|
Post by jtc111 on Mar 19, 2019 18:54:38 GMT -6
There's probably a technical reason why there are so few reverbs and delays offered in 500 series format. Can anyone educate me on that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 19:21:46 GMT -6
Because if you're looking for space saving exercises you can't beat plugins.
Apart from that there's no "technical reason", a new generation Iphone is massively more powerful than an old 1990's Lexicon unit and it's not like we can't fit DSP's into small formats. The real question isn't technical, it's whether or not catering to a small sub-market (external effects) of an even smaller sub-market (500 series owners) would ever be worth the manufacturing / R&D etc. costs.
|
|
|
Post by jtc111 on Mar 19, 2019 19:32:04 GMT -6
Because if you're looking for space saving exercises you can't beat plugins. But there's an abundance of everything else in 500 format so I have a hard time buying that it's a space saving thing.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Mar 19, 2019 19:39:29 GMT -6
Not much room for a screen and controls.
|
|
|
Post by 000 on Mar 19, 2019 19:48:01 GMT -6
I have a Mr. Springgy 500 that’s actually really cool and really vintage sounding - which for being dsp or whatever - I haven’t found it’s sound itb.
|
|
|
Post by 000 on Mar 19, 2019 19:50:05 GMT -6
Also the Moog delay looks very cool. I have the moogerfooger version which I’ll probably be buried with.
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Mar 19, 2019 19:55:45 GMT -6
I still regret not buying the Moog 500 series analog delay when they made them. If someone else were to make a high end analog delay suitable for vocals etc. I'd buy it. I do own two 500 series Tank Drivers, the unit Radial makes for driving any spring tank.
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Mar 19, 2019 19:57:30 GMT -6
Also the Moog delay looks very cool. I have the moogerfooger version which I’ll probably be buried with. No longer made. And used ones now are very pricey.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Mar 19, 2019 20:41:48 GMT -6
God I want the Moog delay bad. Going for almost1200-1600 each now lol only stopped making them as the AD chips no longer are made. JLM audio is coming out with a customizable effects unit for 500 serise http://instagram.com/p/BvMS00lgThz Looks cool for sure. Plus it's stereo The best part about outboard effects is the not so good converters they use. No plugin ever sounds like them. Some of the old units out there you can do recall via midi so not that hard to integrate into your flow. I'm hoping to do that with a few boxes I have. And lexicon pcm units aren't that hard to dial back in. Nothing sounds better for a delay either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 22:23:52 GMT -6
Because if you're looking for space saving exercises you can't beat plugins. But there's an abundance of everything else in 500 format so I have a hard time buying that it's a space saving thing. That was kinda pseudo tied into the rest of my statement (plus a failure of a joke apparently), hardware (chassis / racks etc.) take up space for a digital product. Remember these old digital boxes have the processing power equivalent to a fish. Why would someone take up physical space, power, limited instances and extra cost when it can be run EXACTLY the same ITB without said limitations (it's all just code)? The amount of 19" rackmount reverbs are already extremely limited (in terms of options), then they've got additional business costs to again appeal to a limited subset of a limited subset. So let's move on to other limited cases, could you fit an EMT plate into a 500 series? No, you can hardly fit them into a room. To me at least it makes perfect sense why there's limited options, even the Bricasti should be able to run multiple instances natively. For the price of that thing (like $5k including the controller here) you could build a decc'd out 32 core machine, you'd have a REAL hard time convincing me six old dsp chips from 2007 are anywhere near as fast.
|
|
|
Post by jtc111 on Mar 19, 2019 22:42:37 GMT -6
Okay, I get what you're saying now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 22:48:47 GMT -6
Okay, I get what you're saying now. Glad to chime in .
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Mar 19, 2019 23:02:04 GMT -6
And yet..
PCM42...still the greatest delay unit ever. Bricasti Reverb..one of the best reverbs ever.
Hardware is still great in this case too.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 19, 2019 23:22:11 GMT -6
There's probably a technical reason why there are so few reverbs and delays offered in 500 series format. Can anyone educate me on that? Analog reverbs require space. Digital would require a mixture of coding and hardware skills, often not found in the same person. Also digital stuff has to pass stringent requirements concerning stray RFI, which digital circuitry tends to radiate like crazy if not well shielded.
I think a couple of companies have done 500 format spring reverb drivers. (The tanks have to be external, naturally.) Haven't tried any of them.
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Mar 20, 2019 10:38:52 GMT -6
There's probably a technical reason why there are so few reverbs and delays offered in 500 series format. Can anyone educate me on that? Analog reverbs require space. Digital would require a mixture of coding and hardware skills, often not found in the same person. Also digital stuff has to pass stringent requirements concerning stray RFI, which digital circuitry tends to radiate like crazy if not well shielded.
I think a couple of companies have done 500 format spring reverb drivers. (The tanks have to be external, naturally.) Haven't tried any of them.
