Are we at the point where reverb plugins have completely "peaked".

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Effects Discussion
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

do_androids_dream wrote:While we DO have excellent reverbs itb - there's still that 'thing' that also afflicts the latest, greatest synth emus - something 'missing' that one can't put ones finger on. I hear a depth in a lot of hardware verbs that I just never experience from itb.
I don't know if I'd call it depth. It's similar to the difference between playing my guitar into a Deluxe Memory Man and hearing it through my DAW compared to going straight into the DAW and using Echoboy. There's a difference in how everything fits together, how the guitar signal interacts with the DMM compared to how it interacts with the DAW and plugin. I freely admit that sounds incredibly pretentious but I can't think of a more intelligent way of putting it :hyper:

With some of the older reverb units, it's the same feeling. In the end I decided to stop getting so hung up about it and revel instead in the knowledge that I have access to some fabulous old rack units going at cheap prices and some amazing reverb plugs that are similar bargains.

Post

Yeah, but it makes a major difference where your reverb is in your fx chain when playing guitar, so some comparisons are not entirely fair!

Post

theom:

Not to burst your bubble, but Martin Lind/warp69 (Relab/X-Verb/CSR) and others have stated the UAD 224 and UAD AMS RMX16 are off.

I can personally attest to the 224, having used the hardware extensively.

That's not to say that they are not good reverbs.

Warp says better of the UAD EMTs... particularly the plate, if I recall correctly (have to refer back regarding the 250).

I can't remember if he commented on the NI/Softube twins, but briCasey D. said they got the 224 modulation right, though I know they missed the mark elsewhere.

They are decent, but not even enough like their namesakes to warrant the designations.

I agree that the LX480 is for all practical purposes "perfect," as I also believe the Lex PCM/LXP natives to be.

Best for me is still the SSL Duende X-Verb, which is like a Lexicon from an alternate reality, which confirms that Martin is an alien from the future!

Of course, there are other notables (VDSP, 2C, etc.)... but like I said early on in this thread, "there's always room (ha) for better!"

If not quality, think optimization and the like.

Oh, and regarding the Waves freebie in the other thread: I believe that's work of the late and great Michael Gerzon (RIP) and deserves respect as such.

TV and renverb can make some great sounds, and MG's contributions to Waves go un-appreciated/celebrated, even by Waves themselves.

Anyway, I guess they have "peaked," if you don't need or want better, but I do.
WEASEL: World Electro-Acoustic Sound Excitation Laboratories

Post

Theo, I spent hours trying to match them I couldn't do it.
I wound up buying the pcm.

Post

antithesist wrote:Oh, and regarding the Waves freebie in the other thread: I believe that's work of the late and great Michael Gerzon (RIP) and deserves respect as such.
I think what the negative opinions can reveal is that there are people who 'test' reverbs in isolation and there are people who actually use reverbs. Trueverb is very, very useable within a mix - it delivers transparent separation and depth very well which is 80% of a reverbs use in an average mix.
Mastering from £30 per track \\\
Facebook \\\ #masteredbyloz

Post

antithesist wrote:theom:

Not to burst your bubble, but Martin Lind/warp69 (Relab/X-Verb/CSR) and others have stated the UAD 224 and UAD AMS RMX16 are off.

I can personally attest to the 224, having used the hardware extensively.

That's not to say that they are not good reverbs.

Warp says better of the UAD EMTs... particularly the plate, if I recall correctly (have to refer back regarding the 250).

I can't remember if he commented on the NI/Softube twins, but briCasey D. said they got the 224 modulation right, though I know they missed the mark elsewhere.

They are decent, but not even enough like their namesakes to warrant the designations.

I agree that the LX480 is for all practical purposes "perfect," as I also believe the Lex PCM/LXP natives to be.

Best for me is still the SSL Duende X-Verb, which is like a Lexicon from an alternate reality, which confirms that Martin is an alien from the future!

Of course, there are other notables (VDSP, 2C, etc.)... but like I said early on in this thread, "there's always room (ha) for better!"

If not quality, think optimization and the like.

Oh, and regarding the Waves freebie in the other thread: I believe that's work of the late and great Michael Gerzon (RIP) and deserves respect as such.

TV and renverb can make some great sounds, and MG's contributions to Waves go un-appreciated/celebrated, even by Waves themselves.

