KVR Audio

trancenrg69 · Post by **trancenrg69** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:43 pm

yeah its on old host. I uninstalled the demo and didnt seem to keep any pace in my registry. Oh well,i'll stick to my classicverb

NAD · Post by **NAD** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:54 pm

multree wrote:as a workaround pull the dry slider a bit up (default is at zero.... maybe -56dB)

OK, that does does the trick. Thanks!

Broken · Post by **Broken** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:24 pm

vtd · Post by **vtd** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:14 pm

kritikon wrote:
I like the Native Instruments method of instant challenge and response online.
Nice idea but completely impractical for me...my music PC is not and will not be connected to the net.

Your music pc doesn't have to be connected to the net. You can use another computer connected to the net to authorize. I believe there's offline options too.

munchkin · Post by **munchkin** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 12:13 am

vtd wrote:
kritikon wrote:
I like the Native Instruments method of instant challenge and response online.
Nice idea but completely impractical for me...my music PC is not and will not be connected to the net.
Your music pc doesn't have to be connected to the net. You can use another computer connected to the net to authorize. I believe there's offline options too.

They also allow installs on two separate computers (PC/laptop).

multree · Post by **multree** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:16 am

the "plug-in doesn't remember the used settings when saving" bug has been fixed....

don't know if the new demo is uploaded though...

Jim fixes the bugs really fast, if you let him know... top plug-in, top support.

kritikon · Post by **kritikon** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:00 pm

I took the plunge and loaded it up. It was quite odd though...first time loading Cubase SX and it gave me some kind of serious error about plugin information and bounced me straight out of Cubase.

Next time it all loaded up OK and everything worked smoothly. Dunno what that was all about

Even withstanding any reservations about PACE, I think I'll most likely buy this plugin - does just what it says on the box. I can see this being my first choice verb for anything including drums and general purpose space-without-tails kind of reverb. Not enough parameters to get too complicated, but just enough to tweak it to suit any track.

One of my black boxes has arund 20,000 parameters for tweaking reverb when you use it in double-chip mode - at least 15 different envelope shapes for the early reflections, envelopes for this and that, fantastical amounts of parametric Eq on various different sections of the reverb, but it boils down to the basic fact it doesn't initially sound as good as the Princeton base algorithm. Too many parameters can often just be to cover up the initial lack of quality.

I'm acutely impressed with the Princeton sound (or is that Princeton/Eventide sound?). That's why you pay for the expensive reverb units - not the amount of processing power or bells and whistles - just the experience and quality of the algorithms. This one obviously has heritage...you've got to be deaf not to hear it.

I especially think after hearing it now, that it is very good value at $200. To my ears absolutely none of the other natives come close. It's limited, but that's fine...I'd rather have one quality room reverb FX than a cheaper one that pretends to make the whole range of reverb algorithms but fails in each one because it's not specialised enough. Reverb is too important to just "make do" if you use it seriously.

You know what seriously impressed me? When you bring the RT60 right down, and use it more as a subtle slapback kind of effect on drums. Not as a reverb as such - more like an ambience type thing. No cheap reverbs do that very well - they either just sound like short bursts of white noise or like simple delays. With the PD2016 you can add presence without noise and clutter.
The long reverb tails are a little dodgy, but it's not really aimed at making huge rooms - that's more the territory of a hall algorithm. And it's certainly useable up to 3, maybe 4 seconds RT60. It's good enough for me to put real quality on say drums for the body of a track, then boost it up for dub breakdowns, which don't necessarily have to be perfect arena recreations etc.

This is a quality native reverb. I occasionally toy with the idea of a DSP card - but the price still deters me (the better comp FX on DSP cards are still a temptation, but the reverbs no longer have a draw.)

And for such quality, it really does use a small amount of CPU - that's proof it's the actual algorithm, not the number of delays or number of Eq bands and crossovers etc that make a good reverb.

I love it. I will buy it some day very soon.
It sounds like an Eventide. It's native. (f**k me! Now I don't have to buy an actual Eventide or Soundscape to get Eventide reverb on a PC!). What a good week - just bought Wusikstation at half price, and now this.

Are there any more superlatives I can use?

multree · Post by **multree** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:22 pm

kritikon wrote:the better comp FX on DSP cards are still a temptation, but the reverbs no longer have a draw

yeah exactly..... I'm done with the search for a reverb... this one's exactly what I needed.... (and I still have PSP/CM spring verb for a little nastier sound)

but compressor? I have found some really nice ones but THE beast is still missing for me....

