Reverberate - Convolution reverb with modulation for Mac and PC (AU, AAX, VST)

[Tp3]

Heh, well easy mode is maybe Reverberate Core

Yes but do I have to pay additional fee for this ?

Usually, the "lighter" version is given for free, for the older sibling customers...

[liquidsonics]

In this instance, since owners of Reverberate have been able to benefit from such a large number of free updates, yes, Reverberate Core is sold separately.

[keyman_sam]

To keyman_sam: When you ask for a browser, do you mean a sample browser? If so I am a little confused, there has been a fully featured sample browser since version 1.300. If not, could you explain what you mean a little more?

Well, indeed there is! I haven't updated in a long, long time. My apologies!

Downloading v1.6 right now. I guess it pays to be an early adopter. Looking forward to playing with this today...

[Deca Studios]

To Deca Studios: Thanks for the extra info. When you're in IR2 try clicking Favourites -> IR1a Current Location, this will take the browser to the location of the IR1a file. All that said, if you're using left and right files it sounds like you're doing true stereo - did you know that to do true stereo you would usually set both the left and right files up in IR1 by setting the topology from Parallel Stereo to True Stereo? Then it will even auto-pair the left and right files if they are called something like name_L.wav / name_R.wav. Also a feature you may not have found is the fact that you can set up favourite locations on disk in the favourites menu.

To keyman_sam: When you ask for a browser, do you mean a sample browser? If so I am a little confused, there has been a fully featured sample browser since version 1.300. If not, could you explain what you mean a little more?

To JamieSkeen: Since there are so many new IRs included it's simpler to just provide the big download, but future versions will come with updaters as has been done in the past.

Well Matt, I apologize: it looks like you've already taken care of business!

Thanks

[liquidsonics]

That's my problem. I really want all that new stuff.

Slight plan change, I have made £60 the bundle price and now Reverberate is £50 to bring it slightly closer to the old price. The price will increment more slowly as I add features from now on.

[Tp3]

Heh, well easy mode is maybe Reverberate Core

Well, not so... according to the best of my understanding

If I understand correctly (and from what I heard with my own two ears), the oscillating nature of the TWO
engines, is the thing that gives Reverberate it's special sound (and - presumably - the proximity to
"vintage" units. the illusive sound the "vintage" guys were unable to hear... )

Now, CORE does not contain "Dual convolution for richer more dynamic reverb" so, if I understand it
right - if I AM to buy simpler interface I compromise HEAVILY on sound (or so it seams...)

And this is not what I have meant, dear friend

What I have meant is SIMPLE INTERFACE (maybe ninth or tenth tab) that encapsulate the important COMMON
controls, in order to NOT be having to deal with TENS of parameters.

Presets are one one way of doing it. simple interface to tweak the IMPORTANT parameters - is the other.

This is a Bricasti

Do we HAVE to tweak so many parameters in order to get close as we can to it - with Reverberate ?

The controls are logically organised across eight pages; should designer Matthew Hill ever decide to add a ninth, it would perhaps be nice to have an additional Quick Edit page that duplicates the most important controls from each, but its omission is hardly crippling

I, too, think it is not crippling... but it will help IMMENSELY to smooth workflow.

Just my 0.02

Thanks !

[liquidsonics]

To Tp3

I think the main controls are available from the combination you get with the mixer tab (with associated topology) and file browser view combination open. At a very basic level you need to control gain, mix+mod, pan+mod, and the IR file selection to get the real benefits of Reverberate over other convolvers. Delays, choruses come with mainly usable defaults ready to flick in/out on the topology view (but need a detailed tab to make them useful) and I think that the EQ needs a detailed tab and associated visualisation to make it useful.

Which do you think are the most important controls that need duplication?

[Krakatau]

Just in case (i didn't read the entire topic, so apologise if ever redundant)

- Does it now load 24/96 IR files ?

[liquidsonics]

Does it now load 24/96 IR files ?

Yes, but is always has done.

[Tp3]

Which do you think are the most important controls that need duplication?

Well, maybe the mixer tab should omit the presets and the IR shape and add :
IR1/2 Overview
EQ1/2 overview
Channel Mixer
Topology

Am I wrong ?
Am I wrong in thinking that you can get away with as little tweaking as possible (when starting with an
IR from scratch - not with predefined preset)

[liquidsonics]

Well, maybe the mixer tab should omit the presets...

I don't see that this would be a major benefit because the file browser is so useful in this context and that would involve tabbing, which seems to be an issue as I gather you'd like a view where everything useful is right there in one view.

...and the IR shape and add :
IR1/2 Overview
EQ1/2 overview
Channel Mixer
Topology

Am I wrong ? Am I wrong in thinking that you can get away with as little tweaking as possible (when starting with an IR from scratch - not with predefined preset)

If you're using just IR files from scratch then if you start off with a freshly initialised preset, or at least one without any length/envelope/filters then I would say that a lot of the time envelopes, filters and lengths are not needed much at all really (a lot of IRs are already good enough to use 'out of the box'), so since the mixer and topology are already there, really is there that much else that is needed? Having EQ and IR on the same tab will mean that both visualisations cannot be displayed at the same time, and I feel like that feedback is very useful to have when making edits.

