Let's talk about reverb, will you?

[UstadKhanAli]

Indeed. Most of the reverbs already have a low cut/ high pass filter. Also, clever use of predelay before the reverb kicks in and even gated reverb (both set in time with the meter of the song) will help much with cleaning up the mud.

 

Yes, definitely!! Scoot that reverb out of the way!!!!!

 

I have a hardware reverb that I use as my primary reverb, and I don't think it has a low cut/HP filter, sorta interesting because my ancient old Quadraverb does. So I just have this "standard" sort of EQ setting that I pop in to the auxiliary send when I'm using the hardware reverb, and that gets me in the ballpark. From there, if I need to tweak, I do, and if it's fine, I just leave it, but at least I don't have to keep recreating something that has highpass and low cut filters on it.

[UstadKhanAli]

I don't have enough experience with hardware reverbs to compare.

 

I'm the opposite. I don't have enough experience with software reverbs to compare.

 

- What I do know is that my hardware reverb (TC Electronic M300) has sounded better than the Too Loud reverbs, whatever reverb comes with the Waves Renaissance package, or anything that comes with Pro Tools.

 

- And as a bonus, it has almost no load on the CPU.

 

- And as another bonus, I can manipulate it during mixdown in real time if I wish to do so.

 

- And as another bonus, I don't ever have to worry about it crashing or upgrading or installing it (aside from physically installing it initially, which involves basically connecting it via S/PDIF to the audio interface).

 

That's a lot of bonuses for a hardware reverb.

[Goobers]

Ummm... yeah (For Christ sakes). Sorry, but I

[Goobers]

That is a very good point. Many companies simply port their digital algorithms they used in hardware over to software.

 

At some point, especially if you don't care about emulating legacy noise, as you described, that should be every bit as good as a dedicated digital reverb unit I'd think.

 

I haven't played around with the Lexicon Native Package, but I'm talking myself into it....

[UstadKhanAli]

Thanks for your response. Hope you got some sleep. Look at Ken's posts - he's tapping into his M300 via S/PDIF, so that takes the analog components out of the equation. He's simply shuttling digital info in and out, so no analog goodness there. And look at the box itself - the M300 is a modest computer with modest software in it, not exactly their high end stuff. So... we're not talking about emulating hardware in software or even scooping up analog goodness through a trip through delicious outboard gear. We're talking about an antiseptic voyage of ones and zeroes from a stronger computer to a weaker computer back to a stronger computer. he may love the M300 and get great results, but from an audio perspective, I don't see the sonic advantage of shuttling digits around vs keeping them ITB

 

I just know that it sounds good. The only thing I can tell you is that compared to the other plugins I've had, this one sounds considerably better, and that's really saying something when you consider that I bought the M300 used for $165 from eBay (and it usually didn't sell for much over $200, if I remember correctly). Now, granted, it's a well-built reverb unit, but as you say, it's not exactly high end.

 

And as I mentioned in the post above yours, there's a lot of advantages, sonics aside, so I'm definitely a fan.

 

At some point, who knows, maybe I'll get a higher end hardware reverb unit, but for now, I'm getting really good results from this, so I never find myself thinking, "Gee, I should upgrade this!!" Really smooth tails...and I can hear them too since I have decent monitoring (ADAM A7s and Yorkville YSM-1s).

[Goobers]

I just know that it sounds good. The only thing I can tell you is that compared to the other plugins I've had, this one sounds considerably better, and that's really saying something when you consider that I bought the M300 used for $165 from eBay (and it usually didn't sell for much over $200, if I remember correctly). Now, granted, it's a well-built reverb unit, but as you say, it's not exactly high end. And as I mentioned in the post above yours, there's a lot of advantages, sonics aside, so I'm definitely a fan. At some point, who knows, maybe I'll get a higher end hardware reverb unit, but for now, I'm getting really good results from this, so I never find myself thinking, "Gee, I should upgrade this!!" Really smooth tails...and I can hear them too since I have decent monitoring (ADAM A7s and Yorkville YSM-1s).

 

the direct response, of course, is that if you're getting great results, that's all that matters.

 

But in terms of responding to Beck's argument on the basis of sound (not all those other things you like about a dedicated reverb unit), your posts are as compelling as anything in the thread.

 

After all, you're not getting anything special from going into a modest digital outboard reverb via S/PDIF that you couldn't get from a plugin.

