have been talking about. SP2016 is more than a minor upgrade from Stereo Room 2016 soundwise.

Stereo Room 2016 sounds quite weak also.

[Russell Grand]

Come on, anyone thinking the Stereo Room 2016 sounds like SP2016 Stereo Room should have another good listen.
Much less artifacts, much more consistent feel.
Just compared the three you have been talking about. SP2016 is more than a minor upgrade from Stereo Room 2016 soundwise.

Stereo Room 2016 sounds quite weak also.

I agree 100%.

[ghettosynth]

Nonsense. They are birds of the same feather as described by Eventide themselves. You are just subdued by subtle differences, and that matters to you. Whenever people start talking about faithfully reproducing filters in the A2D chain I'm pretty sure that we're in grey town and I'm not much going to care.

Isn't Dan Gillespie from Eventide? He says:

The 2016 Stereo Room plug-in is a recreation of the Stereo Room algorithm only whereas the SP2016 recreates the Room, Stereo Room, and HD Plate algorithms from the original SP2016 hardware box. The SP2016 Reverb plug-in also more faithfully recreates aspects of the original hardware like the filters in the converters, the bit rate, and sample rate which make it a very faithful recreation of that wonderful box.

In other words, the 2016 Stereo Room plug-in is a really great reverb algorithm in a plug-in while the SP2016 Reverb is like having a really rare piece of very dank hardware in your DAW.

So, if you don't like the plate, and I don't, then you have two room algorithms that are mono/stereo versions of the same algorithm that is in the original with some better modeling of bit rate and A2D filtering.

It's not that interesting enough of a sound, for me, that I need two reverbs that approximate it. I think that the upshot here, to my ears, is that it's a recreation of old algorithms. So, there is some limit as to how good it's going to sound in the first place. I'm not sold by vintage digital, especially not on the subtle details. The original Stereo Room was never going to replace my much better modern reverbs, I just liked it for its particular flavor some of the time, in much the same way that I like NI's RC24/RC48 or PSP2445. In fact, while I can clearly hear that the "modern" flavor sounds less like it was from the 80s, I don't think that it improves those old algorithms enough to justify it's use.

I'm not saying that it's a bad product, I just don't care. If you had neither and had to get one, you should probably get the newer one. If you have the old one and you want to spend $29 on reverb, I think that there are better ways to spend it that you will get more variety and more bang for your buck. Waves Chamber, for example, or put it towards UVI plate, at least that sounds like a plate. I wish that I had not bothered with this and just waited until it was in the next bundle upgrade that had other products that I do care about. It's certainly not interestingly different from Stereo Room like Blackhole, TVerb, Ultrareverb, etc. are. Those are reverbs that give you a variety of sound. Those sound "different" and will continue to sound different in the mix.

In any case, IMO, it's certainly not worth the intro price, let alone the regular price. Keep in mind here that I paid the $99 intro price for T-Verb and don't regret it. I would have liked it a LOT better had they put it in the Blackhole style interface and given it the ribbon. Then you could modulate the position parameter with other parameters at the same time. I'm not a fan of vintage U/I recreations when the U/I serves no real purpose in a modern age. This isn't always true, but it's true here.

As far as preferring the sound, it comes down to taste, I don't like the modern 2016 sound in this plugin, but I don't like R2 either, so there you go. As far as whether they sound really different, bullshit, that's exaggeration and hyperbole. They are models of the EXACT SAME VINTAGE DIGITAL HARDWARE, so of course they don't sound all that different.

[Russell Grand]

Lol not nonsense at all. I trust my ears, they rarely lie. Of course, as we all know sound is subjective so...agree to disagree.

[dermage]

Really, I think you are fighting against an invisible enemy. It's quite obvious the new algorithms are more than overhauled. Please recheck (possibly using headphones, very obvious there)
And you should know yourself being here on KVR, that an emulation != another emulation (even from the same vendor)
And please don't start a price argumentation, because price doesn't say anything about quality. I just think Eventide went the Waves route with their $29 offer. Same goes for Contemporary Color, which is IMO one of the greatest tools in recent years.
You are still comparing to completely different products.

The main focus of SP2016 -> get a very good (vintage) reverb sound fast & easy. And that's what it accomplishes. Better than Stereo Room 2016 (also due to better GUI). And better than VR. If you are a tweaker, then go the other route.
But for me/us here praising it, this thing is great for what it does, and really (for me) there's no other reverb that does it with the quality, effectiveness and warmness, especially on VA synths.

