R66 Reverb

[brok landers]

Well I don't want to start an argument cause it's pointless but Impulse Reverbs are a "work around" not a "solution" to reverb quest on PC's.

Given the choice between the two I am sure everybody would choose the real thing not the "snap shot taker".

What a perversely twisted statement that is.

The real thing comes from recording a sound in a real environment, not from using a piece of hardware or a plugin. Guess what? The convolution processors actually make use of recordings taken in real spaces (if you want them to.)

What you are calling the "real thing", is simply an engineer's attempt to synthesize his concept of the real thing. It's not even something taken directly from a real space. That said, you might well prefer the non-convolution reverb, but I certainly wouldn't think of calling it the "real thing."

take care,
McLilith

well, thisone is also somehow perverted, sorry.
they are both synthesized.
both techniques use their own algorithms.
the algorithmic reverbs are made of the simulation of natural behaviours. it strongly depends on how the coder is knowledged about physics, accoustic phenomenons and math to set it up.
the convo dev`s have to know about how to "interpret" the ir`s, easy said. doesn`t really matter if they know about physics and how a real room is buildt.
nevertheless, all native convolution reverbs have to use heavily applied reduction maths in their code, to actually make it work on an up to date pc, as "real convolution" would by far exeed the available power of todays cpu`s. that causes a big data loss, and allways lacks of quality.
imo a good algorithmic reverb has by far more advantages vs. a convolution reverb.
that has several reasons:
i nature there is allmost _no_ static room behaviours. in nature mostly all of the relevant facts change constantly, such as temperature, air pressure, moving of objects, etc.
so a reverb sounds natural _if_ the reverb modulates.
it only depends, how it does.
this behaviour simply cannot be done with convolution. only theoretically, but that would cause even more cpu power, than an ordinary "real convolution process", described above.
also there is absolutely no way of doing real stereo behaviour with a 2 channel convolutin reverb.
you at least need 2 stereo or 4 mono ir`s that are, of course, recorded in relation one to another.
this doubles the handling, the cpu and the ram usage.
saying this, i have to admit, that some ir´s are quite good. but that`s "blending" imo, as the production has to be adjusted to the reverb, not the reverb to the production, and imo this would be more useful.
etc,etc,etc ...

[Broken]

[kilroy]

I don't see why everyone is so excited about this reverb. Anyone that has ever owned or mixed with good hardware reverbs would't even piss on this P.O.S

FFS 300$ I'd feel ripped off if I downloaded the crack

[Left Headphone]

I don't see why everyone is so excited about this reverb. Anyone that has ever owned or mixed with good hardware reverbs would't even piss on this P.O.S

FFS 300$ I'd feel ripped off if I downloaded the crack

[McLilith]

Well I don't want to start an argument cause it's pointless but Impulse Reverbs are a "work around" not a "solution" to reverb quest on PC's.

Given the choice between the two I am sure everybody would choose the real thing not the "snap shot taker".

What a perversely twisted statement that is.

The real thing comes from recording a sound in a real environment, not from using a piece of hardware or a plugin. Guess what? The convolution processors actually make use of recordings taken in real spaces (if you want them to.)

What you are calling the "real thing", is simply an engineer's attempt to synthesize his concept of the real thing. It's not even something taken directly from a real space. That said, you might well prefer the non-convolution reverb, but I certainly wouldn't think of calling it the "real thing."

take care,
McLilith

well, thisone is also somehow perverted, sorry.
they are both synthesized.
both techniques use their own algorithms.

Read my post above again. I never said that either technique was "the real thing." I wanted to point out that the only "real thing" was the reflections of a real sound in a real room, and that since convolution reverbs actually rely on a recording of a real room, they are in a sense, one step closer to "the real thing" than the other style of reverb.

i nature there is allmost _no_ static room behaviours. in nature mostly all of the relevant facts change constantly, such as temperature, air pressure, moving of objects, etc.
so a reverb sounds natural _if_ the reverb modulates.

I really don't think you understand the physics of this subject.

First, you used the phrase "in nature", but I don't think you meant outdoors, in a natural environment untouched by human hands. I'm assuming that you meant indoors, and were referring to the reverb typical of such enclosed spaces.

In such an environment, neither the air pressure, temperature, or the humidity are apt to be periodically modulated in any fashion which results in humanly noticeable modulation of the sounds in that room. Also, most rooms are not being constantly and perceptably modulated in size, and their acoustic absorption properties aren't being perceptably modulated either.

The sound source might well be moving, and the human listener might be moving as well, but the room itself, is for all practical purposes, static. If we restrict the sound source to a stationary object, and restrict the listener a stationary position, there should be no humanly perceptible modulation of the room acoustics.