Anyway, I guess they have "peaked," if you don't need or want better, but I do.
universal audio told me the emulations are direct ports, so i tend to believe them over a competitor.

SOS said the same thing and that they were exact. All the a/b demos I have heard so far are close enough for me.

Regardless, for this exercise let's imagine the UAD verbs are not like the hardware (and btw the emt 140 can only be an approximation as it's emulating something physical not digital but yet it's widely agreed it's one o the best sounding plate verbs anywhere :shrug:)..

anyway let's just say the lx480 is bit perfect right? We agree to that. There are a few that argue it here and there but relab has offered them compensation if they can prove even one difference to the hardware. So far no one has been able to.

So we already know with the lexicon PCM and lexicon 480 we have two lexicon plugins that match hardware. So those who are saying there is nothing like hardware obviously haven't heard those two, or don't like lexicon sound (which is of course fair enough if the case). My point being that one of the most revered classic reverb hardware of all time and a modern lexicon hardware unit are available in identical and cpu efficient plugins. Voila. We have hardware reverb ITB. Already.

I've gone back to hardware synths but I don't pretend that they sound better than software cause they don't. Same with FX these days. It was for other reasons and i still mix and match with AU instruments. (and use only virtual stuff for my drums).

One thing i will say about UAD is that their service is unbelievable as is the reliability..I have sent 10 emails i reckon so far that are pages long with questions and they answer and read EVERYTHING - itemized perfectly in the replies, and they appreciate their loyal customers.
Also, they NEVER come on forums to diss other dev's plugins. E V E R. For me that speaks *volumes* of them as a developer.. it seems to always be another reverb manufacturer picking apart someone else's emulation or another compressor dev picking apart a uad compressor ;).
Warp69 should remember his humble beginnings, that his first effort (CSR) that was based on lex and sounded NOTHING like it. I claimed it was a bad plugin more than 5 years back and have never used it in a song. Afterwards, he spent YEARS on one plugin, the LX480. Years of fine tuning on just one plugin. Whereas Michael Carnes left Lex and had two outstanding brand new reverb plugins ready in less than a year. My point being, that just because Warp says so and has made one fantastic plugin (ok x verb is nice too, in between the CSR and 480 for me), doesn't make him the world's number one authority on reverb. Sorry but again I believe UAD on this and feel hardware placebo plays a big part in negativity.

BTW i never said the RMX was exact.. i don't own that one. I do own the new spring which for me is the best spring reverb plugin available. Spring age and psp spring verb have literally been forgotten by me now.

anyway whatever people think at the end of the day, I think the 224 is amazing and use it for 55% of my verbs, the 140 for 20%, and the rest between breverb, spring, and now H verb.

Post

do_androids_dream wrote:
antithesist wrote:Oh, and regarding the Waves freebie in the other thread: I believe that's work of the late and great Michael Gerzon (RIP) and deserves respect as such.
I think what the negative opinions can reveal is that there are people who 'test' reverbs in isolation and there are people who actually use reverbs. Trueverb is very, very useable within a mix - it delivers transparent separation and depth very well which is 80% of a reverbs use in an average mix.

For me, that's exactly what it doesn't do.. I find it has an artificial totally UN transparent, UN natural sound in every way.. and yes, i use reverbs in a mix :roll:

Ok, you like trueverb, that's cool. BUT...see what you do? Can you finally see it now? This is a PERFECT example.. Just like how it started in the bus compressor topic.. you basically just said anyone who doesn't like trueverb is using it wrong or doesn't know how to mix verb. This is your problem and how it all starts. Because YOU like it, the rest of us must be doing something wrong.

You could have just left out the first sentence and just say trueverb is great because , "IMO it delivers transparent separation, etc.". To me it feels like you think you are indeed the world's best mix and mastering engineer, especially from how it started in my other topic. (that's 2 topics of mine now).

Just a page or 2 back you said no plugin verb is close to hardware and gave one example of an (imo) average pedal verb (it has other cool effects on it but the verb to me was nothing more than ok and rev x on yamaha interfaces is no weaker - again another plugin, as it has a vst3 version).

So which is it? True verb or hardware or you admit both soft and hard are good?
You've got to start accepting people's opinions as just that, and accepting that not everyone mixes like you.. and if they don't, that doesn't mean they don't know the difference between mixing and mastering or how to use a reverb in a mix.

