KVR Audio

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:25 pm

I'm sorry uvacom and sounddesigner, but I'm not going to read all that. Looks so deeply convoluted, that, uhhh. go get some fresh air or something.

Frippertronix · Post by **Frippertronix** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:25 pm

Reg's AAr long patch is indeed very impressive and I always qualified my critique of AAR based on many of the presets I tried. Reg managed to make AAR blend much better with the dry file than the presets I tried tended to do. It's back on my list of possible purchases.

However, let's keep a perspective on this. CSR does the Lexicon sound to a very close approximation in an affordable VST, so you know what you're getting. AAR is a different affair entirely. To me, they could be better viewed as complimenting one another rather than competing. I never thought of the "classic" Lexi sound as realsitic (like a convincing model of an actual acoustic space). It's a studio rack reverb and among the very best. With CSR, you are getting an acceptable mimic of that rack unit within the much more user friendly VST/DAW environment, and for much less money. To me, that sums up why it could fit well into most people's setup, regardless of what AAR can do based on it's own merits.

Colonel Flashback · Post by **Colonel Flashback** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:30 pm

sounddesigner wrote:bla bla 1 million dollar competition bla bla bla

you really work for IKM, don't you?

anyway, cool thread - been an eye or rather ear-opener of sorts that you don't need expensive reverbs if you know how to tweak (re RV7000 or the Reaktor verb)

sounddesigner · Post by **sounddesigner** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:31 pm

Kingston wrote:I'm sorry uvacom and sounddesigner, but I'm not going to read all that. Looks so deeply convoluted, that, uhhh. go get some fresh air or something.

Then don't read it i can care less.Your not going to convince the majority with a half a brain that the competition was fair.What you write sounds slick to the foolish but it does'nt impress me.We don't really know each other but maybe its best we don't.

friteuse · Post by **friteuse** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:33 pm

Kingston wrote:and now for something completely different,

just kidding,

here's broks example gone thru CSR hall,

http://www.michaelkingston.fi/files/CSRbrokhall.wav

and here's the CSR plate from earlier today

http://www.michaelkingston.fi/files/CSRbrok.wav

sounds good to me, especially the plate (lush^2).

Nice, but by far not as good as broks long reverb imho...

Esp. the plate does not glue with dry sound to a completly new thing - I hear just two sounds, the dry one and the reverb...

For me, CSR seems to be the cleaner one. What does not mean, that I'm not very impressed of it (also bmanics samples). But I think, I would use it more on other styles than the one in this thread... just my 2 cents.

Damn, I have to sleep now! Could someone using telepathy to transfer this thread into my dreams, so I don't miss anything?

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:34 pm

sounddesigner wrote:the competition wasn't fair.

erm,

what competition?

I thought we were just comparing reverbs here, with no strings attached. I know I was.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:37 pm

friteuse wrote:For me, CSR seems to be the cleaner one. What does not mean, that I'm not very impressed of it (also bmanics samples). But I think, I would use it more on other styles than the one in this thread... just my 2 cents.

I agree. CSR has a bit more density. I also think it's better suited to completely different types of sounds than this: sounds within dense mixes that need "global blend", instead of the fully engulfing sound of AAR.

brok landers · Post by **brok landers** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:38 pm

Kingston wrote: here's broks example gone thru CSR hall,

http://www.michaelkingston.fi/files/CSRbrokhall.wav

and here's the CSR plate from earlier today

http://www.michaelkingston.fi/files/CSRbrok.wav

sounds good to me, especially the plate (lush^2).

hmm ... i don't know ... don't get me wrong, but the first example somwhat sounds more "narrow", not in stereodepth, but
in overall impression, and more static ... the frequency behave is too "direct" for me, like if a mirror has scratches ...
how esotheric ... but i dunno how to describe it in another way ...
the second example (the plate) i don't like at all ... it sounds very hard, "tubey" and somewhat grainy over the whole frequency spectrum ...
no offend meant, kingston ...
shit, i think i have to try the csr by myself ... but ...
i know that you are a very knowledged guy, also bmanic ... that makes me believe that the csr is not really an option for me as i think you guys could dial up something on csr where i'd say "ok, i gotta have thatone", if it would've been that good ... thats how hope breaks into pices ...

cthmusic · Post by **cthmusic** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:41 pm

Kingston wrote:
sounddesigner wrote:the competition wasn't fair.
erm,

what competition? I thought we were just comparing reverbs here, with no strings attached. I know I was.

Yeah! Who made this a f**king competition!?!?

If anything, this is an audio engineering research based thread to compare strengths and weaknesses of tools.

BTW, I just bought AAR! I can't wait to throw it on some dreamy vocals!

friteuse · Post by **friteuse** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:42 pm

sounddesigner wrote:
Kingston wrote:I'm sorry uvacom and sounddesigner, but I'm not going to read all that. Looks so deeply convoluted, that, uhhh. go get some fresh air or something.
Then don't read it i can care less.Your not going to convince the majority with a half a brain that the competition was fair.What you write sounds slick to the foolish but it does'nt impress me.We don't really know each other but maybe its best we don't.

