|
Post by longscale on Apr 14, 2024 14:51:52 GMT -6
Because of my room limits, I record dry. This puts my instruments - in - some very nice spaces.
This is exactly why I continue to use my M7 and have zero plans to ever move it. My other ear opening experience was to run the M7 in mono - and build individual instrument sounds with mono reverbs. Typically I print those. Mimicking what I might do with say a close and a far mic on a guitar cab in a nice room. This is my way of obtaining some really fantastic room sounds when my room is in fact not fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by copperx on Apr 14, 2024 15:18:21 GMT -6
Does anybody use the Bricasti on the main vocal exclusively?
Here's a song in Spanish where it is featured prominently, and I think it fits the aesthetic, but I'm not sure how would it fit in other genres.
|
|
|
Post by FM77 on Apr 14, 2024 15:20:29 GMT -6
I'll use this for a couple weeks and then consider the LiquidSonics M7 link. Almost seems exploitative with today's workflow. I don't think a basic or functionally simple midi controller, even with a basic GUI is too much to ask to be included with a new M7 purchase and the hardware registered.
|
|
|
Post by trubshaw on Apr 15, 2024 2:10:53 GMT -6
Like most people here i love my Bricasti M7 and use it on every mix. Mainly for orchestral stuff in soundtrack mixes - 'Scoring Stage' is my go to reverb. But i use it on lots of other stuff too and the rooms sound great. It's super realistic and smooth, sometimes i don't even realise it's on. But the thing i find most useful is that you can control it from the Liquidsonics M7 Link PlugIn. So my M7 is tucked away in my machine room and operates just like a plugin with stellar sound.
|
|
|
Post by ironinthepath on Apr 15, 2024 22:30:30 GMT -6
I think anybody interested in recording is into high quality reverb (probably the first DSP to blow my mind in the late 90s), and I know there is much love for the Bricasti (the example above sounds very very nice).
Here is what I don't understand though - if it's a digital implementation of reverb then it should be possible to make a 100% perfect copy/implementation of the algorithm using a computer (implemented as a plug-in or dedicated post-processing tool somehow, etc.). The samples ("ones and zeros") don't care how they are summed/multiplied, etc. in the digital domain.
The A/D and D/A specs (jitter, dynamic range, etc.) on the unit are quite decent but only impact the conversion itself, not the reverb algorithm (unless something quite unconventional is happening here) and with that consideration Lynx and other dedicated converters are comparable or better.
So what is it that the Bricasti is doing differently with dedicated digital computation hardware? Is it mainly that they are implementing the algorithm in a dedicated hardware box so they can protect their hard-earned DSP intellectual property? I'd completely understand that.
Otherwise, from an electronics standpoint, I just don't get it. That doesn't imply that the many happy users out there have been "tricked" or something, I'm sure it's earned its reputation. I've read comments like "other software 'verbs just can't touch it!" --> and while I'm not saying I don't believe them, I'm saying as an electrical engineer I don't yet understand what it might be doing that can't be implemented (from a technical standpoint) in a pure software product.
Any insights on this would be appreciated (in case I get tempted to jump on the Bricasti bandwagon) :-)
-Chris
|
|
|
Post by lowlou on Apr 15, 2024 22:46:05 GMT -6
I remember reading that the Bricasti hardware uses several specialized CPU (four IIRC) granting it the edge on processing power. It's ahead of its time in term on algorithm complexity. These discussions can be found on Gearspace. But now with 32 core CPUs, I don't know where we're at. Things changed a lot in the CPU world these past six-seven years. Computer probably play catch-up. Time for a new end-game Bricasti ? ^^'. And fow how much... 5000$ ? 6000$ ?
I'd be curious to hear what GPU audio are doing with reverbs now, they too have access to a greater computing power. GPU were crimininally underused by DAWs but GPU audio wants to change that.