Can you do me a favour and after your reply (cause i know you will) to me now, leave my topic?

I promise in return, i will NEVER enter a topic of yours.. let's just leave it at that.
I keep my promises, it would be a great way for us to completely avoid eachother in addition to muting.

Post

valhallasound wrote:
For the Bricasti. That is pretty much the only reverb hardware out there which exceeds your average computer in CPU. Most hardware reverbs had absurdly simple CPU capabilities by modern standards.
One area where hardware reverbs have an edge over ITB reverbs is latency; when using a VST reverb to add an effect to something being recorded, the latency can be 20ms or higher; the best round trip latency (RTL) I have seen a USB interface have is 4-5ms with the Roland Quad Capture; the Lexicon Alpha can’t have a latency under 17ms, and the Focusrite Scarlett series can have 30ms latency with a large (256 sample) buffer size recording at 44.1 (they can also have latency as small as 7ms with the smallest buffer size, recording at 96k). Hardware reverbs, on the other hand, are doing really badly if their latency is 5ms.

It’s true that latency is actually a good thing when simulating a large hall, since it gives a nice predelay which simulates being closer to the sound source, not muddying up the direct sound, but it’s impossible to make a realistic sounding small oil drum reverb when the minimum possible predelay is 20ms.
Sam Trenholme — Software developer, electronic musician — Listen to my music: http://caulixtla.com/music

Post

caulixtla wrote:
valhallasound wrote:
For the Bricasti. That is pretty much the only reverb hardware out there which exceeds your average computer in CPU. Most hardware reverbs had absurdly simple CPU capabilities by modern standards.
One area where hardware reverbs have an edge over ITB reverbs is latency; when using a VST reverb to add an effect to something being recorded, the latency can be 20ms or higher; the best round trip latency (RTL) I have seen a USB interface have is 4-5ms with the Roland Quad Capture; the Lexicon Alpha can’t have a latency under 17ms, and the Focusrite Scarlett series can have 30ms latency with a large (256 sample) buffer size recording at 44.1 (they can also have latency as small as 7ms with the smallest buffer size, recording at 96k). Hardware reverbs, on the other hand, are doing really badly if their latency is 5ms.

It’s true that latency is actually a good thing when simulating a large hall, since it gives a nice predelay which simulates being closer to the sound source, not muddying up the direct sound, but it’s impossible to make a realistic sounding small oil drum reverb when the minimum possible predelay is 20ms.

i get 2ms rtl in UAD with reverb applied.

Ok that has it's own mixer, but let's take into account two things
1) there are quite a few interfaces now that have built in dsp reverb specifically for monitoring input, with next to zero latency. RME total mix, zen studio, UAD, Motu, and more. So there's one workaround

2) Sure some devices have bad latency but the majority these days are very good.
Everyone i know here with a computer built in the last few years tracks at 64 samples and some even at 32.
There are plenty of interfaces that at 64 samples are 5ms total roundtrip. Plenty. So that's through a daw and reverb plugin (since most native reverb plugins are zero latency themselves).

Post

Ichad.c wrote:Yeah, but it makes a major difference where your reverb is in your fx chain when playing guitar, so some comparisons are not entirely fair!
When comparing the DMM to Echoboy, the chains look like this:

Guitar --> Deluxe Memory Man --> DAW (no plugins)

Guitar --> DAW --> Echoboy

Likewise when testing the Midiverb against plugins it went:

Guitar --> Midiverb II --> DAW

Guitar --> DAW --> reverb plugin.

Post

TheoM wrote:universal audio told me the emulations are direct ports, so i tend to believe them over a competitor.
They didn't tell me though so I don't believe you. Until they do tell me, I have to view your words with deep suspicion and assume that you're being paid to say these things because you're working for the Illuminati trying to bring about a new world order. Amiright?

Post

annode wrote:The 'Route66' algo reverb by 'Sonic Flavours' was the 1st verb I know of that used the new verb algos. 2005.
http://www.kvraudio.com/product/r66_rev ... c_flavours
Have verb plugs gotten better then the old R66 or Roomverb M1 v.2 ?
http://www.kvraudio.com/product/roomver ... io/details
Are these still available somewhere? Would love to try them if possible.

