[Intro pricing extended] Available now: T-RackS Sunset Sound Studio Reverb

[imrae]

I come from the sample library world and to me that's like someone saying a sampled piano is a sampled piano or any sampled drum kit is the same as any other. The content of the sound and how it was achieved can be very different and proprietary as well as the features and sound of the engine that plays it.

Purchasers of sample libraries are often pretty interested to know how many velocity layers, round-robins, note-off-samples, morphable groups etc. are in their sampler instruments. This stuff is routinely highlighted in the marketing material and specifications.

As far as I'm aware that level of complexity has not yet been achieved in a convolution reverb. If something comparable was achieved here, that's a technical breakthrough worth being proud of. But IK won't tell us about it, so it is surely fair to assume that it wasn't?

Instead we get comments about how expensive the studio time, microphones and console are to obtain - as though that has any bearing on the utility of the linear IRs obtained with that equipment.

I like and use some IK plugins, but this style of communication is off-putting. People are berated for commenting on the public announcement and pricing of a product they haven't been able to demo yet - but equally speculative positive comments are encouraged? Seriously?

[PointOfDeparture]

I haven’t heard the plug in, but if the people around the studio are signing off, I’m in 100%. Actually I’m already in, I just put the $150 down.

If you want to emulate the room sounds further, after putting a source recorded with the pre through it, slap any of the following compressors on it: Mono sources - LA3A, 1176 (blue stripe or LN), La2a, or a 176 tube comp - I’m thinking these for the booths (e.g vocals/ax guitar). For stereo sources in live rooms, the same as above, but you can add a 33609 or TG1 style
Plug in to the list. Follow it all up with a 550a If you want to emulate studio 1 or studio 3. To emulate the Neve in studio 2, just slap a neve 31102 eq on the tail end.

With the chambers and plates, just throw the API 550a plugs ins (Studio 1/3) or the Neve 31102 (studio 2) after the reverb and it would be a similar setup to what’s used in the rooms. Don’t forget to add a pre-delay, if you’re so inclined. Pretty common to put one of those in front of the chamber or plates.

If you have all those plug ins plus the mic pre to record the source with, you’d be emulating much of the entire signal flow, minus the microphone. Fun stuff!

Thanks for those nuggets of gear info!

[PointOfDeparture]

Purchasers of sample libraries are often pretty interested to know how many velocity layers, round-robins, note-off-samples, morphable groups etc. are in their sampler instruments. This stuff is routinely highlighted in the marketing material and specifications.

As far as I'm aware that level of complexity has not yet been achieved in a convolution reverb. If something comparable was achieved here, that's a technical breakthrough worth being proud of. But IK won't tell us about it, so it is surely fair to assume that it wasn't?

Instead we get comments about how expensive the studio time, microphones and console are to obtain - as though that has any bearing on the utility of the linear IRs obtained with that equipment.

I like and use some IK plugins, but this style of communication is off-putting. People are berated for commenting on the public announcement and pricing of a product they haven't been able to demo yet - but equally speculative positive comments are encouraged? Seriously?

While I enjoy reading Squids' mega-posts, I also think what you've highlighted in your post is of extreme importance. Quite a few of us said some similar things regarding technical specs when Sampletank 4 was getting hyped last year around this time.

The more I evaluate IK strategies compared to other companies, the more I'm inclined to wait for a crossgrade to Total Studio Max 3 when/if it appears due to having so much of their older content (plus lots of Sonic Reality sounds), but little of the more recent stuff besides Sampletank 4 SE , Leslie, and Tapes.

Still can't wait to hear the comparison files, though, just because I like to keep an open mind.

[Teneyetus]

I haven’t heard the plug in, but if the people around the studio are signing off, I’m in 100%. Actually I’m already in, I just put the $150 down.