 

You're just moving digital bits from one computer into another and then back again. And the computer you're sending your data into is a fraction of the computer you're sending it from.

 

There's therefore no technical reason why your audio happiness couldn't be delivered by a plugin.

[roomjello]

There's therefore no technical reason why your audio happiness couldn't be delivered by a plugin.

Sure there is, they don't sound as good.

 

-Why is that not not only a reason but the very best reason?

-Why are you people trying so hard to convince us and yourselves of a non truth?

Please present answers in full detail.

Thanks.

[Lee Flier]

I agree for the most part about reverb plugins - hardware sounds better (though not all hardware - a lot of budget outboard reverbs these days don't really sound any better than a plug). BUT I have to make an exception in the case of the UAD2 plugs. I guess they're hardware in their own right, since they run on their own DSP card and not the native CPU. In any case, I love my UAD2 and the EMT 140 plug.

 

I have a love/hate relationship with reverb. I love hearing it slathered all over a lot of my favorite recordings. But I rarely add very much to my own. I'm a fan of "in your face" for the most part. When I do use reverb, I tend to put a lot of predelay on it so it doesn't wash things out too much. All that said, I'm trying to force myself to crank up the verb now that I have a plugin that I really like. It might still make me cringe while I'm mixing, but I almost always like the final result better when I use a little more verb than I have been using in recent years.

[Goobers]

Sure there is, they don't sound as good. -Why is that not not only a reason but the very best reason? -Why are you people trying so hard to convince us and yourselves of a non truth? Please present answers in full detail. Thanks.

 

ken is saying he likes the sound of his reverb, which is an inexpensive, modest digital reverb that he plugs into his computer via S/PDIF.

 

There's nothing there that can't be done in a plugin

 

I remember reading about a blind test between red and white wine. Turns out when people couldn't see the difference, they couldn't even tell which was red and which was white.

[BlueGreene]

 

It's a big scary subjective world out there, built on preconceptions and points of view.

 

Who's got the finished product that can be A/Bd? Audiophiles don't seem to like blind tests.

[UstadKhanAli]

I don't know the answer to this. I have a well-made, well-designed albeit inexpensive hardware reverb.

 

Do some plugins sound as good as this? Maybe. I haven't heard one that does, but I've hardly auditioned every plugin. But I'd be willing to bet that there are some, like the UAD or maybe Lexicon stuff, that at least sounds as good albeit in a different way.

 

Do some plugins sound as good as a really nice hardware reverb unit? Again, I don't know, but I'd be really really surprised if occurred. When you have a bunch of components, and in fact, an entire box that is devoted to making reverb sound as fantastic as possible, it seems extremely unlikely that a plugin that shares resources with everything else could possibly sound as good.

 

But again, I'm guessing. Perhaps some people who have done carefully designed A/B tests or design reverb algorithms can weigh in here.

[Lee Flier]

Yeah, I think you're right Ken that having the dedicated hardware unit means it can use resources that a plugin couldn't. Same thing is true of the UAD card. Since reverb tends to be a resource hog, this probably is an advantage when you don't have to worry about conserving CPU so much.

 

But that's just a guess. I'm certainly not "closed minded" to the idea and I'm sure you're not either.

[UstadKhanAli]

But in terms of responding to Beck's argument on the basis of sound (not all those other things you like about a dedicated reverb unit), your posts are as compelling as anything in the thread.

 

Probably it's because I don't have an agenda, as you can probably tell...particularly from my last post! I have my reasons for preferring a hardware reverb, of course, but can a plugin sound better than what I've got?

 

I don't know.

 

I do know that it sounds better than the plugins I've used in the past! I do know that it sounds better than the Waves plugin that comes with the Renaissance Suite or the D-Verb plugins that Pro Tools provides. It sounds good for even complex things like acoustic guitar. It doesn't "splatter" reverb when I wave my keys in front of the mic like other reverbs do.

 

And I do know that I don't have to keep upgrading the damn thing, installing it, performing challenge and response questions, or having to consider what sort of load on the CPU it might cause when I use it.

 

And I do know that I can manipulate it while mixing down, which I love. I can manipulate the length of the reverb, the color, the pre-delay, etc. and while I don't do this that often, I like that I can do it when I need this done.

 

And I do know that I want someone to buy me one of those damn Apollos so I can use UAD plugins!!! With less than three shopping months until my birthday, I hope that you guys can make this happen!