You guys really make me want to try the Bricasti, and for that, I do NOT thank you.
|
|
|
Post by FM77 on Apr 16, 2024 7:37:18 GMT -6
I think anybody interested in recording is into high quality reverb (probably the first DSP to blow my mind in the late 90s), and I know there is much love for the Bricasti (the example above sounds very very nice). Here is what I don't understand though - if it's a digital implementation of reverb then it should be possible to make a 100% perfect copy/implementation of the algorithm using a computer (implemented as a plug-in or dedicated post-processing tool somehow, etc.). The samples ("ones and zeros") don't care how they are summed/multiplied, etc. in the digital domain. The A/D and D/A specs (jitter, dynamic range, etc.) on the unit are quite decent but only impact the conversion itself, not the reverb algorithm (unless something quite unconventional is happening here) and with that consideration Lynx and other dedicated converters are comparable or better. So what is it that the Bricasti is doing differently with dedicated digital computation hardware? Is it mainly that they are implementing the algorithm in a dedicated hardware box so they can protect their hard-earned DSP intellectual property? I'd completely understand that. Otherwise, from an electronics standpoint, I just don't get it. That doesn't imply that the many happy users out there have been "tricked" or something, I'm sure it's earned its reputation. I've read comments like "other software 'verbs just can't touch it!" --> and while I'm not saying I don't believe them, I'm saying as an electrical engineer I don't yet understand what it might be doing that can't be implemented (from a technical standpoint) in a pure software product. Any insights on this would be appreciated (in case I get tempted to jump on the Bricasti bandwagon) :-) -Chris
I understand your point. And only speaking from my short experience with it, I was prepared to do a few days worth of real deep actual track, session work comparison with high-end reverb plugins and then pack it up and send it back if need be. (I have 7th Heaven, Quantum, UAD, LX and a the stock Bricasti IRs) I have lived years without it and i have too many years with gear to care about 'honeymoon' feelings. They don't apply anymore.
But it was not subtle. After a few hours I just could just not argue the point. I am positive it is not for everyone and it aint fn cheap. There is a lot of other gear I can get for the $ but I feel like this is my life's work and details matters. Basically I am buying space. I don’t get to take any of this with me. As of ‘today’ which is really all I have, this Reverb was really beautiful, really beautiful. You'd have to experience it, but the consensus amongst those who 'feel it' is very consistent.
I am a low-listener, non hyped roots, fusion style player. Maybe that helps my decision? I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Apr 16, 2024 14:57:24 GMT -6
The M7 is a room(s) upgrade
Cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 16, 2024 17:53:43 GMT -6
I remember reading that the Bricasti hardware uses several specialized CPU (four IIRC) granting it the edge on processing power. It's ahead of its time in term on algorithm complexity. These discussions can be found on Gearspace. But now with 32 core CPUs, I don't know where we're at. Things changed a lot in the CPU world these past six-seven years. Computer probably play catch-up. Time for a new end-game Bricasti ? ^^'. And fow how much... 5000$ ? 6000$ ? I'd be curious to hear what GPU audio are doing with reverbs now, they too have access to a greater computing power. GPU were crimininally underused by DAWs but GPU audio wants to change that. You guys really make me want to try the Bricasti, and for that, I do NOT thank you. You wonder what the cost is on one of those things…of course, I don’t want to besmirch the guy for getting whatever he can out of it…but when you can get two tricked out MacBook Pros for tha same price or something seemingly as complicated like the Axefx for at least a thousand less…it makes it a hard buy for me. And that’s fine…different strokes. But I was reminded today comparing the Pulsar 78 with the AS 78…the Pulsar sounds really awesome…but the HW sounds a little more awesomer.
|
|
|
Post by FM77 on Apr 16, 2024 19:34:22 GMT -6
There is certainly a psychological element to gear. Its nothing new and it has driven gear sales trends for decades. It is a ceaseless human process. This is true of all gear or tech industries. Name brand, country of origin, technology age, 'hot or not' at the moment etc.
It comes down to where we place our value or perceived value. $4000 for Lynx converters or $800 for the same Black Lion Audio converters? Will both be sonically close? Of course (until it isn't). Either way, too close for many to hear a difference or care. Lynx is 4 times better in 2024? Where is it better? For what? For who? A game of micro gains stacked up. The last bit of any quality seems to cost considerably more.
Again 'value' is in the use of something, for someone. A Macbook Pro does Macbook Pro stuff. Really useful utility for many and pointless for others.
