Quote:
Originally Posted by Warp69  #1 Interpolation (liniear, allpass, lagrange etc) of delay lines by sine, tri, ran - obvious chorus effect
#2 Crossfading between taps (which probably is close related to both #1 and #3, depending how you define interpolation and coefficients manipulation)
#3 Coefficients manipulation - ex. change the values in the FDN matrix
|
Well obviously the EMT250 does a lot of both #1 and #3, it's remained highly useful despite (but probably *because of*) it's rather low mode density. The Ursa Major Space station uses a form of #1 and something like #3 though it hasn't really got a similar structure to other reverberators. The 224 uses these methods as well, but it's quite easy remove all modulation in that machine and still have a very useful reverb.
When I listen to the "Random Hall" algo (which seems to use #2 above) or the later Lex algos with the "Spin" and "Wander' parameters I hear a lack of 'distance' in the tail. The sound seems to float like a cloud rather than travel away from the listener. I think the Griesinger paper provides a compelling argument against this sort of modulation for realistic spaces.
How would you characterize the differences in depth that you have observed when experimenting with these three methods?