[UstadKhanAli]

Yeah, I think you're right Ken that having the dedicated hardware unit means it can use resources that a plugin couldn't. Same thing is true of the UAD card. Since reverb tends to be a resource hog, this probably is an advantage when you don't have to worry about conserving CPU so much. But that's just a guess. I'm certainly not "closed minded" to the idea and I'm sure you're not either.

 

You're right on all counts.

 

Now, can someone buy me a damn Apollo?

[Lee Flier]

It's a big scary subjective world out there, built on preconceptions and points of view. Who's got the finished product that can be A/Bd? Audiophiles don't seem to like blind tests.

 

I've participated in blind tests (though not doing reverb comparisons specifically) and while they're useful for some things (like proving that I really can tell the difference between certain things), at this point I just trust my ears. I mean who cares whether I like one reverb better than another? If I like one thing better than another, I use it. I assume everyone else does the same thing. But it's funny how whenever someone else says they don't like something you like, it must be preconception, confirmation bias, etc. It's music, people. Use what inspires you. If it doesn't inspire someone else, that's OK. There's nothing "scary" about being subjective.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Who's got the finished product that can be A/Bd? Audiophiles don't seem to like blind tests.

 

 

But some of us love 'em!!!!!!

 

I love 'em. Even if I can't differentiate what I want to say I can do. I don't care. It's all a learning experience for me.

 

I've told you guys about how someone did a test in which they flipped back and forth between an MP3 and a WAV file of a Steely Dan song, all played on extremely high-end monitors, and while a room full of recording engineers and producers could tell the difference sometimes, we couldn't discern all of it because the differences were subtle? I wanted to be the one who said, "Yeah, I can hear to 18kHz, I've got discerning ears, and I could tell every single time."

 

But that'd be BS.

 

And I'll be the first one to tell you that I don't think I can tell the difference between a track that is close-miced on a distorted cabinet and a good virtual amp model doing the same thing. I'd like to be able to say I can, but I don't think that's accurate either.

 

But I can with all assuredness tell you that upgrading to my Apogee converters made such a huge difference that it was not even subtle. Or that my distance micing clean guitars with a great sounding amp sounds much better than any virtual amp model I've ever heard. Or that I can hear a large difference in in the sense of depth and stereo imaging/sound stage between my very modest analog tape machine, the Akai MG1214, and Pro Tools. Or that Primacoustic Recoil Stabilizers make a huge difference in tightening and increasing bass response and stereo imaging of my monitors...and so do acoustic treatment panels from RealTraps.

 

So I don't know if I'm an audiophile or not. I do know that I care passionately for getting the best sound possible from a recording, though, and that I absolutely loooove A/B tests!!!!!

[Philter]

 

Sure there is, they don't sound as good. -Why is that not not only a reason but the very best reason? -Why are you people trying so hard to convince us and yourselves of a non truth? Please present answers in full detail. Thanks.

 

Short of a blind listening test, there's no support for your claims. The algorithms are the same algorithms regardless of which processor runs them. If it's subjective claims you are interested in, here are some to think about:

 

http://www.lexiconpro.com/en-US/products/pcm-native-reverb-plug-in-bundle/reviews

 

More than one grammy-nominated engineer there says that the Lexicon PCM native bundle stands up against hardware.

 

But that's beside the point, which is that objectively, the algorithms are the same, and it's processed digitally. Oh, and I can open up 20 of them if I want, not just the one or two from hardware, i can tweak the settings with a full computer interface, and it's all instantly recallable as part of a DAW session... and it costs less.

[Philter]

I've participated in blind tests (though not doing reverb comparisons specifically) and while they're useful for some things (like proving that I really can tell the difference between certain things), at this point I just trust my ears. I mean who cares whether I like one reverb better than another? If I like one thing better than another, I use it. I assume everyone else does the same thing. But it's funny how whenever someone else says they don't like something you like, it must be preconception, confirmation bias, etc. It's music, people. Use what inspires you. If it doesn't inspire someone else, that's OK. There's nothing "scary" about being subjective.

I don't care a bit whether you like one thing or another. What gets annoying is people who flatly make claims that one thing sounds better than another and expect it to be taken as anything except a subjective, biased personal opinion. At least you are self aware enough to recognize that and admit it to yourself... there are plenty of folks who don't seem to be able to distinguish the subjective from the objective.