Wunder Audio CM7 for $7500 or a Stam SA-47 for $1500? Me, I am in the SA-47 camp. I can't justify the cost, sonically, for the remaining $6000, not when there is no lack, perceived lack or void I am hearing that needs to be filled.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Apr 16, 2024 21:11:53 GMT -6
I think anybody interested in recording is into high quality reverb (probably the first DSP to blow my mind in the late 90s), and I know there is much love for the Bricasti (the example above sounds very very nice). Here is what I don't understand though - if it's a digital implementation of reverb then it should be possible to make a 100% perfect copy/implementation of the algorithm using a computer (implemented as a plug-in or dedicated post-processing tool somehow, etc.). The samples ("ones and zeros") don't care how they are summed/multiplied, etc. in the digital domain. The A/D and D/A specs (jitter, dynamic range, etc.) on the unit are quite decent but only impact the conversion itself, not the reverb algorithm (unless something quite unconventional is happening here) and with that consideration Lynx and other dedicated converters are comparable or better. So what is it that the Bricasti is doing differently with dedicated digital computation hardware? Is it mainly that they are implementing the algorithm in a dedicated hardware box so they can protect their hard-earned DSP intellectual property? I'd completely understand that. Otherwise, from an electronics standpoint, I just don't get it. That doesn't imply that the many happy users out there have been "tricked" or something, I'm sure it's earned its reputation. I've read comments like "other software 'verbs just can't touch it!" --> and while I'm not saying I don't believe them, I'm saying as an electrical engineer I don't yet understand what it might be doing that can't be implemented (from a technical standpoint) in a pure software product. Any insights on this would be appreciated (in case I get tempted to jump on the Bricasti bandwagon) :-) -Chris that’s not possible with many reverbs. different CPUs and dsp chips process math differently. Old reverb dsp chips ran in fixed point instead of floating point and were quite primitive. Every operation produced truncation and noise. Unless you write non standard code to Jerry rig a cpu to run those algorithms in the same way as the vintage chip, it will not sound the same. The algorithms were tweaked to sound good on those primitive chips, not on modern CPUs. All of the distortion greatly affects spatial perception and timbre. They would have to write different algorithms on modern cpus to sound similar to the original ones on the primitive chips in terms of depth, width, and timbre as the older reverb. Many of these effects are iconic and the sound of many genres. This is why the Relab and UAD Lexicon plugins and the Eventide H3000 factory sound a little odd. They cannot physically sound and behave the same. The Bricasti m7 runs on multiple Analog Devices Blackfin chips that are 16/32-bit fixed point. The TC 6000 runs on motorola 56k chips like pro tools tdm. Porting the algorithms to an x64 or ARM chip in standard floating point and having them sound the same is probably impossible. But what I do know? Many Brainworx plugins have fixed point truncation everywhere for no reason. Now the older units are far far more primitive than these. Many genres’ classic tones depended on those dying units, some of them very cheap like the Alesis Midiverb II and Quadraverb or the Yamaha SPX90 and FX500. The Lexchips are primitive. Many of these algorithms have no modern equivalent or only 1 or 2 that can do something similar and it’s often a plug or a pedal. Of course other units ran on floating point sharcs like UAD cards and Weiss and their algorithms can easily be ported to native because Sharc chips were 32-bit float and 40-bit float extended precision while modern intel and arm is 32/64 bit. The best option for these hardware reverbs native that cannot easily be ported is to just buy the hardware or just use something else made for modern CPUs. The Relab Sonsig, LiquidSonics Tai Chi, and Apulsoft Apverb sound fantastic to me. Goodhertz Megaverb replaced all Alesis hardware
|
|
|
Post by maldenfilms on Apr 18, 2024 1:03:28 GMT -6
Here's a stripped-down track with the M7 featured prominently as the vocal reverb. (And the vocal mic is a Heiserman H47tube.)