If you want to emulate the room sounds further, after putting a source recorded with the pre through it, slap any of the following compressors on it: Mono sources - LA3A, 1176 (blue stripe or LN), La2a, or a 176 tube comp - I’m thinking these for the booths (e.g vocals/ax guitar). For stereo sources in live rooms, the same as above, but you can add a 33609 or TG1 style
Plug in to the list. Follow it all up with a 550a If you want to emulate studio 1 or studio 3. To emulate the Neve in studio 2, just slap a neve 31102 eq on the tail end.

With the chambers and plates, just throw the API 550a plugs ins (Studio 1/3) or the Neve 31102 (studio 2) after the reverb and it would be a similar setup to what’s used in the rooms. Don’t forget to add a pre-delay, if you’re so inclined. Pretty common to put one of those in front of the chamber or plates.

If you have all those plug ins plus the mic pre to record the source with, you’d be emulating much of the entire signal flow, minus the microphone. Fun stuff!

Thanks for those nuggets of gear info!

For sure, and just to be clear, in my mind you would want to blend the source and the room sound, then compress and eq the blended signal, not just the reverb alone. Then it would be like a mic in the room picking up the source and ambience, and the compressor bringing them both out together. You would just play with that blend until it sounds how you want, compress it, and eq it.

I have a feeling I be spending a lot of time playing with that kind of thing.

[Squids]

I come from the sample library world and to me that's like someone saying a sampled piano is a sampled piano or any sampled drum kit is the same as any other. The content of the sound and how it was achieved can be very different and proprietary as well as the features and sound of the engine that plays it.

Purchasers of sample libraries are often pretty interested to know how many velocity layers, round-robins, note-off-samples, morphable groups etc. are in their sampler instruments. This stuff is routinely highlighted in the marketing material and specifications.

As far as I'm aware that level of complexity has not yet been achieved in a convolution reverb. If something comparable was achieved here, that's a technical breakthrough worth being proud of. But IK won't tell us about it, so it is surely fair to assume that it wasn't?

Instead we get comments about how expensive the studio time, microphones and console are to obtain - as though that has any bearing on the utility of the linear IRs obtained with that equipment.

I like and use some IK plugins, but this style of communication is off-putting. People are berated for commenting on the public announcement and pricing of a product they haven't been able to demo yet - but equally speculative positive comments are encouraged? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. It's not the same as a sample library. It's a an effect plug-in that combines IR with modeling technology and a lot has been shared already about what's under the hood but sorry not everything has or will be just like it isn't for every other effect plug-in either. BUT, yes it absolutely DOES matter what the content is and how it was obtained and tested and crafted. That's why it's so accurate. At the end of the day, it's doing what it's supposed to be doing quite well. I just stayed up all night testing it thoroughly on almost every type of instrument and as I said, and I'll say it the same way again, even just for the chambers and plates and spring that I tested which are absolutely dead on SOUNDING THE SAME to my ears as the real thing and probably will to your ears too (why not see that before judging this by your theory?) it is "worth the price". I stand by that. The rest is icing on the cake regardless. Even if it was just the Chambers it would be worth $149 easily... that is, if it sounds exactly the same in practical application which I just exhaustively confirmed at least for myself (and soon you guys) that it does!

Bottom line is this. If you're serious about wanting those sounds, the reverbs of this studio, then this plug-in achieves it perfectly and this is the price. If you're not gonna get it because you didn't find out every last detail of the specs and it THAT didn't impress you? I don't know man! One has to ask themselves what's more important. What they hear or what they read. For most engineers I know including myself the hearing part is much more important than reading some impressive spec that seems like it's important but in reality may or may not translate into any better realism. Maybe more flexibility perhaps but not necessarily more accuracy. Hope that makes some sense because this is my stance. Not IK's necessarily but more or less I'm even more aligned with it now and feel the price is for sure worth it just because I can show how dead on it sounds compared to the real thing.

You guys can hear it and judge for yourselves if it needs anything else to sound like it or not! Take the Squids A/B test and see if you can actually tell the difference!

[imrae]

I never said the software wouldn't be accurate?

[Squids]

I never said the software wouldn't be accurate?

