hifiboom,
What do you not like about the ER?
I will listen for it and compare it to the PCM91.
Like the V-VERB, the PCM91 has different parameters for each algorithm.
The lexicon uses mainly "Spread" and "Shape" to define the ER.
One area the lexicon shines is with its diverse modulation settings.
I was surprised how many parameters the V-VERB algorithm offers.
I have not heard anything annoying about the ER in the V-VERB.
In fact, I like the natural spaces I'm hearing.
One thing for sure, the PCM91 also makes some nice spaces.I do not own
a TC unit, but have heard it... at least the M4000.
This unit sounds good to me. Very transparent. It definately sounds different
from a Lexicon. From what i'm hearing, the V-VERB sounds a lot like a Lexicon and
also offers some TC type transparent environments.
V-Verb Pro - more examples
-
- KVRian
- 1144 posts since 26 Sep, 2005 from Germany
there is a ratio ER/LR parameter(i'm too bored to switch it on now and look how exactly the parameter is named). If you dial in 100/0, you only hear the er pattern. Especially in the hall algo, I wasn't that convinced about the ER shaping. The Lexicon units sound a bit more natural in that department. Desity grows in ER. The Behringer ER density stays constant.
Use headphones to hear the difference.
The dfference is slightly audible especially on critical sounds like claps(high freq. percussion) and kicks (low freq. percussion)
Due to this fact the Lexicon does sound a bit "deeper" and the V-Verb a lttle more upfront.
The difference is very subtle.
Use headphones to hear the difference.
The dfference is slightly audible especially on critical sounds like claps(high freq. percussion) and kicks (low freq. percussion)
Due to this fact the Lexicon does sound a bit "deeper" and the V-Verb a lttle more upfront.
The difference is very subtle.
-
- KVRer
- 21 posts since 8 Jun, 2007
I'll have to check it out.
Your probably right. You obviously have spent a lot more time than my one week with the V-VERB.
I never thought I'd be critically comparing a unit to the PCMs at this cost. LOL. I could buy more than
twelve V-VERBS for the price of one PCM91! Not that I would buy 12. LOL
I really want to see if Behringer will take this one step further. Damn, If they can make the V-VERB and have it sold for less than $200, Imagine if they put more into their design and offered a new unit at $400.
Your probably right. You obviously have spent a lot more time than my one week with the V-VERB.
I never thought I'd be critically comparing a unit to the PCMs at this cost. LOL. I could buy more than
twelve V-VERBS for the price of one PCM91! Not that I would buy 12. LOL
I really want to see if Behringer will take this one step further. Damn, If they can make the V-VERB and have it sold for less than $200, Imagine if they put more into their design and offered a new unit at $400.
-
- KVRian
- 1144 posts since 26 Sep, 2005 from Germany
absolutly, if you search the previous thread, which I started, you'll see that I already raved about Behringer ...
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... highlight=
After spending much time with it, I realized that it has one flaw and thats the ER problem, which isn't a big thing and also depends on taste.
This doesn't change the fact that it is a top-notch unit. And concidering the price, there is really nothing, NOTHING that could be called a competitor. Not in hardware nor plug-in.
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... highlight=
After spending much time with it, I realized that it has one flaw and thats the ER problem, which isn't a big thing and also depends on taste.
This doesn't change the fact that it is a top-notch unit. And concidering the price, there is really nothing, NOTHING that could be called a competitor. Not in hardware nor plug-in.
-
- KVRian
- 664 posts since 5 Jun, 2005
Let me just get this straight: this Behringer unit beats software reverbs like CSR and ArtsAcoustic?
-
- KVRian
- 1144 posts since 26 Sep, 2005 from Germany
Its hard to give advice like A is better than B with reverb. Too much depends on taste.krank wrote:Let me just get this straight: this Behringer unit beats software reverbs like CSR and ArtsAcoustic?
let me give you my opinion on all these three:
- the CSR has the best EarlyReflection simulation of all those (especially the Hall algo). It makes a dry sound "sit" in the wet reverb.
