Hi Swan808,
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808  I
Im very interested to hear some Lex 300 and 224 comparisons...with the EMT 252 that is a very chorus-rich reverb...how much is modulation a part of the Lex units? And how difficult is is to reproduce these modulations? Are they different per preset? |
The L300 & L224 were not as chorus heavy as the EMT250-option of the EMT252
We supply different presets for each impulse response library.
The EMT252 hardware is yielding far less chorus-effect than its EMT 250 Option. As a matter of fact, I would not use the EMT 250 on a piano which I do not want to sound detuned.
The "unseen" beauty of the impulse response, which is also its "failure" is that is does not capture the chorus-effect. This fact, however, can be turned into an advantage. Why, you might ask. Well, you do not have the option of taking the chorus-effect off, of the hardware EMT 250. But, with the impulse response which never captured the chorus-effect in the first place, you simply dont insert a chorus-effect after the convolution reverb. The impulse response gives you the EMT 250 reverb, but with no chorus-effect and that sounds very beautiful as well. I can imagine, that quite a few early EMT 250 hardware users, would have been very happy, if they would have had the choice to switch off the chorus-effect on the hardware. A choice they did not have until today. There are plenty plug-ins, perfectly capable of yielding a great chorus effect, coming very close to, audibly, matching that of the EMT hardware.
So, if the impulses have been captured properly, you actually get an option that you never had with the real hardware thus extending its behavior.
Quote:
|
Im still on the fence as to these IRs...but am becoming more and more tempted to try...
|
Convolution technology along with Impulse Responses, leaves a "bad" taste in many mouths. And the quality can be extremely bad on some libraries. But that does not apply to all of them.
Unfortunately to most. But there are some, among others,
Numerical Sound, which are very capable of deriving good impulses from live venues
Think of great impulse responses as of a great sounding mix
Problem today, is that may online magazines along with some manufacturers are trying to communicate to people that making a great sounding impulse response is as easy as poking your nose. Just send a swept sinus stimulus signal into any given construct and record the result. There you go, a perfect impulse response. Many have tried it and many have been disappointed by the result and ultimately blame the convolution technology for being inadequate.
But ask yourself, would you be able to mix or place the microphones, like Bruce Swedien, by simply reading a magazine or an interview?
Deriving a great sounding impulse response from any given construct, be that, a live venue or hardware device, takes a lot of research and time. Just like it takes a lot of time and devotion to be able to make a great mix, which, in a lot of cases starts with where and understanding why you placed the microphones where you did.
Anyone, with devotion and motive is perfectly capable of producing a great sounding impulse response. Just like anyone, with motive and devotion can learn how to play the acoustic guitar. Only one cannot learn how to play that in one day.
Today, lots of people dont mind paying as much as $995 for a good convolution reverb.
The paradox at hand here, is that a $189 (
Knufinke, SIR2)* convolution reverb, loaded with a great impulse response, is superior to a $995 convolution reverb loaded with a poor impulse response. However, no one, today, in their right mind, would ever pay $189 for the reverb and $806 for the right set of impulses, although they are the ones making the real difference ;-)
*we're not affiliated with Knufinke