Reverb

[living sounds]

VST/DX Plugins for some reason always sound mushy to me, lacking definition. The old Sawstudio, coded in assembler and working at 24 bit integer didn't. I always had a hunch that there's something wrong with the plugin formats. Plugins that used VST nly for input/output (like the old ZynaddsubFX synth plugin) sounded much better. An artist I know did everything in Reason, which has (or at least had 10 years ago) it's own propriatory platform made entire compositions in it that sound stellar, too...

I don't know, I have since transitioned to hardware for everything but recording and the most basic levelling/automation tasks. I especially dislike plugins that do real time up/down-sampling, which to my ears sucks the life out of any signal.

Here's a comparison between a 480L (connected digitally) and the relab 480l plugin. Judge for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6vieI5i-UI

 

[ruffrecords]

Plug sounds to have a lot of low end mush to my ears.

Cheers

Ian

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Here's a comparison between a 480L (connected digitally) and the relab 480l plugin. Judge for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6vieI5i-UI

Clearly, as several comments said, the settings on the plug-in are such that the apparent reverb level is significantly higher/longer.
I must say on the first sample (drums) and on the trumpet I actually preferred the plug-in, although I would have turned it down a little. On the bongos I didn't hear a difference, I could have used either without rdiscrimination.
But evaluating reverbs on solo instruments is meaningless, they must be tested in a full mix, the busiest the mix, the more it shows the ability of the reverb to find its placement.
I use reverb plug-ins only on anecdotical tracks, tags or cameos, the main reverbs are hardware.

 

[john12ax7]

What is the DSP processing power of the older hardware like a 480? You can usually do more with dedicated chips. Modern dedicated DSP vs modern CPU the DSP clearly wins.  But what is the delta of older dedicated DSP vs modern CPU?

I always thought fixed point was a better way to do audio.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

What is the DSP processing power of the older hardware like a 480? You can usually do more with dedicated chips. Modern dedicated DSP vs modern CPU the DSP clearly wins.  But what is the delta of older dedicated DSP vs modern CPU?

This subject came out when the first VST applications came out. In terms of pure number-crunching power, there is no debate. Even in the late 90's, any laptop had much more raw power than any dedicated digital audio hardware.
However, computers are plagued with so much housekeeping duties it impairs their capacity, in particular in regard with the constraints of real-time operation. Managing display priorities and many other background tasks interfers with actual real-time processing power.
That is why the Apple computers of the time had a significant advantage for audio and video applications, because of their different management of these. Actually the Atari, although beinglagging in terms of raw power, was a winner in that respect.
Dedicated DSP hardware still offers many advantages, in particular by establishing direct pipelines that a typical von Neumann archtecture does not provide.

I always thought fixed point was a better way to do audio.

This was certainly true for a time. It looks like floating-point processors now have overcome their limitations.
Floating-point has the disadvantage of introducing rounding errors, that are constant in percentage, where fixed-point would introduce  absolute constant quantization error, but is a clear winner in filters, particularly at low fequencies, where the accuracy of coefficients close to unity is paramount.
Many filters rely on division by 1-N, where N is very close to 1. So it can be written as  K=1/(1-N) or K=1/epsilon, where epsilon is very small, so in fixed-point, the quantzation error can be be quire significant. Floating-point allows minimal error on these numbers.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Many filters rely on division by 1-N, where N is very close to 1. So it can be written as  K=1/(1-N) or K=1/epsilon, where epsilon is very small, so in fixed-point, the quantzation error can be be quire significant. Floating-point allows minimal error on these numbers.

+1  dealing with tiny coefficient values is a significant benefit of floating point digital, most apparent with LF filters and high sample rates.

Reverb is another application with lots of small multiplies. Quantization noise from all these multiplies can build up and accumulate as results get recirculated back into inputs. Another issue with reverbs is accumulator overload, I have experienced problems with cheap fixed point reverbs (using lots of HF pre/de-emphasis) that were easily saturated by strong HF content.

JR

 

[Whoops]

Here's a comparison between a 480L (connected digitally) and the relab 480l plugin. Judge for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6vieI5i-UI

Wow,
Thanks so much for the link the  Relab 480 plugin sounds much better.

I've heard great things on the Relab before but never used  or tried it, thanks for the link , I'm going to buy that plugin now.

Used a Lexicon 480 for years, quite used to it, nice to know that companies are still improving on the past and moving forward

I don't miss the 480 fan noise though, I moved it at some point to the machine room, also don't miss the repairs...

 

[living sounds]

Thanks so much for the link the  Relab 480 plugin sounds much better.

First time I've heard someone say that. Did you listen to the Drums-percussion loop? Hardware sounds precise and allows for acoustic location the room, whereas the plugin is just a wash... Or the conga loop? Hardware blends well with the source, while the plugin has the room artificially separate behind the signal. Finally, the mix file with the plugin falls completely apart...

 

[abbey road d enfer]

First time I've heard someone say that.

You haven't read my post? I just said the same.