I know. But, here's where I'm coming from and this is just my own opinion at Sonic Reality (not IK). Even when it comes to sample libraries, I have to say I'm tired of certain specs being given too much focus and importance. How many velocity layers a drum kit has does not automatically equate to it sounding great in a song. Usually what matters much more than that is the sound of instrument, the acoustic space it's in and the way it was played and recorded (which microphones, their config, the mic pres they're going into, the levels you get, the quality of the A to D conversion, how well they are edited afterward...). I'm not saying that also having lots of round robins isn't a plus especially when replaying drum samples from pads to avoid "machine gun effect". But, I never get that playing from the keyboard anyway. And I'm not saying that you don't get a more dynamic response from having lots of velocity layers but a lot of the time the drums are being hit full on in rock music and many times I find I can actually get away with say 4-8 velocity layers and it's just fine. In fact, quite often when I just sample a kit for my own use without the intent to release it as a sample library, I just quickly grab what I think I'll really need and it's a lot less but for how I use it in the track you wouldn't even know which was the live drum track and which was the part I sampled. I especially do this if I ask a drummer like Marco Minnemann or Nick D'Virgilio to quickly sample their kit for me after they did a drum session. I don't ask for a million velocity layers. They'd kill me for one thing. I'm reasonable and ask for 8 or so and work with whatever they give me and it always does the job because they have a great drum kit, the mics were already set up to get a great sound for an actual drum session and what you HEAR is the sound of them hitting the drum when I play it. I would much rather have that sound than some other sound from a library that happens to have impressive specs on paper. That's because there's a quality and character to the audio that I'm after not a numeric quantity of something. Having both IS nice but I find it's not always necessary. The only thing that matters to me is how it sounds in the song. Same for the listener. They have no clue WHAT you used but if they have good ears they know what sounds good and what doesn't.

Now, when it comes to what exactly is inside an effect plug-in, even less info is known and/or shared about what's happening inside to get the final resulting sound. There are buzz words thrown around and cool concepts no doubt. All that's well and good but the ultimate test when it's supposed to be emulated something in the physical world is the good old A/B test between the real thing and the plug-in. Even if it's really close that's very impressive to me. For example, a sampled drum kit, no matter how many numbers hits there are up and down, can only get close but never completely nail every possible thing that a real drum kit can do when played in a live room. I remember what Jon Brion once told me if you know who he is (great producer/musician/film composer). He said "Dave you know what I like better about a real vibraphone over a sampled one?" and I said "What?" and he said "I can throw pennies at it if I want." It's true you could play that instrument with different mallets like you can play the drum kit with different sticks and change the heads or dampen or tune it this way or that... and the best you can do in the virtual world is "get close". And it's fun to get as close as possible but the irony is that even the quicky sample sessions I do for myself are as close as it needs to be just to sound right in the track.

However, while in most cases the best you can get in the plug-in world is close, in some cases it's so close that you could really say it's spot on and one wouldn't even be able to tell the difference. So far from my exhaustive A/B comparisons applying it to different instruments and vocals in songs (so much so that I only slept a few hours last night because I was fascinated with this) I found this to be the case from the combination of console modeling and the way IR are handled inside Sunset Sound Studio Reverb. And I, myself, don't even know fully exactly how it's all being done. I have a general idea and I've asked questions out of curiosity but I'm not a software developer. I'm just an engineer, sound designer, singer, songwriter, musician and music producer (woah that's actually a lot! haha). I don't know everything the developers have done under the hood of this or from any of the other fx plug-ins I own from other manufacturers who don't tell me either BUT I don't feel I need to know everything as long as the sound it is giving me is what I want. In this case, it's very specific what I would want from a plug-in called Sunset Sound Studio Reverb. I want as close as possible to the sound of having Sunset Sound's actual physical echo chambers, plates, and spring reverbs to use in my studio... and to also have an approximation of what those rooms sound like applied to my music to get in the ballpark of what it would sound like if I recorded in that space. I haven't done as much testing with the rooms yet because it's tricker to do the A/B thing for that, but I can say that the rooms sound great from just using them on that tracks and listening. So, I'm happy with them anyway. But, as I said, the chambers, plate and spring not only sound good they sound exactly the same as it would if you were at the studio sending your tracks out to them and back through their modified vintage consoles at the studio! I'll keep trying it on more tracks from different songs to see if this holds true for everything but man... so far I'm totally blown away by it. I'll show you all very soon when I have time to present it all in various ways.