Post

TheoM wrote:For me, that's exactly what it doesn't do.. I find it has an artificial totally UN transparent, UN natural sound in every way.. and yes, i use reverbs in a mix :roll:

Ok, you like trueverb, that's cool. BUT...see what you do? Can you finally see it now? This is a PERFECT example.. Just like how it started in the bus compressor topic.. you basically just said anyone who doesn't like trueverb is using it wrong or doesn't know how to mix verb. This is your problem and how it all starts. Because YOU like it, the rest of us must be doing something wrong.
Yes, you got me.. somewhat. I did say that - just a tad - to get up a few peoples noses as some of the criticisms came across as disrespectful to waves/the coders. That reverb is all over tens of thousands of records. It's probably on some of your favourite records. And yet, here (but not on other forums I frequent) there's all these negative opinions floating around with claims of how 'bad' or 'horrific' (your words) it is. Can you not see the irony?

And regarding the rest of your post - how about we man up and just kiss and make up instead? :hug: I'm sure we could learn things from each other if we stop taking each other the wrong way.

I'll start - I apologise for my comments in the original thread - yes, I can be a bit direct and lacking tact sometimes - I'm aware of this.. It pops up IRL sometimes.. and I will stop nitpicking your posts. Shall we put an end to it?
Mastering from £30 per track \\\
Facebook \\\ #masteredbyloz

Post

Heartfeltdawn wrote:
TheoM wrote:universal audio told me the emulations are direct ports, so i tend to believe them over a competitor.
They didn't tell me though so I don't believe you. Until they do tell me, I have to view your words with deep suspicion and assume that you're being paid to say these things because you're working for the Illuminati trying to bring about a new world order. Amiright?

it's on their 224 webpage in great detail, this is not coming from me. :roll:

That they are the original algorithms 1:1

SOS also says it's exact.

Since you are being a smarty you can find it all yourself if you are interested rather than links.

Post

do_androids_dream wrote:
TheoM wrote:For me, that's exactly what it doesn't do.. I find it has an artificial totally UN transparent, UN natural sound in every way.. and yes, i use reverbs in a mix :roll:

Ok, you like trueverb, that's cool. BUT...see what you do? Can you finally see it now? This is a PERFECT example.. Just like how it started in the bus compressor topic.. you basically just said anyone who doesn't like trueverb is using it wrong or doesn't know how to mix verb. This is your problem and how it all starts. Because YOU like it, the rest of us must be doing something wrong.
Yes, you got me.. somewhat. I did say that - just a tad - to get up a few peoples noses as some of the criticisms came across as disrespectful to waves/the coders. That reverb is all over tens of thousands of records. It's probably on some of your favourite records. And yet, here (but not on other forums I frequent) there's all these negative opinions floating around with claims of how 'bad' or 'horrific' (your words) it is. Can you not see the irony?

And regarding the rest of your post - how about we man up and just kiss and make up instead? :hug: I'm sure we could learn things from each other if we stop taking each other the wrong way.

I'll start - I apologise for my comments in the original thread - yes, I can be a bit direct and lacking tact sometimes - I'm aware of this.. It pops up IRL sometimes.. and I will stop nitpicking your posts. Shall we put an end to it?
I used d verb on plenty of mixes 15years ago and thought it was great. It's probably the most laughed at plugin verb of all time.
I also used true verb here and there. That's one of very very few plugin options we had unless we used hardware.. so of course it was used.. I find it VERY hard to believe that true verb would be the first verb someone would reach for today with all the options available, even for the stuff it does OK. I doubt there would be a record where true verb is used as a large space, sorry i don't believe it. Back then most mixes were done in studios and they had hardware access. It may have been used for small ambiences, sure. I could use it today in a mix and get away with it for what it's "ok" at. Anyone could. But i never would. But yes i believe it could have been used in some hits.. Sure.. that doesn't mean i like the way it sounds. See you seem to not understand the fact that I have a personal opinion and just because some famous person may have used it some day (probably wishing he had something better), doesn't automatically make it great for *me* or anyone else who doesn't like it. As long as you get that, we are cool.

Your apology is accepted - let's just put and end to all this, and also I apologise for the comment i made in the bus compressor topic to you. Ok peace.
Last edited by ObsoleteAcc99 on Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Locked

Return to “Effects”