But to me the overall sound is a bit "plastic-like", less realistic. (difficult to describe)
- the AAR can get the greatest modulated (chorused) tails which is unique in sound, but may not be decribed as "true reverb", as modulation like this is a fake trick to make a tail smoother. It has ressonances in the tail that I don't like especially when you switch off the modulation on the tail.
- the Behringer has the greatest tail sound of all those, but is not able to shape the early reflecion that fine detailed (buildup, spread,....) like the CSR
at the end it sounds less synthetic than the CSR and has less ressonances in the tail compard to AAR.
So none of these 3 is a complete substitute to the other.
But the Behringer has the best reverb sound.
My favorite would be the CSR algo with the sound of the Behringer unit and modulation available like in AAR.
Thats my personal opinion.
-
- KVRer
- 21 posts since 8 Jun, 2007
krank,
I have not heard the Artsacoustic. So, It's hard for me to share my thoughts.
After having said this, over the years of being around a lot of the "high end" units,
I've been able to throw reverb processors in threes levels.
Low quality sounding
Mid quality sounding
High end quality sounding.
As simplified as this may seem, when you start getting into the high end stuff, it's sometimes
is very sujective and of course depends on your source material like any other effect processor.
I'm not saying one can not hear the difference in simulations between say a Lexicon 960 verses their PCM91.
What I am saying, in this case, the PCM91 would fit my thoughts as a "higher end" unit. I've heard the 960 and it's spectacular. Now, if I could only find the extra coin LOL
I would throw my Lexicon MPX500 in the "low quality" sounding, the MPX-1 in the mid quality.
To my surprise, I placed the V-VERB in the "high end" bracket. Again, I really did not expect so much.
Now, having said that, I don't care for any of the Mid to low quality processors. Also, what I think belongs in the "high end quality" sound bracket you may feel belongs in the mid, and vice versa.
My thoughts for the "high end quality" is that it fits the bill that I will use it, period.
All high end units all have "that" sound. They all just differ on flavor and some reach spectacular quality.
As far ar the plugins you mentioned, they may very well be in the "high end sounding" bracket.
From what I've heard about them, they probably are.
I have not heard the Artsacoustic. So, It's hard for me to share my thoughts.
After having said this, over the years of being around a lot of the "high end" units,
I've been able to throw reverb processors in threes levels.
Low quality sounding
Mid quality sounding
High end quality sounding.
As simplified as this may seem, when you start getting into the high end stuff, it's sometimes
is very sujective and of course depends on your source material like any other effect processor.
I'm not saying one can not hear the difference in simulations between say a Lexicon 960 verses their PCM91.
What I am saying, in this case, the PCM91 would fit my thoughts as a "higher end" unit. I've heard the 960 and it's spectacular. Now, if I could only find the extra coin LOL
I would throw my Lexicon MPX500 in the "low quality" sounding, the MPX-1 in the mid quality.
To my surprise, I placed the V-VERB in the "high end" bracket. Again, I really did not expect so much.
Now, having said that, I don't care for any of the Mid to low quality processors. Also, what I think belongs in the "high end quality" sound bracket you may feel belongs in the mid, and vice versa.
My thoughts for the "high end quality" is that it fits the bill that I will use it, period.
All high end units all have "that" sound. They all just differ on flavor and some reach spectacular quality.
As far ar the plugins you mentioned, they may very well be in the "high end sounding" bracket.
From what I've heard about them, they probably are.
-
- KVRian
- 1144 posts since 26 Sep, 2005 from Germany
good points proaudio.
-
- KVRian
- 664 posts since 5 Jun, 2005
Thanks a lot, both of you. It does sound like a really good deal.
-
- KVRer
- 21 posts since 8 Jun, 2007
hifiboom,
You must of just sent your message before mine.
