Bricasti M7 Native Plugin

[kvaca]

Is this better?

http://www.relab.dk/downloads/sound/Hardware_2.wav

its completely different space /much smaller then before/ but YES, all these unnatural ugly reflections are gone now

also - it would be very interesting if you can run the same audio through some big cathedral type preset in M7...usually this kind of preset definitely differs good from bad sounding algo-reverb...

[Shy]

Is this better?

http://www.relab.dk/downloads/sound/Hardware_2.wav

its completely different space /much smaller then before/

Note that it seems smaller because the much faster build envelope causes much more content to be present in the "center" and the decay to the "sides" is most audible after a few seconds, unlike in the first sample where it's immediate. In fact, the width is like the first sample's, and even if it's not as pronounced, it has a huge role in the overall sound quality.

[kvaca]

That doesn't sound like "wider" reverb at all, just more nauseating .

nope, technically its a lot wider /cca about +3 db in side-bass area/ and if you really dont hear it you can always easily measure it /using MS technique/

nauseating for you, for me is almost OK /at least compared to nausea from M7/
off course chorusing can be less prominent in bass area /and this can be easily changed/, but thats also a matter of personal preferences

Like I specifically said, I don't mean idiotic micing techniques with 4 meters between mics or such. I mean proper micing with some centimeters distance between mics, at most.

I did a lot of mesurements in big spaces /churches etc/ in last 7 years and alwasys encountered typical slight narrowness in bass area when mics were in close distance /some centimeteres/, that narrowness disappeared only if I increased the distance into "idiotic" area

[Shy]

More amplitude doesn't make the reverb wider, that's not how it goes. And you should consider using head-sized distance between mics and a baffle between them , that's the main thing that can really improve low frequency realism in a recording. Only use the "stupid" mic techniques if you want "wider" lower frequencies at the cost of nausea inducing sound.

[antithesist]

Warp issues gauntlet.

I love it when the warpster surfaces. Bad thread title, by the way. I almost crapped in my pants the first time I read it.

Me too. There should at least be a question mark there.

Good thread. I always appreciate when Sean drops by.

Andrew, too. Carnes was next door.

Michael was next door? AND HE DIDN'T STOP BY TO SAY HI????? My feelings are hurt now.

I know, right? It looks like he's been kind of busy, though.

[instantiate your own surround pun here]

[kvaca]

I think that kmonkey asked alot of very good questions that could help me understand what you hear - it would really be appreciated if you could answer some of them.

OK, I will try to answer here as precisely as my knowledge of english language allows me...

- what kind of space you are sensing there (hall, chamber, what?)
big dampened space /like hall full of people or nonreflective furniture/ but with many unnatural reflections like in empty space...a bit surrealistic, isnt it?
and it was improved a lot in hardware 2 example at the expense of making the space much smaller sametime

- why do you think stereo is too wide (you are likely aware that stereo wideness is pretty much adjustable) but anyway why did you expected it to be more narrow?
maybe because I did a lot of records and measurements in big spaces - slight narrowness in bass area is so typical for real spaces /and is typically missing in algo-based reverbs/

- and lastly this confuse me so i want to know it more then other question - why do you expect to hear early reflection since you really don't know what kind of room is set to be there in that example? In other word why do you persist to hear ER, if for example artist wanted to provide us with some space where ER is not dominant.
maybe because Im used to hear natural reverb which always include some prominent ER /of course if you for instance dont turn cardioid mics backwards like in some surround setup/

- Would you consider it bad musicwise if ER is not dominant?
is not bad musicwise only is a bit unnatural to me...

- Why do you think ER need to be "there"?
same as above...

- Btw what is dull reverb sound, colorless?
dull is when is too much dampened compared to reality - this artifact is typical for convo-reverbs using realworld IRs and can be adjusted in algo-reverbs, but very often with risk of unnatural harsh sound in treble
lack of natural "color" is typical for all algo-reverbs I know, this colorless flat reverb doesnt exist in reality because of inevitable standing waves, resonances etcetc...also IRs can sound much closer to reality in this area /sometimes I can even smell that space I have measured not long before when using quality recorded IRs from there /
the lack of natural hi-frequency rolloff /too gentle slope/ is also typical only for algo-based reverbs, it becomes obvious especially in "cathedral" type presets in increasing overall "dullness"
- Would you say it's better if reverb tail is more dense, with more high content. Is that opposite to dull or colorless?
nope, dense yes but not with more highs - these are needed only in ER /but these ER cannot be missing sametime/

hope its clear enough... otherwise Im sorry, but as you see english is not my first language and sometimes is even hard to find right words first...

[kvaca]

And you should consider using head-sized distance between mics and a baffle between them , that's the main thing that can really improve low frequency realism in a recording.

head sized distance and head sized baffle does completely NOTHING in bass area where waves are more than one meter long and can easily bend around your baffle...

[Shy]

I assumed you didn't mean frequencies as low as "bass frequencies", obviously no baffle (such as your head) is gonna make much difference in them, but it makes a huge difference in frequencies even as low as 300Hz and as high as 6kHz (-harmonics- from bass instruments are within the range), compared to a usual recording.

[kvaca]

but it makes a huge difference in frequencies even as low as 300Hz and as high as 6kHz (-harmonics- from bass instruments are within the range), compared to a usual recording.

yes, correct...
as you can hear I usually tend to slightly remove some bass frequencies /only under 300 Hz/ on side channel of reverb with dynamic filter to approximate what reverb is doing in real world

[Warp69]

I have around 19TB of measurements (conducted over the last 3 years) from Churches and concert halls/Halls around Europe (unfortunately only Europe) for research and development and NONE of them have that, rather extreme, high-pass filtering in your example.