|
|
|
Post by lowlou on Apr 18, 2024 3:57:24 GMT -6
I remember reading that the Bricasti hardware uses several specialized CPU (four IIRC) granting it the edge on processing power. It's ahead of its time in term on algorithm complexity. These discussions can be found on Gearspace. But now with 32 core CPUs, I don't know where we're at. Things changed a lot in the CPU world these past six-seven years. Computer probably play catch-up. Time for a new end-game Bricasti ? ^^'. And fow how much... 5000$ ? 6000$ ? I'd be curious to hear what GPU audio are doing with reverbs now, they too have access to a greater computing power. GPU were crimininally underused by DAWs but GPU audio wants to change that. You guys really make me want to try the Bricasti, and for that, I do NOT thank you. You wonder what the cost is on one of those things…of course, I don’t want to besmirch the guy for getting whatever he can out of it…but when you can get two tricked out MacBook Pros for tha same price or something seemingly as complicated like the Axefx for at least a thousand less…it makes it a hard buy for me. And that’s fine…different strokes. But I was reminded today comparing the Pulsar 78 with the AS 78…the Pulsar sounds really awesome…but the HW sounds a little more awesomer. Well it's funny you talk about the AS78 at the very end of your message, because the beginning of it, and the question mark about production cost of the Bricasti made me think immediately of something weird that happened to me some time ago that has to do with an AS78 unit. ---> I recently received a Dynax 3 compressor demo (good price, most savage compressor on earth) directly from Olivier Bolling, the funder of AL.SO. He sent the Dynax 3 in a "pre-sale" AS78 box. The price for the unit was very low. 599 GBP. I wondered what this was about. Maybe this is the production cost for an AS78 ? We can't know for sure. Could be something else.
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 22, 2024 15:45:56 GMT -6
Here's how I think (kinda know) a demo of the Bricasti would go for me. I'd turn it on, compare it to the plugin, yes it sounds better than the plugin, but not enough for $4500...maybe $2800 used. I'd imagine this is personal for everyone...there are definitely "I gotta have that" things in my studio. (Not many though lol)
Trinnov, Axefx III (even though I hardly ever record my own guitar, but it's just too effing cool), UA front end, (Woulda said my D-28 Authentic, but that went away lol), my Model 450 Peterson tuner from the 70s, Soyuz 013...and that's about all. I could sell anything else and keep going knowing it was still available to buy again.
Ii HATE having things that have no trade value/can't sell. I mean, what happens if a new limited edition Heliosstalevel pops up on CL and I need some dough to buy? I gotta have some movable shit lol! I guess a Bricasti would be that too.
Damn you, economy!
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Apr 22, 2024 15:50:55 GMT -6
You wonder what the cost is on one of those things…of course, I don’t want to besmirch the guy for getting whatever he can out of it…but when you can get two tricked out MacBook Pros for tha same price or something seemingly as complicated like the Axefx for at least a thousand less…it makes it a hard buy for me. And that’s fine…different strokes. But I was reminded today comparing the Pulsar 78 with the AS 78…the Pulsar sounds really awesome…but the HW sounds a little more awesomer. Well it's funny you talk about the AS78 at the very end of your message, because the beginning of it, and the question mark about production cost of the Bricasti made me think immediately of something weird that happened to me some time ago that has to do with an AS78 unit. ---> I recently received a Dynax 3 compressor demo (good price, most savage compressor on earth) directly from Olivier Bolling, the funder of AL.SO. He sent the Dynax 3 in a "pre-sale" AS78 box. The price for the unit was very low. 599 GBP. I wondered what this was about. Maybe this is the production cost for an AS78 ? We can't know for sure. Could be something else. I seriously don't begrudge anyone for providing a product people want and making a profit. All for it. And manufacturers like AS are already cutting us a fair deal in my estimation. But I'm sure we're paying for the expertise and parts and not paying for a name. Their margins are probably the way all of pro audio should be priced. But again - I'm talking out of my ass. My next day running a supply & demand company will be my first.
|
|
|
Post by copperx on Apr 22, 2024 23:01:53 GMT -6
Here's how I think (kinda know) a demo of the Bricasti would go for me. I'd turn it on, compare it to the plugin, yes it sounds better than the plugin, but not enough for $4500...maybe $2800 used. I'd imagine this is personal for everyone...there are definitely "I gotta have that" things in my studio. (Not many though lol) Trinnov, Axefx III (even though I hardly ever record my own guitar, but it's just too effing cool), UA front end, (Woulda said my D-28 Authentic, but that went away lol), my Model 450 Peterson tuner from the 70s, Soyuz 013...and that's about all. I could sell anything else and keep going knowing it was still available to buy again. Ii HATE having things that have no trade value/can't sell. I mean, what happens if a new limited edition Heliosstalevel pops up on CL and I need some dough to buy? I gotta have some movable shit lol! I guess a Bricasti would be that too. Damn you, economy! The good thing about having sought-after gear is that your (depreciating) investment is somewhat liquid.
|
|