reverb lovers, your search might be over ...

[nick at artsacoustic]

You guys forgot reverb impulse processor.

Heard about SIR ?

Another great Room Simulator (warm, non electric, great sound) : Princeton Digital Reverb 2016.

as for the convolution (impulse processors) reverbs: please read the first post of this thread. and yes, the princeton reverb is algorithmic.
anyway, you cannot compare the ArtsAcoustic Reverb to the princeton reverb. there are too many differences (tweakability/flexibility, ease of use, etc.)and the ArtsAcoustic Reverb was designed in a manner to work in nearly all kind of musical requirements and yet still beeing dead easy to use.
btw, it might be of interrest, that we have 7 different room models buildt in, wich works on virtually every material you might have in your productions.IOO there are not many good reverbs out there that offer that flexibility at a that high quality.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[greendoor]

There are plenty of efficient verbs out there that sound like kack. I don't care if it use 50% CPU, as long as it sounds GOOD.

[brok landers]

well, let`s see how users will like it when they got the chance to play around with the demo. it will be out soon. at least i hope that, as i can hardly wait ... but the mp3 demo´s speak it`s own language i think ...

[Funkybot]

Hey let's face it, I want a high quality CPU efficient reverb just as much as the next guy, but right now I think Princeton Digital's is the closest to that for me (based on the demo I've tried). But, and this is a big but, I've used SIR in songs on several occasions, and do not mind a big CPU hit on a quality reverb. If I had the choice between a reverb using 3% on my Athlon XP 3000+ or even 12%, but with the latter meaning that the reverb would sound considerably better. I'd want the 12% hit (I wouldn't even mind a 20% reverb, if it meant hardware quality). Reverb is just one of those things. I hope that more developers consider this when designing reverb algos. Now would I want an EQ or compressor to use this much CPU? Certainly not. The difference is that EQs and compressors get used on several tracks in a mix, whereas most people are only using one or two reverbs per song. Reverb can spare, and needs the additional CPU hit. Anyway, there's a lot more choices now in reverbs, and I'm pretty sure we're not far away from "the one" (and by this I mean, the one that sounds like a good hardware verb).

I still haven't bought Princeton Digital's verb yet, and I'll wait a few months before I plunk down on any expensive verb, but I'm waiting...This may be it, R66 may be it, the 2016 may be it, or maybe even IK's upcoming verb (not to mention the options that have been around longer). I'm sure there's a few people in the same boat as me.

[tee boy]

Im constantly dissappointed with VST reverbs. I have loads of them now and as yet Iv not found what Im looking for. Renverb can do a good range of sounds, and sometimes they work but other times they sound pretty shite! Princeton has the quality but lacks the versatility. The convo-verbs sound top but ofcourse that all rests on you having the right ir's.

So I have to admit, i'm suffering major reverb frustration. Lets hope this latest offering can change that!

[Zacchino]

>that all rests on you having the right ir's

Here's the solution : www.noisevault.com

[Stupid American Pig]

actually the amd fx-55 runs at 2.6ghz...

[stefancrs]

actually the amd fx-55 runs at 2.6ghz...

My bad, looked at old chart. Sorry.

nick at artsacoustic: Did you really use an AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6GHz Socket 939? Overclocked to 3GHz? That one costs like 1000USD and is faster than an AMD Athlon64 4000+.

Somehow I still doubt that they did that and used such a machine to perfomance test their reverb. Would not be the best platform for optimising something

[nick at artsacoustic]

actually the amd fx-55 runs at 2.6ghz...

My bad, looked at old chart. Sorry.

nick at artsacoustic: Did you really use an AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6GHz Socket 939? Overclocked to 3GHz? That one costs like 1000USD and is faster than an AMD Athlon64 4000+.

Somehow I still doubt that they did that and used such a machine to perfomance test their reverb. Would not be the best platform for optimising something

i diddn`t say that. i said athlon xp thunderbird 2,6 ghz overclocked to 3 ghz.
it`s still an ordinary 32 bit processor which runs on a normal barton socket.
checked it with sandra twice before posting. of course, if it would have been a 64 bit 3ghz, the cpu hit would be inacceptable high.
don`t really wanna know how the cpu hit is on a 64 bit processor ...

[nick at artsacoustic]

Im constantly dissappointed with VST reverbs. I have loads of them now and as yet Iv not found what Im looking for. Renverb can do a good range of sounds, and sometimes they work but other times they sound pretty shite! Princeton has the quality but lacks the versatility. The convo-verbs sound top but ofcourse that all rests on you having the right ir's.