Hey, I think everyone understood your point, and it's ok - but it's more on reverbs here rather than on competition...

So, now that you know broks recipe, just put your energy into trying to recreate the reverb with your fav. I'd love to hear this!!

Btw, did I mentioned, that I have to sleep now?

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:45 pm

brok landers wrote:i think you guys could dial up something on csr where i'd say "ok, i gotta have thatone", if it would've been that good ... thats how hope breaks into pices ...

Thing is, you're perfectly happy with AAR, right? You might not even need CSR at all.

anyway, very interesting thread and involved discussion here. I like it.

oh and about that hall sound. That's one end of its capability: too clear and pristine IMO. The other end has this weird wavey movement that I didn't like with your sound at all. Maybe I should've posted that as well, as we seem to have quite the different taste in reverbs.

sounddesigner · Post by **sounddesigner** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:52 pm

cthmusic wrote:
Kingston wrote:
sounddesigner wrote:the competition wasn't fair.
erm,

what competition? I thought we were just comparing reverbs here, with no strings attached. I know I was.
Yeah! Who made this a f**king competition!?!?

If anything, this is an audio engineering research based thread to compare strengths and weaknesses of tools.

BTW, I just bought AAR! I can't wait to throw it on some dreamy vocals!

brok said in many places that aar was the best and he's waiting for someone to beat his file. and in the end i'm sure he'll claim aar as the best. obviously the job of those using csr was to top his file, that spells some form of competition especially if a claim of best reverb is made.. it does'nt take a genius to deduce competition if you disagree then sorry.If you just feel like sticking by your buddies side no matter what well hey i'm cool with that to.

brok landers · Post by **brok landers** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:53 pm

sounddesigner wrote:Also to add to this, in order for a competition to truly be fair one of the competitors can't make the rules and supply the material because the competition is then skewd to his advantage and strenghths of his tool.I can easily go get uad's dreamverb wich is a rich reverb and say to all "match this thickness", and give them a file in wich the material used sounds well with dreamverb.We all know that one reverb is'nt good for all projects. i'd like to atleast see 3 different files used and let one be a slow singing female voice.Let someone who's not competing supply the material, and make rules that all agree on.
Most who own CSR have been using it for under 20 days while brok have been using aar for 20 years.If Brok brought his tweaking ability to csr and thoroughly learned it i'm sure he'll produce many great results with it.And yes uvacom if everyone would have had brok's settings they could've produced better results then they did, even those who used aar like brok did'nt get as good results as brok.

sounddesigner, i don't want to offend in any way, honestly ...

i think you missunderstood my initial intension, also i doubt that you read the whole thread, because then you 'd understood ...
all i wanted is to show a file where i think that this is the reverb i like, please someone top this with the csr, as i cannot demo it cause i don't have a dongle.
no more.
there was no competition, and over the evolving thread i stated this several times.
i have a good reverb.
now someone convince me to get anotherone, which is even better.
i thought that this could be the csr.
then the thread turned out to include other reverb units too.
as i am allways interrested i was happy that so many users posted their results, to give me a picture.
no comptetition ... no unfairness because _no competition_.
so, if you want:
just listen to the reverb i initially posted.
then tweak something (with any vst nonconvolution reverb)with my orginal file that you find better and post that.
no competition, just tastes and opinions for us to learn from each ...
all in peace ...

cthmusic · Post by **cthmusic** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:57 pm

sounddesigner wrote:
cthmusic wrote:
Kingston wrote:
sounddesigner wrote:the competition wasn't fair.
erm,

what competition? :?: I thought we were just comparing reverbs here, with no strings attached. I know I was.
Yeah! Who made this a f**king competition!?!?

If anything, this is an audio engineering research based thread to compare strengths and weaknesses of tools.

BTW, I just bought AAR! I can't wait to throw it on some dreamy vocals! :love:
brok said in many places that aar was the best and he's waiting for someone to beat his file. and in the end i'm sure he'll claim aar as the best. obviously the job of those using csr was to top his file, that spells some form of competition especially if a claim of best reverb is made.. it does'nt take a genius to deduce competition if you disagree then sorry.If you just feel like sticking by your buddies side no matter what well hey i'm cool with that to.

A competition involves people "competing" to achieve a ranking of who's the best, second best and so on. This thread is about recreating a verb sound based on a sound file and seeing if any "plugin" can achieve the desired result. Nobodies getting crowned victor if they come up with a sound that is equal or better (completely subjective!) to broks original long verb.

defjamm · Post by **defjamm** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:58 pm

sounddesigner wrote:
uvacom wrote:
Kingston wrote:
uvacom wrote:
Most who own CSR have been using it for under 20 days while brok have been using aar for 20 years

this thread is great!

living sounds wrote: I don't usually use 7 second reverbs with the highs EQed out to test a reverb, but in this case, the AA is surely superior.

i think this is a mayor problem nowadays...people don't use their ears but their eyes...7 seconds sound like a lot and when you look at your gui you don't listen to the output of the setting, you pay too much attention on the numbers. it's the same thing with compressors and eqs, many people don't listen to what the sound might need, but look on their guis and decide because of nice looking curves and nice sounding numbers.

CSR - pants down