ValhallaVintageVerb 1.7.1. Two new reverb modes (Chaotic Hall, Chaotic Chamber)

[valhallasound]

I'm sure there will be a time where some VST and VSTi plugins (or any other format) will be considered "vintage" classics. People will scourge long forgotten old computer equipment and operating systems just to be able to run these. Mark my word! It WILL happen.

It has already happened to a small extent with OS9. There were a lot of amazing programs generated in the academic and semi academic scenes, that didn't make the transition to OS 10. Supercollider 2, Cloud Generator, Turbosynth, and so on.

At some point, I want to make a trip down memory lane to my own late 1990s computer music work, and see what could be useful in plugin form. I was always interested in older hardware, analog and digital, so some of the stuff I was doing in Csound ended up being used in my plugins (like FreqEcho and ÜberMod). Some of the other techniques I used have deeper roots in academic computer music. Phase vocoder, granulation with a massive number of randomized grains, that sort of thing. It would be fun to explore that stuff again. The trick is to make it easy to use and tweak. Seriously, no user should be forced to choose between a Blackman-Harris window and a Hanning window.

Sean Costello

[valhallasound]

Flagolet guitar (Alchemy, processed with Twin Tube and some compression) improv linked to a soft synth pad (Diversion) in the background meets VVV (Sanctuary) and Shimmer (octave droner), Shimmer was also sent into the same instance of VVV. So if you're into orgasming about superlush reverb tails, like myself - check it out:

http://soundcloud.com/sampleconstruct/f ... erland-and

Dear Lord, that is gorgeous. Believe it or not, I have a thing about super lush reverb tails as well.

I can hear the distinctive artifact in your example where Sanctuary has a large Size setting. There is an echo pattern there, that I was going to tweak out of existence, until Simon's examples made it sound GOOD. It adds some chunky character to the decay - almost like a multi-head tape echo.

At short settings, Sanctuary has a very smooth decay, as the modulation swamps out any perception of the repeat pattern. For large settings, it reminds me of the echo used in "Maggot Brain."

Sean Costelo

[Sampleconstruct]

Flagolet guitar (Alchemy, processed with Twin Tube and some compression) improv linked to a soft synth pad (Diversion) in the background meets VVV (Sanctuary) and Shimmer (octave droner), Shimmer was also sent into the same instance of VVV. So if you're into orgasming about superlush reverb tails, like myself - check it out:

http://soundcloud.com/sampleconstruct/f ... erland-and

Dear Lord, that is gorgeous. Believe it or not, I have a thing about super lush reverb tails as well.

I can hear the distinctive artifact in your example where Sanctuary has a large Size setting. There is an echo pattern there, that I was going to tweak out of existence, until Simon's examples made it sound GOOD. It adds some chunky character to the decay - almost like a multi-head tape echo.

At short settings, Sanctuary has a very smooth decay, as the modulation swamps out any perception of the repeat pattern. For large settings, it reminds me of the echo used in "Maggot Brain."

Sean Costelo

Thank's Sean - I'm really glad you left that pattern-like behaviour in Sanctuary, it's very special and hypnotic and I'm using that sound a lot these days.

[Tp3]

Flagolet guitar (Alchemy, processed with Twin Tube and some compression) improv linked to a soft synth pad (Diversion) in the background meets VVV (Sanctuary) and Shimmer (octave droner), Shimmer was also sent into the same instance of VVV. So if you're into orgasming about superlush reverb tails, like myself - check it out:

http://soundcloud.com/sampleconstruct/f ... erland-and

Dear Lord, that is gorgeous.

Why won't you kids join forces as ValhallaConstructions ?

[bmanic]

I understand Bmanic your point but the analogue scene is very thriving. The kids at some point will seek something else than the cold digital lifeless plug-in world it seems. Just to be different and not to sound like everybody else. Lot of analogue boutique hw makers are thriving and lots of companies (even Arturia and such) are producing hardware analogue synths. I don't see the future as bleak as you, I think the analogue will keep it's charm and even grow in the future.