So I have to admit, i'm suffering major reverb frustration. Lets hope this latest offering can change that!

well, like i said in the starting post of that thread, a convolution reverb can sound good. but they _all_ lack of the possibility to adjust it to your mix, wich is IOO _very_ needed. what good is the best convolution reverb tail, if it doesn`t fit in your mix and you`re not able to work on the er´s, density, roomcharacteristics, diffusion, etc. to make it fit? i so often thought "wow, this IR is it ... "
but then, when it comes to professinal mixdown/mastering i allways used my hardware reverb again, because of the nontweakability, the"non-true-stereo processing", (it requires 2 stereo ir`s or 4 mono ones to be true stereo processed), and there are a lot more reasons.
i.e., the loop demo that i posted in the first thread, where the loop moves around in the room.
try to do that with a convolution reverb.
it simply is not possible with a normal stereo convoluter.
so, if you do it with 2 stereo impulses, the cpu hit gets inacceptable high, especially with longer tails.
also, most convolution reverbs don`t use "real convolution" as it would by far explode every cpu on the market. they all use reduction algorithms to make a convolution reverb actually useful on an up to date cpu. this lacks of sonic quality, too.
the ArtsAcoustic Reverb gives you true possibilities on a highest quality level.
a note on cpu usage:
if some of you still use hardware (wich is a good thing, of course) thats cool.
but there are a lot pro users, who entirely produce in realtime only native. as this is how the future develops (don´t want to count off the reasons for that fact, they`re endless), there is a need for cpu usage reduction as heavy as possible, without the lack of quality.
of course the ArtsAcoustic Reverb cannot sound like a L960, but how many users do you know that own/can afford one? and, how often can you use it simultanesly? and, yes, there are so many situations where you need more than just 2 hi quality reverbs in a mix, strongly depending on what production you do.
the ArtsAcoustic Reverb considers to this development.
as computers get faster by the time, ArtsAcoustic has "bags full" of tweakments that simply use way too much cpu_for now_.
ArtsAcoustic`s philosophy is to give the user something that he actually can use, under attention of highest possible quality. IOO there are allready too much plugs out that cannot be used in a fast and effective way. bounce to track or even just the need of freezing is inacceptable for us, as it heavily slowes down the workflow.
when we say full control at every stage of the workflow, we mean it.

[stefancrs]

actually the amd fx-55 runs at 2.6ghz...

My bad, looked at old chart. Sorry.

nick at artsacoustic: Did you really use an AMD Athlon 64 FX-55 2.6GHz Socket 939? Overclocked to 3GHz? That one costs like 1000USD and is faster than an AMD Athlon64 4000+.

Somehow I still doubt that they did that and used such a machine to perfomance test their reverb. Would not be the best platform for optimising something

i diddn`t say that. i said athlon xp thunderbird 2,6 ghz overclocked to 3 ghz.
it`s still an ordinary 32 bit processor which runs on a normal barton socket.
checked it with sandra twice before posting. of course, if it would have been a 64 bit 3ghz, the cpu hit would be inacceptable high.
don`t really wanna know how the cpu hit is on a 64 bit processor ...

Again, there are no 2.6GHz 32bit AMD's. The fastest non-64bit AMD you can buy runs at 2.2GHz as far as I can tell (the AMD AthlonXP3200+ that is, if you still can find those on the market). The only AMD running at 2.6GHz is the most expensive 64bit cpu they do manufacture. All I'm saying is that you probably don't mean that your cpu is running at 3GHz. More likely at 2166 MHz, like my own AMD AthlonXP3000+.

[whyterabbyt]

stefancrs: its quite obvious he's talking about an Athlon XP2600, overclocked and running as an XP3000; . He wouldnt be the first person to confuse AMD's 'speed rating' with an actual clockspeed...

[kurasu]

but probably the first to call FFT/IFFT a reduction algorithm..

[steffensen]

Princeton 2016 is teh win!
damn i luve that little verb. its spot on what i've always wanted in a verb. easy to use, sounds MARVELOUS etc.
too bad i cant use it tho.
just by installing it, my system goes wack!
and if i open it up in logic..whoo...i can be sure to get bluescreens. but logic or not, my system is still f**ked, many programs wont even start etc. all is fine if i uninstall 2016 tho heh..

well, life is a bitch, then u die.