 

If I spent 5 figures on outboard reverb, you better damn believe I would swear by it. Because if I were wrong, and the same quality could be had with $1500 in software, that would mean I was boneheaded for wasting all that money. That's a hard thing to admit to yourself. So I wouldn't admit it to myself- I would just be all the more convinced that what I had was sonically superior and justified my actions. Maybe I would find thinking like that to be inspiring, but I doubt it. Once you start questioning assumptions, it's hard to stop.

[Lee Flier]

What gets annoying is people who flatly make claims that one thing sounds better than another and expect it to be taken as anything except a subjective, biased personal opinion. At least you are self aware enough to recognize that and admit it to yourself... there are plenty of folks who don't seem to be able to distinguish the subjective from the objective.

 

Like who? People sometimes state their opinions strongly, but "this sounds better than that" is an inherently subjective statement. If people don't realize that, that's their problem.

 

If I spent 5 figures on outboard reverb, you better damn believe I would swear by it. Because if I were wrong, and the same quality could be had with $1500 in software, that would mean I was boneheaded for wasting all that money. That's a hard thing to admit to yourself. So I wouldn't admit it to myself- I would just be all the more convinced that what I had was sonically superior and justified my actions.

 

Who would seriously spend 5 figures on an outboard reverb in 2012 without having first compared it to the best available plugins (not to mention less expensive outboard units), just because a few people on Harmony Central expressed the opinion that outboard sounds better? If somebody really does that, I don't think there's any help for them. OTOH if they DO do the comparison for themselves and decide the 5 figure unit really does sound better to them, and they have the dough, who am I to argue with them? I'd certainly never spend that much, and most people couldn't even if they wanted to. So I really think what you're saying is mostly a non issue in the real world.

 

I would rather use plugins than hardware if possible, just in general - as you say, you can use as many of them as you like, you can save their settings with the project, and they're cheaper. I think most people are aware of that, so if they would still choose hardware in this day and age, they probably have a good reason for it. To me it's just as annoying for someone to claim that a plugin is just as good as hardware without having directly made the comparison, as the reverse is.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

If I spent 5 figures on outboard reverb, you better damn believe I would swear by it. Because if I were wrong, and the same quality could be had with $1500 in software, that would mean I was boneheaded for wasting all that money. That's a hard thing to admit to yourself. So I wouldn't admit it to myself- I would just be all the more convinced that what I had was sonically superior and justified my actions. Maybe I would find thinking like that to be inspiring, but I doubt it. Once you start questioning assumptions, it's hard to stop.

 

 

You know what? Just merely by making this statement, we all realize that you wouldn't make this mistake because you have that much awareness. Really, if anybody did this, they would think, "You know what? I'm tying up too much money when I can get something just as good for less than a third of the price! I'm going to sell this $5000 reverb unit and get that other one!!! I'll save a bunch of money, and that'll be great. And who knows...that Ken guy sure is nice, and I know he wants an Apollo. Maybe I'll surprise him for his birthday!!!"

 

And really, even more to the point, you wouldn't have done this in the first place because no one would ever drop $5000 on a reverb unit without checking out a bunch of other choices as well.

 

So no...you can't fool us. You're far more wiser than you let on!!!

[Philter]

Like who? People sometimes state their opinions strongly, but "this sounds better than that" is an inherently subjective statement. If people don't realize that, that's their problem. Who would seriously spend 5 figures on an outboard reverb in 2012 without having first compared it to the best available plugins (not to mention less expensive outboard units), just because a few people on Harmony Central expressed the opinion that outboard sounds better? If somebody really does that, I don't think there's any help for them. OTOH if they DO do the comparison for themselves and decide the 5 figure unit really does sound better to them, and they have the dough, who am I to argue with them? I'd certainly never spend that much, and most people couldn't even if they wanted to. So I really think what you're saying is mostly a non issue in the real world. I would rather use plugins than hardware if possible, just in general - as you say, you can use as many of them as you like, you can save their settings with the project, and they're cheaper. I think most people are aware of that, so if they would still choose hardware in this day and age, they probably have a good reason for it. To me it's just as annoying for someone to claim that a plugin is just as good as hardware without having directly made the comparison, as the reverse is.

 

So Lee, what do you think- same algorithm, different processor- same outcome, or different? We have Lexicon making the PCM96 hardware and the PCM Native bundle, with the same algorithms... do you think the algorithms lead to different results depending on the processor? I don't think that's a subjective question. Do you? Do we need to have discussions about the "sound" of different processors?