I understand why we don't need digital effects in a 500 series format--I'm happy to do that in a box. But why not a high end stereo analog delay with perhaps different chip options? I'd be interested in that, and if they can fit an analog delay in a guitar pedal they can fit it in a 500 series format. As for the something to drive external spring tanks THIS works great.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,967
|
Post by ericn on Mar 20, 2019 10:44:20 GMT -6
Analog reverbs require space. Digital would require a mixture of coding and hardware skills, often not found in the same person. Also digital stuff has to pass stringent requirements concerning stray RFI, which digital circuitry tends to radiate like crazy if not well shielded.
I think a couple of companies have done 500 format spring reverb drivers. (The tanks have to be external, naturally.) Haven't tried any of them.
I understand why we don't need digital effects in a 500 series format--I'm happy to do that in a box. But why not a high end stereo analog delay with perhaps different chip options? I'd be interested in that, and if they can fit an analog delay in a guitar pedal they can fit it in a 500 series format. As for the something to drive external spring tanks THIS works great. Space and power limitations. The other thing is there are.a lot of pedals out there and petal manufacturers just don’t want to invest in format that won’t sell as well and probably cost more.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Mar 20, 2019 10:45:51 GMT -6
Analog reverbs require space. Digital would require a mixture of coding and hardware skills, often not found in the same person. Also digital stuff has to pass stringent requirements concerning stray RFI, which digital circuitry tends to radiate like crazy if not well shielded.
I think a couple of companies have done 500 format spring reverb drivers. (The tanks have to be external, naturally.) Haven't tried any of them.
I understand why we don't need digital effects in a 500 series format--I'm happy to do that in a box. But why not a high end stereo analog delay with perhaps different chip options? I'd be interested in that, and if they can fit an analog delay in a guitar pedal they can fit it in a 500 series format. As for the something to drive external spring tanks THIS works great. Behringer, through a subsidiary, is the only analog delay chip manufacturer that I’m aware of. Would be tough to launch a product at scale with a bunch of NOS chips.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 20, 2019 11:19:07 GMT -6
There is a trend in guitar pedals toward USB and even Bluetooth software control- Eventide H9, Source Audio Ventris/One Series, Chase Bliss, etc. WesAudio and JLM are doing it and I'd like to see more of it for 500 series. I think it would stimulate my interest in expanding my collection beyond compression. After all, I have eight (!) spaces to fill.
The Bricasti plugin control is only a hint of what's possible. I think hardware manufacturers will jump into "remote" software control if more users start asking for it.
BTW, the Ventris sounds so good and is so flexible (two reverb engines) that I am adding a pair of Radial EXTCs so it can be added as a HW insert. It's that good.
I would LOVE to see Bricasti release a 500 series box, perhaps modeled after the H9- you could invest in a "core" unit and then buy add-in "modules" as you like. Makes the buy-in less painful IMO.
Of course, the ITB-is-powerful argument is a strong one. However, I think there is still life in the dedicated hardware architecture approach. Designers can do what they want, however they want, and are not building on someone else's (MAC/PC) shared-resource platform. Only the plugin GUI would have to conform. Seems like a powerful method to me.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Mar 20, 2019 14:26:04 GMT -6
There is a trend in guitar pedals toward USB and even Bluetooth software control- Eventide H9, Source Audio Ventris/One Series, Chase Bliss, etc. WesAudio and JLM are doing it and I'd like to see more of it for 500 series. I think it would stimulate my interest in expanding my collection beyond compression. After all, I have eight (!) spaces to fill. The Bricasti plugin control is only a hint of what's possible. I think hardware manufacturers will jump into "remote" software control if more users start asking for it. BTW, the Ventris sounds so good and is so flexible (two reverb engines) that I am adding a pair of Radial EXTCs so it can be added as a HW insert. It's that good. I would LOVE to see Bricasti release a 500 series box, perhaps modeled after the H9- you could invest in a "core" unit and then buy add-in "modules" as you like. Makes the buy-in less painful IMO. Of course, the ITB-is-powerful argument is a strong one. However, I think there is still life in the dedicated hardware architecture approach. Designers can do what they want, however they want, and are not building on someone else's (MAC/PC) shared-resource platform. Only the plugin GUI would have to conform. Seems like a powerful method to me. The Bricasti plug-in control is discontinued.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Mar 20, 2019 14:34:13 GMT -6