You look at it as bleak. I just look at it as different.

The words "cold" or "lifeless" are subjective words and have nothing to do with reality. A person who chooses a certain sound over another does it due to a preference, not due to one being "better" than the other in a technical way.

.. actually, I take that back, sort of. There are most likely something in our hearing and how the brain works which can perhaps in the future be quantified as a "technical preference". So perhaps we really inherently dislike some artifacts that are caused by digital systems? I don't know. Or perhaps it is all down to what is trendy and considered cool by the majority?

There was a certain novelty when the first analogue emulations started happening in the digital domain. A lot were advertised in a way that led the users to believe that the tools had created the hits of the past. Of course this isn't and wasn't true at all.

Take the SSL mixing consoles for example. These were the "behringer" mixing tables at one point in time. They were way cheaper to purchase than the Neve / API / Harrison etc equivalents. Thus they became very popular which in turn led to countless hit songs being mixed on then. This in turn led a new generation of people to believe that "the SSL sound" was somehow responsible for these hits.

I see the same phenomenon in the plugin world. Just look at the supersaw from the Roland JP 8000 synth. People absolutely had to have this sound due to a few early dance hits using it.

So the question is: Do we really LIKE the sound or the prospect of perhaps writing a hit song? Do we really like the sound or do we like what the sound is associated with?

The same thing goes for the discovery Sean made with the Dark algorithms of ValhallaRoom (I confess: I actually use those + sulaco and narcissus the most.. I very rarely use the other modes, especially when the incoming source signal is a synthetic sound). I'm pretty sure we have been programmed to put 1+1 together. Synth sound -> 80's reverb with all those limitations = "the correct" sound.

In reality, perhaps it's not really this simple. I find it easier to mix with the dark algorithm, sulaco and narcissus. But is this because of the way I hear the mix being affected by the music of my childhood and early 20's? Does it really mean that one is easier to mix than another? I don't know. These are intriguing questions and the main reason why I think music production and engineering is 20% technology and 80% psychology.

.. and a good song will always remain a good song no matter how badly it was produced. A great mix and great sounds will definitely help to sell a song but it's hardly the main factor. Again I'm pretty certain the main factor is psychological. A great mix gives the listener confidence and the illusion of "expensive", something we all desire. Thus the listener will be more likely to actually listen to the song with his undivided attention.

I catch myself doing exactly this so many times. A badly mixed song will sometimes make me stop listening to the song immediately, before even giving it a chance. Same with a cheap movie production. Luckily I sometimes catch myself doing this and give the song/movie a chance and more often than not I'm positively surprised!

Cheers!
bManic

[Tp3]

These are intriguing questions and the main reason why I think music production and engineering is 20% technology and 80% psychology.

... Again I'm pretty certain the main factor is psychological

You can absolutely be certain.

This is covered in countless researches, all originating from the pioneer work of Daniel Kahneman (along with his colleague, Amos Tversky). it's called "Cognitive Bias"

[cron]

I understand Bmanic your point but the analogue scene is very thriving. The kids at some point will seek something else than the cold digital lifeless plug-in world it seems. Just to be different and not to sound like everybody else. Lot of analogue boutique hw makers are thriving and lots of companies (even Arturia and such) are producing hardware analogue synths. I don't see the future as bleak as you, I think the analogue will keep it's charm and even grow in the future.

Analogue is indeed thriving. Most of the scene kids I know are saving up for hardware these days. Plug-ins don't seem very fashionable among young musicians at the moment.

[valhallasound]

I understand Bmanic your point but the analogue scene is very thriving. The kids at some point will seek something else than the cold digital lifeless plug-in world it seems. Just to be different and not to sound like everybody else. Lot of analogue boutique hw makers are thriving and lots of companies (even Arturia and such) are producing hardware analogue synths. I don't see the future as bleak as you, I think the analogue will keep it's charm and even grow in the future.