[jens]

Yes, I at first naively assumed they'd be pretty much identical and when trying it I was shocked at how much better the Stereo Room algo now sounds... of course Dan Gillespie doesn't want to pee on his own previous work, so you are bound to get a somewhat diplomatic description of the differences... and anyway: algo vs algo plus complete end-to-end modelling of the whole original hardware box hardly qualifies as "identical".

[ghettosynth]

Yes, I at first naively assumed they'd be pretty much identical and when trying it I was shocked at how much better the Stereo Room algo now sounds... of course Dan Gillespie doesn't want to pee on his own previous work, so you are bound to get a somewhat diplomatic description of the differences...

I'm not talking about his subjective assessment, he tells you what the differences are. If there were more, then I would expect that he would want to describe them to differentiate the two products more fully.

and anyway: algo vs algo plus complete end-to-end modelling of the whole original hardware box hardly qualifies as "identical".

I said that they were models of the same hardware, not that the software is "identical." None of what you posted changes anything that I said. They sound largely the same to me when you set the parameters to the same settings on the vintage algorithm. You might have to adjust the output gain because the original doesn't have that and the new plugin sounded louder "out of the box."

"Complete end to end modeling" is like "all analog signal path" it's a trigger phrase that means very little in and of itself. I doubt that Eventide completely ignored the bitrate and filters in the original and their language conveys that "better modeling of the input filters" means that the original plugin has modeling of the input filters, only they probably now reflect improvements in filter modeling.

Granted the modern algorithm has a richer sound and fewer artifacts, but, I couldn't care less. I don't think that the original 2016 is a competitive verb today and so I only care about it in the vintage flavor. In fact, I don't like the sound of the modern algorithms, I think that what I liked about the original is the darker sound.

[ghettosynth]

Really, I think you are fighting against an invisible enemy. It's quite obvious the new algorithms are more than overhauled.[ Please recheck (possibly using headphones, very obvious there)

I said that they are "largely the same", and they are. If I have to check with headphones then that's not a good argument for "It's quite obvious the new algorithms are more than overhauled." Obvious differences shouldn't require careful listening. The other reverbs that I described demonstrate "obvious" differences.

The new plugin uses slightly more CPU which is what I'd expect given largely the same reverb algorithm but with some updated filters. It's clearly not a CPU challenge in any case as 21 instances use about 2.75% of my CPU with the original and about 4.50% with the updated version.

So sure, they did some work on them. But they model the same hardware and are roughly in the same ballpark with regards to complexity. I doubt very seriously that this is "end to end modeling." I suspect that there was no effort whatsoever in modeling the analog input and output stages, not that I think that's all that important with gear like this, but, that is a part of "end to end modeling."

If you like it, more power to you, but I stand by my assertion that it's not worth the asking price and I think that if you already have 2016 and Anthology then you are better off waiting for the next evolution of anthology to get this bundled with whatever else they come out with.

For me, it was absolutely not a no-brainer, unless you mean no-brainer like AAS UA-1 was a no-brainer, i.e., a waste of money.

[ghettosynth]

Isn't the difference that the previous plug in was the Stereo Room algo only and the new one is 6 algos?

Even with the original Room algo set in both plug ins to the same parameters reveal a slight difference in sound. I could also see differences on the Flux Analyzer in the top highs.
While the decay in the old 2160 Room plug in goes to 30 sec., the SP2016 Reverb offers up to 100 sec.
The SP2016 Reverb sounds beautiful IMO.

So I'm not the only one who thinks that they're "largely the same", that is, "slight differences in sound" = "largely the same" != "obvious and amazing differences and sound nothing alike"

I don't care that this goes up to 100 seconds TBH, I don't like the original for long tails. For me this has always been a dark room reverb that sounded better with the tails hipassed. I have much better choices for reverbs that I want to use as an effect.

[jens]

Okay, Ghettosynth, I will put it like this now:

if you really think, that - after compensating for the gain difference - both "vintage" versions of the Stereo Room sound anywhere close to each other, I really think you need to learn to listen a lot better.


I reiterate: they are nothing alike. And it's easy to verify that too by checking them with analyzing tools such as a phase scope for example. Their stereo distribution is vastly different. That is certainly one thing which has got nothing to with converter emulations and what not. It's the algorithm itself that obviously has changed significantly.

[Gamma-UT]

The SP2016 by default is louder than the Stereo Room version and doesn't have the same level of adjustability in the EQ. Adjusting the factory presets to match loudness and EQ delivers a sound that is a little bit different but no more than that. And by "little bit" I mean "I'd fail a blind test on it".