[Philter]

 

You know what? Just merely by making this statement, we all realize that you wouldn't make this mistake because you have that much awareness. Really, if anybody did this, they would think, "You know what? I'm tying up too much money when I can get something just as good for less than a third of the price! I'm going to sell this $5000 reverb unit and get that other one!!! I'll save a bunch of money, and that'll be great. And who knows...that Ken guy sure is nice, and I know he wants an Apollo. Maybe I'll surprise him for his birthday!!!" And really, even more to the point, you wouldn't have done this in the first place because no one would ever drop $5000 on a reverb unit without checking out a bunch of other choices as well. So no...you can't fool us. You're far more wiser than you let on!!!

 

 

There are plenty of people who believe all kind of crazy stuff about what's the best. People make subjective decisions all the time about things more expensive that reverb units... prime example, automobiles. Being aware of this does not shield you from making the same kind of subjective decisions. I make subjective calls all the time, every day, often without thinking about it. Often we don't know the facts and all we are left with is subjective impulses. Sometimes our subjective impulses are strong enough to outweigh reason. This is basic human behavior. Being self-aware doesn't mean you're suddenly immune to basic human behavior.

 

But when it comes to identical algorithms being run on two different processors, I don't believe it's a subjective call.

 

I'm interested where everyone in this thread stands. Same algorithm, different processor- same result or not?

[temnov]

Why it's always like that? ITB vs. OTB.

 

I use both. I like both. I can tell that when I put a real tube pre-amp after PCM Native plugin is sounds different and I think more "alive". Still plugin. I said earlier that I think OTB is better with all non-linear characteristics but I also said the Nebula sounds incredible. It's all changing every day. I don't want to flatly make claims that one thing sounds better than another It's different, it's not "better" or "worse".

 

Now, Im going to take a simple drum loop and put Bricasti M7 plate as well as several different plugin reverbs on it and you can listen. It's not going to be a blind test. Just a sample.

[Philter]

The guy who coded the Lexicon PCM Native bundle and also much of their hardware talks about the difference here.

 

Michael Carnes : I wrote the code for both, so I don't need to interpret anything. The computer is more than capable of running that code without compromise. Found a few minor bugs in the PCM96 code which I've fixed here. But I intend to take those fixes back to the 96 when I can. I left the input panners out of these algs because it's easier to do it in the DAW. That's the only difference. But I fully expect non-double-blind tests to 'prove' the 96 is better because it's hardware .

 

Huh, so he thinks they should be the same. When people asked if he modeled the actual analog and AD/DA parts of their hardware, he replies:

Originally Posted by masterblaster I always thought the converters played a significant part in the magic lexicon sound. Have they modeled this? If you mean massive phase shift and brick-wall anti-aliasing, then no, we haven't bothering modeling it. The 480 also had digital I/O and I never heard anyone complain that the magic vanished when they went digital. Quote: Will this plug-in have the same algo's as the 480? In a side-by-side shoot out with a 480, will this plug-in sound as rich, expansive and smooth? Those are the questions to think about. If so it will definitely be worth its price. This has more modern versions of some of the 480 algs. I haven't bothered to go back and duplicate the 480 exactly, but the 96 and these plugs have many similar characteristics. If you think the 480 is smooth, just pop in some very low frequencies, turn up spin and listen to it grind. I'm not dissing the 480, but it does have some shortcomings.

 

Pretty much what I've been saying.

[Lee Flier]

 

So Lee, what do you think- same algorithm, different processor- same outcome, or different? We have Lexicon making the PCM96 hardware and the PCM Native bundle, with the same algorithms... do you think the algorithms lead to different results depending on the processor? I don't think that's a subjective question. Do you? Do we need to have discussions about the "sound" of different processors?

 

 

The only reason there would be any difference in that particular case, I should think, is if there are timing issues in the native processor that aren't in the dedicated processor. Which is possible, although I'd think that would vary with what computer hardware and converters you were using. Overall though, I'd say the difference in that case would be negligible if there is one at all. I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference in that situation, anyway.

 

But that isn't really what was being discussed. I don't think the majority of plugin algorithms are the same as those used in hardware. Someone might like the sound of a hardware reverb whose algorithm has not been converted to a plugin. Or the algorithms used in a particular hardware reverb may be too processor intensive for practical use in a native system, but work fine with a dedicated processor.