The only real reason to get this plug-in, in my opinion, is if you care about having the sound of this studio recreated as faithfully as what I heard in A/B testing (assuming when you hear it you feel the same way and/or not be able to pass a quiz on which is which). If someone is looking for a super reverb that can do all kinds of different sounds with lots of tweakable parameters then there are other things like CSR or... take your pick. There are many out there with impressive features and flexibility if that's what's most important. But, none of them give you the sound of Sunset Sound Recorders like this plug-in. So, at the end of the day I think it's going to come down to this for most people. You either get it or you don't based on how important it is to have that sound in your music.

[imrae]

Me: *comments regarding lack of transparency, absence of evidence for innovation, off-putting communication style*

Squids: *long post enthusing about accuracy*

Me: I didn't mention accuracy

Squids: *even longer post about accuracy*

[Squids]

Me: *comments regarding lack of transparency, absence of evidence for innovation, off-putting communication style*

Squids: *long post enthusing about accuracy*

Me: I didn't mention accuracy

Squids: *even longer post about accuracy*

Yes, because my point is that it's all about accuracy and not the specs. Your complaint is that you're not getting all the info you want to get about what's under the hood right? You said you like to know things like how many velocities are in a sample library before you buy etc. Sorry it's "off putting" and you don't like my "style of communication" but I'm not just writing to you. I'm using the general opposition of you or anyone who might be stuck on needing to hear a certain spec to be interested in the product and saying that you may never hear that spec but might benefit from trying it anyway or listening to the A/B tests. If it does what it's expected to do sonically, what difference does it make how that's been achieved?

[Squids]

Here's now my separate general comment to anyone reading this who doesn't get scared by a post with a lot of information. I've been making products in the MI industry for over 25 years going back to creating sounds for the popular workstation keyboards (Alesis, Roland, Yamaha) to the first CD ROM sample libraries and first virtual instruments that could play samples and so on. I was even doing all of this stuff before IK got started in Italy. I also joined KVR eons ago. I'm not saying that because I'm the only one. I'm actually amazed to see so many other user names I remember here that go back to 2002 as well. I know some developers here have been making products that long too. Whether they can relate to what I'm about to say or not, though, I have no idea but it's about why I don't like "spec wars". I'll tell you all a very short story (a very short Squids story means it's long btw haha) about a revelation that happened for me. If it's off putting to anyone I suggest simply don't bother reading it but please understand that others might get something out of it.

In the mid-90s I used to work with a lot of big artists in LA in the studio and helped them with their live shows. I don't have to name drop them all you can google my name if you want to know who. I started Sonic Reality officially in 1996 even though I had been doing sound design (synth programming and sampling) since 1989. I played in a band with an artist named Kevin Gilbert (of Toy Matinee and Sheryl Crow's first band that made that hit record) and was very active in the studio or on stage making music. Then, in the early 2000's the MI business side of things really started to take off and pretty much full time I was making products for other musicians to use in their music but wasn't taking much time myself to do it. I moved to Florida where there are less spontaneous sessions going on vs. LA where I could get a call at the last minute to work in the studio with Smashing Pumpkins or something like that (and ironically I did once and it was at Sunset Sound! My first time there. Great story too if anyone wants to hear it.)