  Did you listen to the Drums-percussion loop? Hardware sounds precise and allows for acoustic location the room, whereas the plugin is just a wash... Or the conga loop? Hardware blends well with the source, while the plugin has the room artificially separate behind the signal.

I said, as many others, taht the settings are very different; indeed the plug-in is much louder, so it doesn't blend as well.

Finally, the mix file with the plugin falls completely apart...

What mix? You can't call a sample constituted of just a drum loop and a solo trumpet a mix.

 

[living sounds]

You haven't read my post? I just said the same.
I said, as many others, taht the settings are very different; indeed the plug-in is much louder, so it doesn't blend as well.
What mix? You can't call a sample constituted of just a drum loop and a solo trumpet a mix.

Didn't remember reading your post, sorry. I've got Lexicon hardware reverbs and the hand's on experience is the same as what I hear in the comparisons: The hardware blends much better with the source, sounds clearer and more organic/natural. I wouldn't go to the lenghts of a hardware setup if software sounded adequate to my ears...

 

[jensenmann]

absolutely +1

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Didn't remember reading your post, sorry. I've got Lexicon hardware reverbs and the hand's on experience is the same as what I hear in the comparisons: The hardware blends much better with the source, sounds clearer and more organic/natural. I wouldn't go to the lenghts of a hardware setup if software sounded adequate to my ears...

In that case the video clip fails to demonstrate that.

 

[FarisElek]

I would love to believe any digital units out there sound good, but honestly it’s plug-in or the real thing for me since I’ve dove into this subject.

I was playing around with some cheap units I put in the closet a couple years ago like my Lexicon MPX100, and the Alexis Midiverb 3 that I modded with some nicer caps to tame the high-end. It sounded awful. The midi verb less so. I couldn’t believe I used to use it when I recorded exclusively to tape. I know these are very low-end items, but it was unbelievably bad. I didn’t find the delay on lexicon much better, which i find people typically use it for.

All of the higher end recommendations are so expensive I’d rather use the money to buy an old spring or plate unit. I have no qualms about the space. I could put the plate against a wall somewhere like my garage and run a snake to it.

If anyone has a great place to source a steel plate for a good price and some advice on the build. I believe I’ll be starting to build a plate when I get back from New Mexico in a couple weeks. Don’t worry, we are driving and keep sanitizer in the car for pumping gas.

 

[Whoops]

The hardware blends much better with the source, sounds clearer and more organic/natural.

what you call hardware is a really basic computer for nowadays standards that runs code

Blending better or worst has to do with the Mix setting you used or the rev send level.

not to do with one computer with code or another computer with code, in this specific situation

A/B comparisons are not easy to do, and actually most online A/B in forums fail in that regard.
Most people that publish an A/B comparison online were already expecting  an outcome before the actual comparison, and they want to prove what they want to believe beforehand. So most of the times the end result is clearly Biased.

I said, as many others, taht the settings are very different; indeed the plug-in is much louder, so it doesn't blend as well.

 

[living sounds]

what you call hardware is a really basic computer for nowadays standards that runs code

Blending better or worst has to do with the Mix setting you used or the rev send level.

Thanks for the lecture. I am aware WRT the technology behind hardware reverb units.

You couldn't be more wrong about blending having to do only with the mix setting though. A psychoacoustically "correct" reverb can be mostly wet and still blend seamlessly with the source. I suspect phase and impulse response to play a role, since the general "mushiness" of plugins as described above mirrors my experience with the effect of reconstruction filters in DACs. For instance, my hardware Lexicons connected digitally produce strange and unexpected DC offsets that are absent in the plugins. Maybe the latter has a digital highpass filter implimented that messes with impulse response of the signal. I generally dislike what digital filters do to a signal, that's primarily why I use a console.

Apart from all the technical speculation, it is generally mine and other people's experience that using the hardware it is much easier and faster to arrive at satisfying, even spectacular results. My Lexicon reverbs are Nuverb cards sitting in old Macs, operated via a software interface. So turning knobs has nothing to do with it. And the QRS just sounds great at any setting.

 

[Whoops]

Apart from all the technical speculation, it is generally mine and other people's experience that using the hardware it is much easier and faster to arrive at satisfying, even spectacular results.

It's "generally your opinion" only, I totally respect that and you have the right to have the opinions you want.

It's not general "others people experience" and you can't and shouldn't talk about others. That's just plain and simple speculation and ********

 

[jensenmann]

It´s my opinion, too. Maybe you just have overlooked my post above.

 

[Whoops]

It´s my opinion, too. Maybe you just have overlooked my post above.

I think you overlook there's 7,800,000,000 people in the planet.

 

[jensenmann]

Yes, they all care about hardware reverbs vs plugins. Come on....

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Hey gents! This is going nowhere. No **** contests here.
People are entitled to their opinions. Where I don't agree is when there's no evidence given, or when this evidence is questionable.
I have no religion about analog vs. digital or hardware vs. software, and I'm ready toaccept any preference, as long as it is substantiated.