T-Racks, PSP MixPressor & db-audioware are all really good and get used mayn times...

but if some one can give me a comp that's like the "2016" of comps that would be great...

I've already found my favourite phaser (Mobilohm)

and I don't really need more effects.... honestly those three would do it for me

brianbrian · Post by **brianbrian** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:24 pm

I think the VST version uses fewer delay lines or something, because the Eventide 2016 sounds a little different (no I do not mean different like AD/DA sound). Still sounds great though...but since it uses such little CPU there should be a full quality switch, or maybe they will never release the identical hardware algorithm so it is still worth so much money.

JeffSanders · Post by **JeffSanders** » Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:29 pm

I'm dying to try this. As soon as the PACE protection is changed, I'm all over it.
I've just started to get into using SIR with Evantide and Lexicon samples, and it sounds incredible...but it's such a hog!

jsienicki · Post by **jsienicki** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 4:08 am

Here's a quick update:

* Version 1.01 is now available. It fixes bugs in renaming presets and loading/saving presets and banks.
* A new non-Pace demo of version 1.01 is now available. It does not allow loading/saving of presets and banks, and cuts out the audio for 2 seconds every 60 seconds. This version cannot be authorized to full functionality. I'm still working on that.

Jim Sienicki
Princeton Digital

brianbrian · Post by **brianbrian** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 5:54 am

Mr. Sienicki,

Could you comment about the differences between the hardware 2016 algorithm and the VST port? While I don't own the hardware or plugin I am pretty familiar with that reverb sound, and previously made a comment about the VST version sounding slightly less dense. Someone I know who has the hardware compared the two and said there is definately a difference. Now I don't want to spread any misinformation about this, so could you verify if there are any differences in the algorithm (I wouldn't trust myself here, but someone else has verified this)? Are the differences due to the fact that the hardware by Eventide has extended versions of each algorithm? Finally, any thoughts about porting the Ursa Major SST to the VST format?

Thanks.

jsienicki · Post by **jsienicki** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:50 pm

FYI -- I had a bug last night in the web page. The two demo zip files contained the same plug-in. This problem has been corrected. Make sure that the DLL in the zip file is called 2016 StereRoom_1001_Demo.dll.

Jim

jsienicki · Post by **jsienicki** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:55 pm

brianbrian wrote:Mr. Sienicki,

Could you comment about the differences between the hardware 2016 algorithm and the VST port? While I don't own the hardware or plugin I am pretty familiar with that reverb sound, and previously made a comment about the VST version sounding slightly less dense. Someone I know who has the hardware compared the two and said there is definately a difference. Now I don't want to spread any misinformation about this, so could you verify if there are any differences in the algorithm (I wouldn't trust myself here, but someone else has verified this)? Are the differences due to the fact that the hardware by Eventide has extended versions of each algorithm? Finally, any thoughts about porting the Ursa Major SST to the VST format?

Thanks.

The VST implements only the original Stereo Room algorithm from the SP2016. The new 2016 from Princeton Digital implements Room, Stereo Room and Plate, as well as new versions of these algorithms. It could be that the VST was compared to the one of the new algorithms (or one of the other reverb types). I can't say for sure. I would definitely like to know if there is a noticeable difference.

Jim

jsienicki · Post by **jsienicki** » Thu Oct 21, 2004 12:59 pm

brianbrian wrote:Mr. Sienicki,

Could you comment about the differences between the hardware 2016 algorithm and the VST port? While I don't own the hardware or plugin I am pretty familiar with that reverb sound, and previously made a comment about the VST version sounding slightly less dense. Someone I know who has the hardware compared the two and said there is definately a difference. Now I don't want to spread any misinformation about this, so could you verify if there are any differences in the algorithm (I wouldn't trust myself here, but someone else has verified this)? Are the differences due to the fact that the hardware by Eventide has extended versions of each algorithm? Finally, any thoughts about porting the Ursa Major SST to the VST format?

Thanks.

Sorry -- I forgot to answer your last question in the previous reply. We currently don't have plans to do a VST version of the Ursa Major SST. If many people are interested in a port, then we'll look into it.

Jim

Princeton Digital - REVERB