Then, I think it was in 2005, my former band mate from Kevin Gilbert's Thud, Nick D'Virgilio was there working with us at the show and he said to me "Dave why aren't you making Progrock albums? You'd really be appreciated these days because there's been a revival of the style." Apparently, without me knowing, his band with Neal Morse called Spock's Beard had been selling well on an Indy label called Inside Out. So, in 2006 I decided I needed to make a concerted effort to get back into making music... because that's what I always wanted to do and being a sound developer was secondary to that. While I didn't do as many spontaneous local sessions in South Florida, I did work with a lot more musicians around the world including one of my favorite bands Genesis who invited me to their rehearsals in 2006 where I met Phil Collins' son Simon Collins and long story short I took some time off and we formed a band called Sound of Contact and we co-wrote and co-produced an album called "Dimensionaut" in 2010. From that point on, music making took up a large part of my time.

After going back to making music myself, my perspective, and again this isn't some kind of official statement representing this other large company called IK Multimedia, this is one man's opinion who has a boutique sound development company called Sonic Reality, I can say that I am tired of the "spec wars". I think it's largely a bunch of BS. Lots of companies use different techniques to achieve the goal of their products but in the end the most important thing, especially if it's an emulation of something in the hardware/physical, is how accurate and/or how good it sounds in your music. Everything else, to me, is trivial. It makes no difference to me how it was achieved as long as the tool does it's job. If I want a Fairchild plug-in because I can't afford a real Fairchild then as long as the plug-in sounds close to a real Fairchild that's 90% of it and then maybe 10% of it is because patent pending W.O.W. technology was used. But, that's just me and my opinion as a musician and engineer using this stuff.

[Squids]

Me: *comments regarding lack of transparency, absence of evidence for innovation*

Here's a short post for you addressing specifically what you're saying is missing in the communication.

You say there's a lack of transparency? You need some evidence of innovation? I say that companies or people connected to the development of a product don't have to share all the details of what's going on under the hood and how their product is made. The expectation of this "transparency" is unrealistic as this isn't what you get from everyone. Companies are going to share what they want about a product to be public knowledge mostly for marketing purposes. IK isn't the kind of company to put an impressive spec that sounds innovative into a product just for the marketing benefit. Sometimes I wish IK would so it could be easier to please people who seem to need that. But, that's just marketing talk not reality.

I think it's interesting and impressive when a product is innovative. The way the modeling and IR work together in this plug-in I do find innovative even if it's not rocket science for a company known for modeling vintage gear to do such a thing. Anyway, in my book, not every product has to tick the boxes for being super innovative as long as it achieves what it's meant for. Hope that will suffice as an answer directly to you regarding your concerns. If not then I guess we should just move on. Can't please everyone.

[imrae]

To capture both the unique acoustics of each studio as well as their characteristic vibe, IK created an all-new convolution engine to deliver the highest-possible quality reverb effects.

That looks a lot like

an impressive spec that sounds innovative into a product just for the marketing benefit

to me, because while the code might be "all-new", I very much doubt that it is doing anything new. I'm curious about the claim of "highest-possible quality", which seems a bit defeatist. Or is it an acknowledgement that convolution is already a solved problem?

[Squids]

To capture both the unique acoustics of each studio as well as their characteristic vibe, IK created an all-new convolution engine to deliver the highest-possible quality reverb effects.

That looks a lot like

an impressive spec that sounds innovative into a product just for the marketing benefit

to me, because while the code might be "all-new", I very much doubt that it is doing anything new. I'm curious about the claim of "highest-possible quality", which seems a bit defeatist. Or is it an acknowledgement that convolution is already a solved problem?

Look, we may never know exactly what it is about the all new engine that was designed to give us such great sounding reverbs. I don't know the specifics of what the engine is doing or how it's doing it and even if I did I might not be able to reveal that because maybe it's a trade secret. A company is entitled not to have to share how they do what they do. That's why I say your expectation of "complete transparency" is unrealistic. The only things we get to know about products are what the companies offer publicly about them. Everything else is subjective info or conjecture.

