Yay, I finally purchased AA Reverb!! :D

[nick at artsacoustic]

as you see, a second license wouldn't help at all. you already got it, so to say.

Ähm, Nick, you do know that I knew? That's the very and only reason why I dropped my

no, i did not know, but that's very likely the speech barrier, as i'm not a native english speaker and my english is rather weak.

(of course, somewhere deep in my mind I hoped I could provoke you to let the cat, or some kiddies, out of the bag. But I know that you were aware.. )

well, i can give you thatmuch:
it's not a reverb.

[nick at artsacoustic]

You haven't tried it before, L?

The gui is kinda like Waves TV which is what I use (as you know).. Thats where the simularities end! Did you try this in the upsample scheme?

L

?? could you enlight me please, maybe with a screenshot?
i never knew a plugin from waves that:
a. looks like our plugin
b. is called waves tv, and i thought i know all waves plugins.
i never took any plugin as a base gui for creating our gui.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i assume waves tv = trueverb? I don't see the resemblence myself....

[LiteOn]

Hallöle,

.... and my english is rather weak.

besides your product I like your understatement quite as much, which btw is a behaviour typical of Germans.

well, i can give you thatmuch:
it's not a reverb.

No worries, I'll keep waiting..


As for the GUI: I think, that's a really great one. Form follows function, period. It's obvious, a lot of careful thinking went into. Most preferable, it does not try to mimick any real or virtual rack-mount gem. The major stuff is there on one page awaiting fast access, the parameters are grouped well into the right logical sections. But what I like the most (and where the manual is not lying...): Any move of every slider/knob results in audible changes, no voodoo stuff in there. I just enjoyed another lesson on the importance of the density slider...

Have I already stated that it sounds marvelous? And the machine load taken for that I still consider a wonder!
But for me discovering the power of AAR was a long and challenging road. I remember well, after the announcement over here on KVR I went straight to www.artsacoustic.de and had a listen to the demos. I've bought it right away. But what had I to notice after putting it on my tracks going through the presets? Well, it sounded ok - but some distance away from what I was expecting from the demos. Soon, I got a bit discouraged (sometimes I'm this type of guy when there's no obvious instant return). Once in a while I returned to it because there was this permanent praise going on (on other forums as well).
To cut the longest story short: in the end, it was Brok Landers opening my ears in the "reverb shootout" thread. I heard an phantastic long reverb on a piano (?) sequence and was stunned. Me (and a bunch of others) where puzzling for quite some days. I'd never had figured out that it was the AAR. I'm still grateful to Brok for this experience, as I learned that a reverb some kind of "resonates" to its input. Yep, and AAR really outperforms in this realm because it offers a huge wide spectrum of usage.

No, I'm not affiliated with AA - but I like good products.


cheers,
LiteOn

[timo at artsacoustic]

Well, yes; I wound up doing upsampled stem mixes for about half of my album, but I dropped it because some of the mixes were too fragile to reconstruct as stems, and really, the difference was too subtle to notice. Considering you can use 64-bit processing already with AAR, I don't think you'll notice much difference at 96khz.

Or rather, I think the whole upsampling thing can be lost at the "prosumer" level, with less-than-perfect tracking, gear and monitoring.

Just a short note on that: as also mentioned in the manual, the AAR internaly performs constantly at 44.1kHz (High Quality Mode) or 22.05kHz (Low Quality Mode), no matter what samplerate you feed it. So, if you hear a difference between 44/96kHz, you'll hear just the internal samplerate conversion...

We implemented this because we found reverb benefits least from high sample rates in terms of sonic qualitiy, but takes most of CPU power. So, with this, you can work in 192kHz and save your power for more samplerate-sensitive tasks, like EQing - AAR will always consume same CPU power.

As computers gone faster and faster, we'd maybe will think to change this in a future update.

And guys, thanks again for all the warm comments! You really make me
All the best and enjoy!

[bduffy]

Well, yes; I wound up doing upsampled stem mixes for about half of my album, but I dropped it because some of the mixes were too fragile to reconstruct as stems, and really, the difference was too subtle to notice. Considering you can use 64-bit processing already with AAR, I don't think you'll notice much difference at 96khz.

Or rather, I think the whole upsampling thing can be lost at the "prosumer" level, with less-than-perfect tracking, gear and monitoring.

Just a short note on that: as also mentioned in the manual, the AAR internaly performs constantly at 44.1kHz (High Quality Mode) or 22.05kHz (Low Quality Mode), no matter what samplerate you feed it. So, if you hear a difference between 44/96kHz, you'll hear just the internal samplerate conversion...

We implemented this because we found reverb benefits least from high sample rates in terms of sonic qualitiy, but takes most of CPU power. So, with this, you can work in 192kHz and save your power for more samplerate-sensitive tasks, like EQing - AAR will always consume same CPU power.

As computers gone faster and faster, we'd maybe will think to change this in a future update.

And guys, thanks again for all the warm comments! You really make me
All the best and enjoy!

Right! Of course, I think I heard that before. I know Kingston pointed out before, in our oversampling tests, that reverb benefits little, if at all, from higher sample rates; distortion being the winner, IIRC.

[Lagrange]

Sorry guys, did not read that dist was the soul benefactor of upsampling..

L

[bduffy]

Sorry guys, did not read that dist was the soul benefactor of upsampling..

L

It's not the sole benefactor, but it's where you'll hear the most difference. I good EQ should sound smoother at higher sample rates, but in my rather dense mixes, I didn't really hear it. I'm sure there are much better ways to test it than I did.