Analogue is indeed thriving. Most of the scene kids I know are saving up for hardware these days. Plug-ins don't seem very fashionable among young musicians at the moment.

I have no idea of the age of people that buy my stuff. What sort of hardware is popular with "the kids" nowadays? Standalone analogs? Eurocrack? Rackmount stuff? Pedals?

I probably need to head to the sleepy hipster city a few hours south of here (i.e. Portland) and see what is going on there. Lots of interesting hardware from that part of the world.

Sean Costello

[valhallasound]

The same thing goes for the discovery Sean made with the Dark algorithms of ValhallaRoom (I confess: I actually use those + sulaco and narcissus the most.. I very rarely use the other modes, especially when the incoming source signal is a synthetic sound). I'm pretty sure we have been programmed to put 1+1 together. Synth sound -> 80's reverb with all those limitations = "the correct" sound.

In reality, perhaps it's not really this simple. I find it easier to mix with the dark algorithm, sulaco and narcissus. But is this because of the way I hear the mix being affected by the music of my childhood and early 20's? Does it really mean that one is easier to mix than another? I don't know. These are intriguing questions and the main reason why I think music production and engineering is 20% technology and 80% psychology.

EXACTLY. My interest in digital reverb stems from Blade Runner, Cosmos, and Warp Records. I like reverbs that sound like that - for synthesizers and other ambient/electronic-ish music. In other forms of music, I prefer real plate or spring reverbs with no modulation, or just some room mikes slammed to tape. Or no reverb. I use Nick Drake's "Pink Moon" as one of my reverb test files, and it is in no way improved by adding reverb to it. Same with the "Sound of Silver" era LCD Soundsystem I have used in reverb tests.

Still, give me an old Moog or Roland, and I'm gonna want a modulated reverb to go with it. The EMT250 and Lexicon 224 were definitely the "progenitors" of this sound, and were all over the music I heard at a certain age. It is impossible to determine if my love of this sound is due to any intrinsic qualities, so much as pressing the right memory buttons for me.

The reverbs used in early 80s space music and mid 90s ambient electronic music are associated for me with a form of futurism - at the time. Nowadays, they trigger a weird "futurism nostalgia." The tape echo and string synths in late 90s Air are definitely evocative of spacey 1970s pop, but these sounds also evoke the hopefulness and positive view of the future I associate with the late 1990s, before the brutal 2000s came crashing in. Nostalgia for a future that didn't come to pass.

This same "futurism nostalgia" drives my GUI design. Back in the 1970s, the future was sans serif. I am influenced by Müller-Brockmann, but I had no idea of his name until a few years ago. The minimalist graphic design was associated with science books I read as a kid, Sesame Street, that sort of thing. This in no way means that the minimalist 2D stuff is the best or most "efficient" style for the future (although it is a trend that is currently popular in graphic design). The 2D sans serif stuff is how the future looks in MY head, and in the head of that kid I once was.

Sean Costello

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

This same "futurism nostalgia" drives my GUI design. Back in the 1970s, the future was sans serif. I am influenced by Müller-Brockmann, but I had no idea of his name until a few years ago...

Might the next Valhalla plugin look like a bit like this...

http://karlakracht.com/blog/wp-content/ ... _big01.jpg

[cron]

I understand Bmanic your point but the analogue scene is very thriving. The kids at some point will seek something else than the cold digital lifeless plug-in world it seems. Just to be different and not to sound like everybody else. Lot of analogue boutique hw makers are thriving and lots of companies (even Arturia and such) are producing hardware analogue synths. I don't see the future as bleak as you, I think the analogue will keep it's charm and even grow in the future.

Analogue is indeed thriving. Most of the scene kids I know are saving up for hardware these days. Plug-ins don't seem very fashionable among young musicians at the moment.

I have no idea of the age of people that buy my stuff. What sort of hardware is popular with "the kids" nowadays? Standalone analogs? Eurocrack? Rackmount stuff? Pedals?