There is a trend in guitar pedals toward USB and even Bluetooth software control- Eventide H9, Source Audio Ventris/One Series, Chase Bliss, etc. WesAudio and JLM are doing it and I'd like to see more of it for 500 series. I think it would stimulate my interest in expanding my collection beyond compression. After all, I have eight (!) spaces to fill. The Bricasti plugin control is only a hint of what's possible. I think hardware manufacturers will jump into "remote" software control if more users start asking for it. BTW, the Ventris sounds so good and is so flexible (two reverb engines) that I am adding a pair of Radial EXTCs so it can be added as a HW insert. It's that good. I would LOVE to see Bricasti release a 500 series box, perhaps modeled after the H9- you could invest in a "core" unit and then buy add-in "modules" as you like. Makes the buy-in less painful IMO. Of course, the ITB-is-powerful argument is a strong one. However, I think there is still life in the dedicated hardware architecture approach. Designers can do what they want, however they want, and are not building on someone else's (MAC/PC) shared-resource platform. Only the plugin GUI would have to conform. Seems like a powerful method to me. No way you could get a bricasti in a 500 module. The things are deep as it is. TONS of processing power in them. Would be cool though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 14:59:51 GMT -6
Of course, the ITB-is-powerful argument is a strong one. However, I think there is still life in the dedicated hardware architecture approach. Designers can do what they want, however they want, and are not building on someone else's (MAC/PC) shared-resource platform. Only the plugin GUI would have to conform. Seems like a powerful method to me. Out of curiosity what exactly do you know about the nuances of audio development (or even large application design)? Whilst it may seem like a "powerful" method often it's quite the opposite, from a business standpoint though it's a good idea. It's far easier to develop / run heavy algorithm's across multiple Blackfin / SHARC DSP's than it is to develop efficient multi-threaded code for PC cpu's. It's a lot harder for people to rip a plugin stored in a HW box, there's far less support issues (which can be a massive financial drain), they don't have to put additional investment into multi-platform / multi-DAW support etc. etc. If said developer is a lone wolf or part of a small team (<= 30) then it would always be a better option for them to go HW (actually in some instances for us as well). Major respect to those who create amazing native plugins by themselves or in small teams, it seems like an almost impossible task.! Although there's benefits for the end user as well, they won't break when an os version (or Pro Tools plugin version) gets updated. You can use them with a desk, there's little in the way of latency concerns which is ideal for tracking (yes I know plugins nowadays run near zero latency via DSP based consoles with a front end but it's the same thing as external HW really ain't it?). Finally not everyone has 8 / 16 / 32 / 48 core (high frequency) modern I7 / Ryzen machines capable of running <Insert however many instances here> extremely heavy plugin's, for mass consumption purposes native plugins are generally limited by a lower end arbitrary target or lowest common denominator (like PC games made for console). When you develop hardware there's little in the way of guesswork (in the greater picture) and you take advantage of DSP operations to it's full extent, never having to worry about people buying your plugin and whining about it not being able to run on a dual core I3. So yeah, there's a lot of pro's. Although because the likes of UA / Metric Halo have combined this stuff into an all in one (combining interfaces with DSP / console / plugin's) with PC based control mechanisms, rackmount and / or 500 series individual components again become a moot point.
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 20, 2019 15:45:35 GMT -6
Of course, the ITB-is-powerful argument is a strong one. However, I think there is still life in the dedicated hardware architecture approach. Designers can do what they want, however they want, and are not building on someone else's (MAC/PC) shared-resource platform. Only the plugin GUI would have to conform. Seems like a powerful method to me. Out of curiosity what exactly do you know about the nuances of audio development (or even large application design)? Whilst it may seem like a "powerful" method Nothing, I know nothing. Thanks for the education.
|
|
|
Post by schmalzy on Mar 20, 2019 15:58:01 GMT -6
I'm looking at my three guitar delay pedals that also handle line level (and a chorus pedal that is KILLER on synths) and I have to imagine the hardware delay/reverb thing is pretty well handled by the myriad of guitar pedals out on the market.
I dig 'em for mixing purposes, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by nudwig on Mar 20, 2019 16:19:20 GMT -6
I still love my Moog 500 delay, a bit irritated with myself that I didn't get a second. That said a reamp box and a ZOD are really fun to use with pedals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2019 16:22:11 GMT -6
No way you could get a bricasti in a 500 module. The things are deep as it is. TONS of processing power in them.
Would be cool though. Errr, hmm kinda it's all relative. As far as I understand it the Bricasti's use dual core Blackfin's, which (I'm guessing here) will be along the ADSP-BF line. They're 500mhz dual cores with 2X 40-bit ALU's / 148K / 256k L1 + L2 SRAM, they were originally developed around 2001(ish)??! DSP's will always be more efficient but due to SIMD operations (compiler applicable) the gap isn't quite what they used to be, also in the last nearly two decades microprocessors have become ridiculously more powerful (and even more general purpose). It appears the M7 is running six of these dsp units, therefore you probably couldn't run the algo off a single I7 core. But you might be able to get away with a single ARM Cortex A-76. I know nothing of how the dev created the Bricasti, although from experience I don't see a reason why an extensive reverb couldn't be run on a 500 series rack. It's a massive amount of power dedicated to a digital reverb for sure, although compared to modern processors not so much. P.S It's a shame the transfer buffer to GPU's ends up making them worse for audio applications than SIMD accelerated CPU's, there's a lot of wasted power there.
|
|