|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 11, 2018 19:07:28 GMT -6
I'm feeling a little frisky, so let me try turning the original question (Are plugin manus holding back quality for performance?) on its head. The truth is that--back in the hardware days--we regularly held back 'quality' for performance. The typical DSP that we used was limited to a certain number of steps per sample. For example, the Lexichip II that we used on the PCM81/91 could do only 128 steps every sample (compared to thousands in a modern CPU). Although we learned to code extremely efficiently, we often left out something good, just so we could fit into the budget of allowable processor steps. If we wanted more quality, we'd have to stick in another DSP and that would raise the selling price even higher. Same goes for delay. You can make a much nicer reverb or delay effect with more memory, but you had a budget and you could only have as much RAM as your selling price would allow. Ever try to work the menu system in a PCM96? It's a nightmare isn't it? We had a button budget. Another 4 buttons would have made navigation so much simpler, but that would have cost another buck or two in parts, a little more in front-panel work, a little more in manufacturing and inventory, and several more in the sale price. This business--whether in external devices or in-the-box (it's all software)--has always and will always be about compromises. That's engineering for ya. I think the original underlying question I was getting at was, “can itb verbs be as good as their External HW counterparts...” I’ve been really happy with itb verbs - so not an indictment...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2018 12:59:41 GMT -6
I think the original underlying question I was getting at was, “can itb verbs be as good as their External HW counterparts...” I’ve been really happy with itb verbs - so not an indictment... The question here is "what do you mean by good?" Is that an objective or a subjective measure? I think in objective terms that ITB reverbs have been better for several years. They are quieter and they sound (or can sound) much more like a real acoustic space. I was never interested in trying to duplicate a 480L, because it had so many unnatural artifacts (I think Martin at Relab has done a pretty good job of it). Acoustic reality has always been my touchstone. Having said that, my latest generation of reverbs has some optional stuff to put the crud back in. Some people love that part and others wouldn't go anywhere near it. 'Good' as a subjective measure is another thing entirely and I suspect that's where you're coming from. It means whatever you want it to mean and it's perfectly legitimate to have your artistic preferences. I've long thought there was a strong generational component to what people think of as good sound, and I suspect that there's a lasting emotional attachment to sounds that were in the air during important events for a person. For me--even though I don't have the slightest interest in going back to analog--there's still something magical about the smell of a fresh pancake of Scotch 206 on a machine that's just gotten warmed up. That was a 'good' smell.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 14, 2018 15:04:30 GMT -6
There are definitely people that swear there's a quality difference with HW and ITB reverbs...I don't have much experience with HW reverbs, so I don't have an informed opinion. Here's what I believe in February 2018: You can achieve equally impressive results completely ITB compared to OTB. Now - I will say that I am not opposed to being proven wrong - that has just been my experience over the last two years. But I guess to answer your question, there are a LOT of people that claim the quality level between HW verb is objectively better than ITB. I'd love to see a blind ABX test, though
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Feb 14, 2018 15:08:39 GMT -6
I think the main thing holding plug-in quality back is latency. We have far more power but still not enough to radically improve latency. Working at higher sample rates might be the way around that. Reverbs, of course, don't have that problem. As for hardware, the only one I'd be interested in is an EMT 140!
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Feb 14, 2018 19:55:16 GMT -6
I think the original underlying question I was getting at was, “can itb verbs be as good as their External HW counterparts...” I’ve been really happy with itb verbs - so not an indictment... The question here is "what do you mean by good?" Is that an objective or a subjective measure? I think in objective terms that ITB reverbs have been better for several years. They are quieter and they sound (or can sound) much more like a real acoustic space. I was never interested in trying to duplicate a 480L, because it had so many unnatural artifacts (I think Martin at Relab has done a pretty good job of it). Acoustic reality has always been my touchstone. Having said that, my latest generation of reverbs has some optional stuff to put the crud back in. Some people love that part and others wouldn't go anywhere near it. 'Good' as a subjective measure is another thing entirely and I suspect that's where you're coming from. It means whatever you want it to mean and it's perfectly legitimate to have your artistic preferences. I've long thought there was a strong generational component to what people think of as good sound, and I suspect that there's a lasting emotional attachment to sounds that were in the air during important events for a person. For me--even though I don't have the slightest interest in going back to analog--there's still something magical about the smell of a fresh pancake of Scotch 206 on a machine that's just gotten warmed up. That was a 'good' smell. Can you get in to the modeling of mechanical and/or physical reverbs? Things like plates, springs and chambers vs. digital reverb? Is there a standard for “good” in that realm? Like, do you folks in the reverb business believe you have equaled the hardware counterparts? Are you still chasing something that you haven’t caught yet? Are you there? I still think of hardware as superior in this area, though I am totally open to the possibility that it’s only psychological/romantic bias. I own a few mechanical reverbs that I love. They are not yet replaceable with software but it may be because they are very limited in their functionality, they have certain “filter” characteristics, they’re obscure and nobody has attempted model them. M7 vs ITB reverb is still digital vs digital. How about digital vs (shhhhhhhh, I’m embarrassed to even use the word these days) analog😬 Thx