I just read it now.
Good points man. I'll have to check out these plugins.
You bring up a good point about each different device, may it be hardware, or
a plugin. It would be nice to have the best of the best!
Hmm.. I wouldn't be surprised if someone is not working these details out right now.
BTW, I checked out what you are saying about the ER. I hear what you're talking about, although
it definately does the job. I like the ER frequency treatment options selecting carpet, velour and others.
This allows some nice variations for ER.
Krank, it's easy to knock Behringer. They have taken quite the rap, but I can't help
but congratulate them on the V-VERB. I've been setting up both engines layered in stereo
on top of each other with slight differences. Talk about a lush sound. This really "reminds" me
of the 480L. very dense
You must of just sent your message before mine.
I just read it now.
Good points man. I'll have to check out these plugins.
You bring up a good point about each different device, may it be hardware, or
a plugin. It would be nice to have the best of the best!
Hmm.. I wouldn't be surprised if someone is not working these details out right now.
BTW, I checked out what you are saying about the ER. I hear what you're talking about, although
it definately does the job. I like the ER frequency treatment options selecting carpet, velour and others.
This allows some nice variations for ER.
Krank, it's easy to knock Behringer. They have taken quite the rap, but I can't help
but congratulate them on the V-VERB. I've been setting up both engines layered in stereo
on top of each other with slight differences. Talk about a lush sound. This really "reminds" me
of the 480L. very dense
-
- KVRer
- 21 posts since 8 Jun, 2007
Another quick point about the V-VERB.
I'm sure most know that this is essentially two stereo units in one.
By setting in the V-VERB's setup menu the "Input Mode" to Stereo, you get two independent stereo processors.
If you use both inputs from the same source, and you select the same REVERB program in each stereo engine, you will probably need to make differences between the two reverb settings.
This is due to overlaying the same sound source and reverb settings. You will get some phasing type issues if you do not make differences. Also note, when using with a mixer you ALWAYS want to set the "Wet to Dry" setting to "External" which is 100% wet (all reverb).
One easy way is to delay one reverb using the predelay setting. Also, even when using the predelay, you will have to play around with it to find the best setting; otherwise, you may hear some phasing issues (almost flange or chorus effect). A quick check is to hit your MONO switch on your mixer, this will let you hear if their are any phasing issues (comb filter effect)
Your best bet is to make variations to many parameters (make slight changes to each engines EQ settings too). Also, you can set one to have less stereo spread and the other to have 100% stereo spread. This really creates a wall of dense reverb.
I'm sure most know that this is essentially two stereo units in one.
By setting in the V-VERB's setup menu the "Input Mode" to Stereo, you get two independent stereo processors.
If you use both inputs from the same source, and you select the same REVERB program in each stereo engine, you will probably need to make differences between the two reverb settings.
This is due to overlaying the same sound source and reverb settings. You will get some phasing type issues if you do not make differences. Also note, when using with a mixer you ALWAYS want to set the "Wet to Dry" setting to "External" which is 100% wet (all reverb).
One easy way is to delay one reverb using the predelay setting. Also, even when using the predelay, you will have to play around with it to find the best setting; otherwise, you may hear some phasing issues (almost flange or chorus effect). A quick check is to hit your MONO switch on your mixer, this will let you hear if their are any phasing issues (comb filter effect)
Your best bet is to make variations to many parameters (make slight changes to each engines EQ settings too). Also, you can set one to have less stereo spread and the other to have 100% stereo spread. This really creates a wall of dense reverb.
-
- KVRian
- 974 posts since 10 May, 2003
I just use Tracktion3 with no external mixer. What in- and outputs do i need on my soundcard to use this unit? I have no experience at all with hardware units 
.
.Buy Darling Sister's new album "Rise and fall" now! Just send a pm or an email. Visit our myspace page on www.myspace.com/darlingsister for songsamples.