Modulation is a "handy trick" employed in reverbs like Lexicons (and many others) to overcome what would otherwise be notecable shortcomings in their approach to simulating the acoustics of a real room. Modulation is not some sort of mandatory prerequisite for a reverb which sounds like an actual room. It's only considered a prerequisite for a reverb effect which is intended to sound exactly like your favorite Lexicon.


take care,
McLilith

[D-S-P]

I don't see why everyone is so excited about this reverb. Anyone that has ever owned or mixed with good hardware reverbs would't even piss on this P.O.S

wow, great stuff - very professional.. not quite what I expected when I signed up. btw, having used good hardware reverbs (sw in a box - duh)I find the sound of this soft rev surprisingly good - maybe they should have put in a nice shiny box.. whatever; keep good aim! don't piss your ears

[defjamm]

i nature there is allmost _no_ static room behaviours. in nature mostly all of the relevant facts change constantly, such as temperature, air pressure, moving of objects, etc.
so a reverb sounds natural _if_ the reverb modulates.
it only depends, how it does.

that's bullshit. lexikon doesn't sound natural, as many other different algo-reverbs which sound good but NOT natural.
and your relevant facts are not relevant for reverb at all. it has a reason, why some opera sounds the way it sounds, there are room-treatments for a reason. a room is 'almost' static in it's sound(for humans), you won't hear an influence in your relevant facts that change the sound(air pressure, temperature). but the players and instruments in a real room are not static, because they move, they are alive. you can't compare real players who move in a room with an already recorded sample put in an ir-reverb. the problem is not the reverb but the sample vs 'real player with a real instrument movin-thing'. irs are great for replication of real rooms, you should read more about it.

[starblue]

This sounds awesome, especially for vocals. I don't think it has the sense of density, space and color I'm looking for at this point for my own orchestral music needs (others may like it for theirs, personal preference). But needless to say this is on my wishlist. For now I'm sticking to my Samplitude Roomsim, Powercore/UAD reverbs.

[steffensen]

KVR amazes me as usual. people praised GlaceVerb and seem to diss R66. that says it all for me.

personally, i think R66 is probly the best softverb out there atm.
its not fair to just call it a verb actually, its so much more than that.
i can agree that its not that great on room's tho. i wish Princeton 2016 would work for me, coz thats the best thing for rooms and things like that, hands down.

[brok landers]

i nature there is allmost _no_ static room behaviours. in nature mostly all of the relevant facts change constantly, such as temperature, air pressure, moving of objects, etc.
so a reverb sounds natural _if_ the reverb modulates.
it only depends, how it does.

that's bullshit. lexikon doesn't sound natural, as many other different algo-reverbs which sound good but NOT natural.

first, i was not talking about lexicon ??
and in general, i only stated, that both ways use their algorithms, so they are both synthesized, and not the "real thing".

and your relevant facts are not relevant for reverb at all. it has a reason, why some opera sounds the way it sounds, there are room-treatments for a reason. a room is 'almost' static in it's sound(for humans), you won't hear an influence in your relevant facts that change the sound(air pressure, temperature). but the players and instruments in a real room are not static, because they move, they are alive. you can't compare real players who move in a room with an already recorded sample put in an ir-reverb. the problem is not the reverb but the sample vs 'real player with a real instrument movin-thing'. irs are great for replication of real rooms, you should read more about it.

you denie what i say, but then say it yourself.
it doesn`t matter _what_ moves in a room, could also be an orchestra actually moving while playing.
ever realized that a good acoustic optimized orhestra hall is optimized the way, that it sounds good when people are actually in it ? thats not_only_ because of more absoption.
fact is, that all minimal moving influences i described_can_, not must, influence the sound of a reverb in nature. it simply destroys resonances. thats all i stated about a , in human ears, natural sounding reverb.
if there was no such thing, reverbs in nature would all sound like crap. why do we all search after a _good_ sounding reverb ? and i for my self made the experiance, the more mathematical correct (no modulation what so ever) a reverb is, the more unpleasant it sounds. of course it depends on the sound you put in.
thats why we all love outer space reverbs, as the wind moves the trees in a wood, etc.
and thats why many developers try to do that instinctivly from a knowledged point on. because the human ear is the indicator in nature, so it is when it comes to a reverb that sounds natural to our ear. in fact, what we humans describe as a natural feeling is what wh "like" most. you wouldn`t buy a reverb that has metallic resonances, where the reverb is not doing it`s magic to the sound.
however, lets end this, as reverb is a matter of taste way beyound other fx.
oh, and.
i don`t like the r66, even if it is modulating.

and all i said was no offend at all, of course.


reg,

[defjamm]

@brok landers: read what mclilith wrote, he explains it better than me. an ir(given you use good ad and the right recording-setup) will sound EXACTLY like the recorded room for humans. the problem is we're not in a real room movin and playing the instruments. what people call static with irs has nothing to do with the sound of the ir. it's the 'real thing' for real rooms.
a real room is 'almost' static in its reverb but the 'soundgenerators' aren't.

[D-S-P]

taste is not a point of discussion. measurable responses of simulated natural processes are. also human responses as described in books like "spatial hearing" by jens blauert. so without trying to start or feed arguments I have yet to hear any verb that maintains resolution and pitch in endless decay the way R66 does - I am impressed.

[McLilith]

...thats why we all love outer space reverbs...

That inspires a tagline for a KVR movie, in the Si-Fi Thriller genre:

"Remember--in outer space, no one can hear your reverb."


McLilith

[Barf]

I think most VST reverbs are way too overpriced, they dont have to make the same cost as hardwaremanufacturers, they dont have to build a box, invest in workers who build the things etc all the softverbproducers only have to copy a file. The only costs they have is in developing and marketing.

[plastic]

I think most VST reverbs are way too overpriced, they dont have to make the same cost as hardwaremanufacturers, they dont have to build a box, invest in workers who build the things etc all the softverbproducers only have to copy a file. The only costs they have is in developing and marketing.

i don't see many vst developers with fat cars and big houses.
to some degree, if they sell it cheaper they wont really sell more. software devs aren't stupid, they are certainly thinking about that before deciding on a price.