Most of the test signal was not for capturing the IR response (I obviously exstracted IR's from different position in each environment), but more for determining how different spaces reacted to various test files. I also recorded 12 different music parts from each space to compare the differences between a recording on site and one with a convolution reverb - they were pretty close to eachother except in one metric : Spaciousness/envelopment. The recordings was wider than the convolution reverb, but why?
I first concluded the difference was based on small variation in air preasure, so I captured 31 IR's from the exact same position and used a Matlab program to perform modulation on the convolution process based on those 31 IR's. The result did improve, but it was not perfect. After a lot of testing (extremely daunting process) I ended up with with a mic placement where directional mic's had to have a distance of 2.3m - 3.2m between each other depending on the environment. With omni mics the distance had to be larger, like 3.9m - 6.0m. This combined with the modulation process, I could get very close to the orginal recording. I could probably have found better solutions to the problem, but it was not my primary focus to match IR's to real recordings.

[meloco_go]

I have around 19TB of measurements (conducted over the last 3 years) from Churches and concert halls/Halls around Europe (unfortunately only Europe) for research and development and NONE of them have that, rather extreme, high-pass filtering in your example.

Most of the test signal was not for capturing the IR response (I obviously exstracted IR's from different position in each environment), but more for determining how different spaces reacted to various test files. I also recorded 12 different music parts from each space to compare the differences between a recording on site and one with a convolution reverb - they were pretty close to eachother except in one metric : Spaciousness/envelopment. The recordings was wider than the convolution reverb, but why?
I first concluded the difference was based on small variation in air preasure, so I captured 31 IR's from the exact same position and used a Matlab program to perform modulation on the convolution process based on those 31 IR's. The result did improve, but it was not perfect. After a lot of testing (extremely daunting process) I ended up with with a mic placement where directional mic's had to have a distance of 2.3m - 3.2m between each other depending on the environment. With omni mics the distance had to be larger, like 3.9m - 6.0m. This combined with the modulation process, I could get very close to the orginal recording. I could probably have found better solutions to the problem, but it was not my primary focus to match IR's to real recordings.

Very very interesting!
Let me clarify:
Is the required distance only for IRs? I.e. you have to place mics wider (to capture IR) then what was used to record a piece of music on location to get impulse with realistic characteristic?
Do you have any ideas why it happens? It seems it would capture a different ER structure?

[kmonkey]

hope its clear enough... otherwise Im sorry, but as you see english is not my first language and sometimes is even hard to find right words first...

I love you Seriously thank you for your time.

[kmonkey]

I have around 19TB of measurements (conducted over the last 3 years) from Churches and concert halls/Halls around Europe

[kvaca]

I have around 19TB of measurements (conducted over the last 3 years) from Churches and concert halls/Halls around Europe (unfortunately only Europe) for research and development and NONE of them have that, rather extreme, high-pass filtering in your example.

well, I got only around 9 TB of measurements - so you must be right?
unfortunately other people measurements /f.i.when I look at IRs from Waves/ are very similar to mine in that regard...
btw - technically I have NOT used hi-pass filtering if you care

Most of the test signal was not for capturing the IR response (I obviously exstracted IR's from different position in each environment), but more for determining how different spaces reacted to various test files. I also recorded 12 different music parts from each space to compare the differences between a recording on site and one with a convolution reverb - they were pretty close to eachother except in one metric : Spaciousness/envelopment. The recordings was wider than the convolution reverb, but why?

maybe we are hearing the same artifacts, but I was referring incorrectly about this phenomena as typical convolution "dullness" and you are describing it better as the lack of "spaciousness/envelopement"...who knows?

I first concluded the difference was based on small variation in air preasure, so I captured 31 IR's from the exact same position and used a Matlab program to perform modulation on the convolution process based on those 31 IR's. The result did improve, but it was not perfect. After a lot of testing (extremely daunting process) I ended up with with a mic placement where directional mic's had to have a distance of 2.3m - 3.2m between each other depending on the environment. With omni mics the distance had to be larger, like 3.9m - 6.0m. This combined with the modulation process, I could get very close to the orginal recording. I could probably have found better solutions to the problem, but it was not my primary focus to match IR's to real recordings.

funny point: here we - independently - performed similar experiment and got exactly the same observations and results...with that difference that I still focus on IRs because so far no algo-reverb can give me satisfactory results, at least for cathedral style reverb...
btw - when you did almost the same testing as I did - may I ask where did you encountered such dampened-missing ER as can be heard in your first Bricasti example?
I have never heard something even remotely similar in reality during my testing...

[kvaca]

Let me clarify:
Is the required distance only for IRs? I.e. you have to place mics wider (to capture IR) then what was used to record a piece of music on location to get impulse with realistic characteristic?
Do you have any ideas why it happens? It seems it would capture a different ER structure?

with captute technique we are usually using best studio monitors, which unfortunately cannot completely replace typical real world musical instruments...at least their radiation pattern is very different /=in the case of musical instruments is way more complex - to say it simplified/
i.e. - if we managed to have monitors with exactly the same radiation pattern as piano /or guitar...etc/....then - I only think - theres only little need for increasing mics distance for IR capture
and yes - there were some experiments done with multiple monitors capture /made by Altiverb creators at the beginning/...but the results were unnatural to me and also these devs seems abandoned that technique now

another problem arise from using only dry mono audio /sometimes even dry stereo is not enough/ before convolution, which simply CANNOT represent well any bigger musical instrument in all its complexity...that complexity ALWAYS transtate into reverb in natural space /which is missing in any artificial reverb/ and can create some additional "spaciousness" or "liveness" so typical for location music record