I probably need to head to the sleepy hipster city a few hours south of here (i.e. Portland) and see what is going on there. Lots of interesting hardware from that part of the world.

Sean Costello

I should have said hardware rather than analogue really, as that just applies to synths. Most of the conversations I've had seem to revolve around drum machines, although that might be because it's mostly techno kids I've talked with. I guess they love the idea of a old-school "Detroit" workflow or somesuch. Had a night out with a load of them and they seemed truly confused that I didn't own any hardware.

[antithesist]

(Sorry for offtopic post Sean!)

@antithesis: May I ask what the "weiss like" settings for iZotope SRC are?

Of course, Alexey Lukin at izotope gave me these settings for the licensed re-sampler in Audiofile Engineering's Wave Editor: "steepness = 38, cutoff scaling = 1, pre-ringing = 1" as being like Saracon. That said, this was a few years back and while it still applies to even the latest version of WE, I don't know if they translate to AE's Triumph or any other applications. Interestingly, the only difference between these settings and the default is steepness set to 32. Honestly, I couldn't hear a difference.

[Krakatau]

I'm still not sure why these lo-fi techniques would work well in a reverb. My theory is that the physical world isn't that hi-fi in the first place. A reflection off of a wall is a far different thing than a digital repeat of a signal. Real reflections are far more diffuse, and don't have a lot of high frequencies due to air absorption and the material of the reflection surface. Plus, look at the complexity of the room you are currently sitting. EVERY ONE of those little surfaces will create its own complex reflections and absorptions. Maybe the digital "cruft" of the old hardware did a good job of simulating the complexity of the real world. Maybe the lower sampling rate more accurately reflections high frequency loss of real room. Or maybe the digital cruft helped to conceal the flaws in the older reverb algorithms. Whatever the reason, there is some interesting stuff to explore in that old hardware.

Sean Costello

Around the topic, what you're pointing at seems to reflect what is the few left of echolocation capabilities in human brain ?
i'm amazed imagining how bats might create a sustained imaged representation of their environment with a succession of ultrasound that would works in their mind like a succession of flashlights would work for a human being as far as it can be compared

in summary, we humans can be rather silly creature...

[valhallasound]

I'm still not sure why these lo-fi techniques would work well in a reverb. My theory is that the physical world isn't that hi-fi in the first place. A reflection off of a wall is a far different thing than a digital repeat of a signal. Real reflections are far more diffuse, and don't have a lot of high frequencies due to air absorption and the material of the reflection surface. Plus, look at the complexity of the room you are currently sitting. EVERY ONE of those little surfaces will create its own complex reflections and absorptions. Maybe the digital "cruft" of the old hardware did a good job of simulating the complexity of the real world. Maybe the lower sampling rate more accurately reflections high frequency loss of real room. Or maybe the digital cruft helped to conceal the flaws in the older reverb algorithms. Whatever the reason, there is some interesting stuff to explore in that old hardware.

Sean Costello

Around the topic, what you're pointing at seems to reflect what is the few left of echolocation capabilities in human brain ?
i'm amazed imagining how bats might create a sustained imaged representation of their environment with a succession of ultrasound that would works in their mind like a succession of flashlights would work for a human being as far as it can be compared

in summary, we humans can be rather silly creature...

My theory is that your average person is not very good at echolocation. We can hear the resonance distribution of a space in the midrange, and get a general sense of the size of the space. As far as hearing specific architectural / natural details, this is beyond most people. Which sucks if you are in a dark room, but is good news for those of us that develop algorithmic reverbs.

Sean Costello

[@midnight]

Take the SSL mixing consoles for example. These were the "behringer" mixing tables at one point in time.

What are you talking about? Some alternate universe maybe?

You think an SSL 4000 was the "behringer" at some point in time? Behringer makes cheap shit even for a consumer level. What does this have to do with SSL, who make top end product?

You really have some strange opinions.