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 15, 2018 9:00:17 GMT -6
The question here is "what do you mean by good?" Is that an objective or a subjective measure? I think in objective terms that ITB reverbs have been better for several years. They are quieter and they sound (or can sound) much more like a real acoustic space. I was never interested in trying to duplicate a 480L, because it had so many unnatural artifacts (I think Martin at Relab has done a pretty good job of it). Acoustic reality has always been my touchstone. Having said that, my latest generation of reverbs has some optional stuff to put the crud back in. Some people love that part and others wouldn't go anywhere near it. 'Good' as a subjective measure is another thing entirely and I suspect that's where you're coming from. It means whatever you want it to mean and it's perfectly legitimate to have your artistic preferences. I've long thought there was a strong generational component to what people think of as good sound, and I suspect that there's a lasting emotional attachment to sounds that were in the air during important events for a person. For me--even though I don't have the slightest interest in going back to analog--there's still something magical about the smell of a fresh pancake of Scotch 206 on a machine that's just gotten warmed up. That was a 'good' smell. Can you get in to the modeling of mechanical and/or physical reverbs? Things like plates, springs and chambers vs. digital reverb? Is there a standard for “good” in that realm? Like, do you folks in the reverb business believe you have equaled the hardware counterparts? Are you still chasing something that you haven’t caught yet? Are you there? I still think of hardware as superior in this area, though I am totally open to the possibility that it’s only psychological/romantic bias. I own a few mechanical reverbs that I love. They are not yet replaceable with software but it may be because they are very limited in their functionality, they have certain “filter” characteristics, they’re obscure and nobody has attempted model them. M7 vs ITB reverb is still digital vs digital. How about digital vs (shhhhhhhh, I’m embarrassed to even use the word these days) analog😬 Thx You tried the UAD BX20?
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Feb 15, 2018 9:23:37 GMT -6
Been using a Bricasti lately at somebody else’s joint and it’s definitely cool. He’s also got a 480l, which is a blast to use.
But, the very coolest reverb I’ve ever used is the actual chamber at Hyde Street. It sounds so cool.
you do lose something of the the magic when you take any Verb out of solo, as it inevitably winds up being felt more than heard. Unless maybe you’re making an Enya record. 😀
On my own dime,, I’m very content with TL Space and Valhalla Vintage Verb. I even use the non-Lin in d-Verb to good effect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 15, 2018 11:02:18 GMT -6
Can you get in to the modeling of mechanical and/or physical reverbs? Things like plates, springs and chambers vs. digital reverb? Is there a standard for “good” in that realm? Like, do you folks in the reverb business believe you have equaled the hardware counterparts? Are you still chasing something that you haven’t caught yet? Are you there? I still think of hardware as superior in this area, though I am totally open to the possibility that it’s only psychological/romantic bias. I own a few mechanical reverbs that I love. They are not yet replaceable with software but it may be because they are very limited in their functionality, they have certain “filter” characteristics, they’re obscure and nobody has attempted model them. M7 vs ITB reverb is still digital vs digital. "Modeling" can mean all sorts of things. Something like a spring or a plate will vary from example to example. If you try for an exact duplication of a particular one, that's the only one it will sound like. My own approach for anything is to go for an idealized version that you can tweak toward a more particular example. I've done that with plates, but am unlikely to do it with springs. Spring reverbs were my only reverb option for a number of years (way back when) and I simply don't like them. The only one I ever heard that wasn't completely awful was an oil-damped can in a Hammond B2. But that was nearly 50 years ago. If you really want a 140, make some space and go find a good one. Chambers and halls are somewhat different, since they're real acoustic spaces. I've been lucky enough to stand inside some of the best chambers in the world (a little place on Vine street) and I really have that sound in my head. But again, I've gone for a flexible, idealized version based on what happens acoustically. Same with halls. Make the algorithm flexible enough to help the engineer solve problems. A 'modeled' reverb can only match the model. That's rarely the absolute perfect solution for a given mix. I won't get much into the topic of how you actually hear reverbs. But suffice to say that the brain does tremendous data reduction on what hits your eardrums. Understanding what it does with this is the key to making any kind of reverb. The pure math and physics are only part of the story. The neurology is the rest. I'm still working on that part. And I know I sound like a broken record on this (what's a record?) but let's let go of the idea that there was something magical about the processors in those old hardware reverbs. They all consisted of an address generator and a very crude math processor. By crude, I mean inaccurate math for most filters. I mean extremely limited dynamic range with noise rising as the signal recirculated. I mean quantization errors and zipper noises whenever you made any sort of change. I lived in those processors for years. People grew accustomed to those artifacts and imprinted on that as being a favored sound. Most of us in the business were always trying to minimize that stuff and move toward something cleaner and less compromised
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Feb 15, 2018 11:03:50 GMT -6
I thought the real BX20 sucked!
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Feb 15, 2018 21:22:04 GMT -6
I thought the real BX20 sucked! Agree. Don’t like the model in Altiverb either. I’ve never tried the uad one. I do have a couple springs I LOVE though. They don’t always work and they’re rarely a featured sort of element but they have a certain pleasing quality. When they’re right they’re right.