Of course you're not wrong, I just am not seeing the real benefit of this right now. Any other opinions from the crowd seeing it the same way?

Another point in the SOS review was to loose the subtabs on EQ which I feel like the consolidated EQ view really has helped with so I am not against duplication per se, just here I am not convinced I have a good enough idea of how to do it well just yet.

[chokehold]

This thread has gotten so long now... so please forgive me, if this was asked before: are there CUDA/GPU versions of Reverberate Core and Reverberate or are you planning to make them?

If not, I'll just stick to LE.

Also, have you thought about making an even simpler plugin than Reverberate LE CUDA? Just a simple convolver, a kind of "Voxengo Boogex for CUDA"?
I'm sure you could win a lot of friends and surely some bucks if you release a plugin that takes speaker cabinet simulations off the main CPU and put it on the GPU...

[liquidsonics]

This thread has gotten so long now... so please forgive me, if this was asked before: are there CUDA/GPU versions of Reverberate Core and Reverberate or are you planning to make them?

Short answer is no. I've been working with a few owners of expensive high power CUDA cards (one with a top of the line Quadro) in addition to lower spec ones to profile the performance of the CUDA convolver relative to the CPU convolver on lots of systems. In short, it seems the overhead involved with getting data on and off of the GPU is negating much of the benefit (convolution is faster, the load/retrieve generally is not at the same latency). The CUDA convolver only really becomes tenable at higher latencies by which time the CPU convolver is so efficient that it really doesn't make a strong case to be used.

The less computation you do (i.e. a cabinet convolution) the less of a case to use the GPU there is. Applications like Nebula will benefit as they do a lot more work than a standard convolution, but for now, with the current LiquidSonics GPU and CPU convolvers, the CPU one wins. Furthermore, a lot of people use zero latency mode and this just isn't practical on the GPU yet. I am keeping up to date with CUDA to make sure I am not missing out on any new techniques, but for now, I will only be maintaining the LE CUDA build for this reason.

It seems misleading to offer a commercial CUDA build of Reverberate Core when I do not actually find it is of particular benefit in many cases; as and when this situation changes I may reconsider. I probably could make a quick buck out of people who have not done so much testing and just assume the GPU will always be faster, but that's not the way I want LiquidSonics to be run. I keep the GPU code available as it is clearly quite popular, and who knows, maybe some people are getting benefit in some cases that I have not found myself. If anybody finds in like for like IR and layency tests that the GPU convolver uses significantly lower CPU (check out the usage in Windows Task Manager as opposed to any host CPU monitors) then let me know.

[jbraner]

Any other opinions from the crowd seeing it the same way?

I think if you're looking for an "easy" mode - to get up and running quickly, you just turn off all eq, mod and everything else - and load an IR. Now you're starting the same as any other convo plug

- maybe set up a "blank" preset to achieve this?
- or maybe a "reset all" button theat turns everything off.

With everything turned off, and a good IR loaded - it will sound fine, any other Reverbrate settings you engage with are a bonus.

[standalone]

This thread has gotten so long now... so please forgive me, if this was asked before: are there CUDA/GPU versions of Reverberate Core and Reverberate or are you planning to make them?

Short answer is no. I've been working with a few owners of expensive high power CUDA cards (one with a top of the line Quadro) in addition to lower spec ones to profile the performance of the CUDA convolver relative to the CPU convolver on lots of systems. In short, it seems the overhead involved with getting data on and off of the GPU is negating much of the benefit (convolution is faster, the load/retrieve generally is not at the same latency). The CUDA convolver only really becomes tenable at higher latencies by which time the CPU convolver is so efficient that it really doesn't make a strong case to be used.

The less computation you do (i.e. a cabinet convolution) the less of a case to use the GPU there is. Applications like Nebula will benefit as they do a lot more work than a standard convolution, but for now, with the current LiquidSonics GPU and CPU convolvers, the CPU one wins. Furthermore, a lot of people use zero latency mode and this just isn't practical on the GPU yet. I am keeping up to date with CUDA to make sure I am not missing out on any new techniques, but for now, I will only be maintaining the LE CUDA build for this reason.

It seems misleading to offer a commercial CUDA build of Reverberate Core when I do not actually find it is of particular benefit in many cases; as and when this situation changes I may reconsider. I probably could make a quick buck out of people who have not done so much testing and just assume the GPU will always be faster, but that's not the way I want LiquidSonics to be run. I keep the GPU code available as it is clearly quite popular, and who knows, maybe some people are getting benefit in some cases that I have not found myself. If anybody finds in like for like IR and layency tests that the GPU convolver uses significantly lower CPU (check out the usage in Windows Task Manager as opposed to any host CPU monitors) then let me know.

Yes, that's my experience with this. Reverberate is so efficient that the Cuda version is redundant.