But, from the info that has been publicly shared, we can at least see that it's the whole that's greater than the sum of the parts. The reason it's exciting from a development standpoint (because I've already said why it's so exciting from a content standpoint in terms of the studio allowing deep collaboration and time to get it right) is because of this great sounding engine they've created for convolution reverb plug-ins (whatever it's doing) plus the physical modeling of the gear and techniques used to get it as close as possible to the real thing! It DOES achieve that (I won't repeat the accuracy point again don't worry). So, whatever they're doing they must be doing something right because it does sound great!

Again, I personally take all marketing-speak with a grain of salt. Plus, sometimes words don't even mean what you think they mean. For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if "all new" meant that it was a new thing made by IK for this and future IK products to take advantage of (because before this there was only CSR which was an algorithm-based reverb) and not meant to mean "all new technology never done before from the ground up reinventing the wheel when it comes to convolution reverbs". But, even if it was meant to sound like the holy grail or ultimate feat of science, it's generally not a good idea (IMO) to get too caught up in the marketing jargon of products. That was my point. Regardless of whatever's said, it IS meant to be a great sounding reverb emulating the sound of the studio. So, if it wins any awards it'll be for giving us access to this classic sound in an authentic way.

Hope that all makes sense. Don't know what else to say about that topic except the strength of it isn't that it's meant to reinvent the wheel of convolution. Forget all that talk from all the companies or at least take that with a big fat grain of salt. They all have W.O.W. technology (patent pending). Meanwhile, it's more important to just listen to the darn thing.

[imrae]

Again, I personally take all marketing-speak with a grain of salt. Plus, sometimes words don't even mean what you think they mean.

If we accept that defence, the doors are open to all manner of snake-oil salesmen.

[Squids]

Again, I personally take all marketing-speak with a grain of salt. Plus, sometimes words don't even mean what you think they mean.

If we accept that defence, the doors are open to all manner of snake-oil salesmen.

Well, that's a bit extreme IMHO. There are obviously degrees of hype talk vs. something substanstantial you can go on to make an informed buying decision. If there isn't enough to convince someone it does something great that's useful for their music then they don't have to buy it. Simple. Whether it's the vague hype or the very vivid A/B audio examples that does the trick, it's down to each person and their own decision making.

So, no, accepting that there's some marketing hype wording in pretty much all commercial products does NOT mean that "the doors are open for all manner of snake-oil salesman". Anyway... I can see you're getting stuck on this. I have no idea what kind of music you make but if it's the type of plug-in that would be useful for your productions then I hope you listen to the audio demos or download it and try it out for yourself.

I work and speak with a lot of pro and semi pro musicians and engineers and it's uncommon for me to see such opposition based on this kind of thing. Most people just want to know if it's good and what it'll do for their music. Then they buy it. That's what I do too. This other intellectual exercise stuff, to me, starts to veer off track from the things I'm interested in... which is actually making music with this stuff! Seriously. But, if you guys want to share with me the music you're making then I can tailor my response to that. For instance, if it's electronic music then I'd almost say everything we've been talking about with this plug-in is moot or that it would then be down to someone's tastes if they wanted to apply that sound (which is typically more for rock and pop, as the studio has been known for going back 60 years) and in that case you'd be using it more as a creative tool for something unexpected... could be good! OR if the music sounds like it was recorded in a garage or poorly treated rehearsal room or bedroom then I would say that unless you treat the room you're not even gonna get the most out of a plug-in like this (maybe just for your DI tracks and samples then).

I don't know who I'm talking to or what your level even is so it's hard to tell if the discussion is making any progress. Probably is for the lurkers who understand it objectively. But, I gotta say, everyone seems to be getting it a lot easier over on Gearslutz. I love my KVR but I have limited time and at least want to get somewhere with these discussions... and no not just SALES. I get ZERO commission or royalties on this. I don't even sell this on my own store, eSoundz! But, I do want to see this product reach the people it was made for and that would be musicians, engineers and producers who dream of having the some of the great iconic sounds you'd get if you had the budget to record or mix at Sunset Sound.

Anyway, imrae, if you don't mind sharing your music with us I think that would help the discussion. Otherwise I kind of feel like we're going round in circles a bit.