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Feb 15, 2018 21:25:21 GMT -6
Can you get in to the modeling of mechanical and/or physical reverbs? Things like plates, springs and chambers vs. digital reverb? Is there a standard for “good” in that realm? Like, do you folks in the reverb business believe you have equaled the hardware counterparts? Are you still chasing something that you haven’t caught yet? Are you there? I still think of hardware as superior in this area, though I am totally open to the possibility that it’s only psychological/romantic bias. I own a few mechanical reverbs that I love. They are not yet replaceable with software but it may be because they are very limited in their functionality, they have certain “filter” characteristics, they’re obscure and nobody has attempted model them. M7 vs ITB reverb is still digital vs digital. "Modeling" can mean all sorts of things. Something like a spring or a plate will vary from example to example. If you try for an exact duplication of a particular one, that's the only one it will sound like. My own approach for anything is to go for an idealized version that you can tweak toward a more particular example. I've done that with plates, but am unlikely to do it with springs. Spring reverbs were my only reverb option for a number of years (way back when) and I simply don't like them. The only one I ever heard that wasn't completely awful was an oil-damped can in a Hammond B2. But that was nearly 50 years ago. If you really want a 140, make some space and go find a good one. Chambers and halls are somewhat different, since they're real acoustic spaces. I've been lucky enough to stand inside some of the best chambers in the world (a little place on Vine street) and I really have that sound in my head. But again, I've gone for a flexible, idealized version based on what happens acoustically. Same with halls. Make the algorithm flexible enough to help the engineer solve problems. A 'modeled' reverb can only match the model. That's rarely the absolute perfect solution for a given mix. I won't get much into the topic of how you actually hear reverbs. But suffice to say that the brain does tremendous data reduction on what hits your eardrums. Understanding what it does with this is the key to making any kind of reverb. The pure math and physics are only part of the story. The neurology is the rest. I'm still working on that part. And I know I sound like a broken record on this (what's a record?) but let's let go of the idea that there was something magical about the processors in those old hardware reverbs. They all consisted of an address generator and a very crude math processor. By crude, I mean inaccurate math for most filters. I mean extremely limited dynamic range with noise rising as the signal recirculated. I mean quantization errors and zipper noises whenever you made any sort of change. I lived in those processors for years. People grew accustomed to those artifacts and imprinted on that as being a favored sound. Most of us in the business were always trying to minimize that stuff and move toward something cleaner and less compromised Thanks for the considered answer. FWIW I own dozens of plug in reverbs and zero hardware digital verbs. I believe my next verb purchase will be one of yours. I will also get more Zerotronics units. I really love the one I have.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 15, 2018 21:48:40 GMT -6
I really loved the ducking options on the Expo demos.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 15, 2018 21:50:44 GMT -6
I thought the real BX20 sucked! Never used one, but I use the plug all the time for spacey EGs or tambos/perc. Even used it on a kit a couple times. One of my favorite UA plugs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2018 8:28:35 GMT -6
I really loved the ducking options on the Expo demos. Thanks John! I've found that just a dB or so with a quick recovery time is really helpful in keeping the tail from splashing when there's a big transient. If you're enough of a tweakhead you can combine that with the compander part of 'Warp' (and maybe even the R4 gate) and sculpt the tail in interesting (and very non-linear) ways. There's an old term we used to use at Lexicon: "we give you the rope" and I suspect it applies here I typically test with a lot of raw percussion tracks and have found this to be helpful in keeping things from getting out of hand.
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on Feb 20, 2018 3:17:36 GMT -6
IMHO...I still can’t find an in ITB verb that sounds as good as my outboard verbs inserted, however I think the ITB verbs have come a long way. For ex. My Lexicon pcm70. When you hit that box at a certain point with an input level from yellow to touching the red it just has a sound a plug will never get. It’s an awesome sound on guitars. Of course, a certain sound, saturated maybe, but definitely puts some hair on it in a good way. Same with drums, you just keep turning that input up until you put some spank on it...there it is!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 4:06:34 GMT -6
Sold my PCM70 after the Valhalla verbs came out. No regrets.
|
|
|
Post by guitfiddler on Feb 20, 2018 12:22:54 GMT -6
The outboard verbs have tone and do things to the signal. I have yet to find ITB reverb do what some outboard does. I use ITB verbs as well. Believe me, I want to get rid of all my outboard, but I just can’t get rid of a few pieces because it has its uses...
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,698
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Feb 20, 2018 16:12:53 GMT -6
I thought the real BX20 sucked! Was never my cup of tea either but many thought it looked cool!
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 20, 2018 16:17:48 GMT -6
The outboard verbs have tone and do things to the signal. I have yet to find ITB reverb do what some outboard does. I use ITB verbs as well. Believe me, I want to get rid of all my outboard, but I just can’t get rid of a few pieces because it has its uses... I prefer a lot of the emulated analog mechanical reverbs... as well as simulated spaces and IRs... I guess I'm not that much sold on digital reverb in general. Took me a few semi-decades to figure that one out..
|
|