hardware convolution reverb vs. software convolution reverb

[Starstreet]

I use a Yamaha SREV1 in my studio. I have converted the impulse responses of the bricasti M7 from "Acousticas" into the SREV1 format. I couldn't hear a difference to the new bricasti impulse responses from "Samplicity", so I decided to use the ones of Acousticas.

I used the Waves IR-1 to compare the convolution quality. If you use Altiverb, you get the same result than Waves IR-1 does.

The attached soundfiles were recorded with the following equipment:

Brauner VMA
Manley SLAM
Motu HD192
Vovox cables
SSL-XLogic Channel compressor (slightly used)

Can you hear a difference between hardware and software convolution? The M7 doesn't have a lot of modulations in the reverb tail. I think it is an ideal unit for the use of impulse responses. When you try to use Altiverb or Waves IR-1 in a song, I always have the feeling, that the voice isn't embedded in the song. But if you use a hardware convolution reverb, you achieve better results. I have heard of people, who sold their Lexicon 480L after hearing the impulse responses with a Yamaha SREV1.

I have used the presets "Boston Hall A" and "Large Wooden Room".

[World Studios]

I think the hardware sounds more smooth and less metallic. More depth, perhaps because it is more separated from the direct signal in a good way. I have not had much sucess with convolution reverbs in my busy pop mixes for sure. They take up too much space, if nothing else, and sound a bit boring compared to algorithmic ones. I have the M7 and that one is the bomb.

[AvS]

I totally agree. IR-1 sound metallic. SREV1 just sounds better here.

[Warp69]

Originally Posted by Starstreet

The M7 doesn't have a lot of modulations in the reverb tail. I think it is an ideal unit for the use of impulse responses.

The M7 actually use a lot of modulation - it does sounds very smooth thou.

[Starstreet]

I wanted to show you, that hardware convolution reverbs still can generate reverbs you will not get by any available software. There could still be a small market for new units.
This technique was never dead.

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by Starstreet

I wanted to show you, that hardware convolution reverbs still can generate reverbs you will not get by any available software. There could still be a small market for new units.
This technique was never dead.

Meh, I don't buy that explanation... anyway - try Virsyn REFLECT 2 for great convolution reverb software... and the algorithimc software reverb plug-in by Lexicon rules them all... software reverb is right there with the hardware at the moment... HW units are only for those who need suitable interface for their OTB set-ups... (IMO)

[jupiter8]

Originally Posted by Starstreet

I wanted to show you, that hardware convolution reverbs still can generate reverbs you will not get by any available software. There could still be a small market for new units.
This technique was never dead.

Convolution 100% exactly defined mathematically. There's only one way to do it. There's absolutely no difference between HW or SW in that regard. All you get from HW is a ADA roundtrip.

[Warp69]

Originally Posted by jupiter8

Convolution 100% exactly defined mathematically. There's only one way to do it. There's absolutely no difference between HW or SW in that regard. All you get from HW is a ADA roundtrip.

Casey also argue that the Sony DRE-S777 sound different and much better than Altiverb and other software based convolution engines.

@Starstreet : How did you hook up the SREV1 - via AES/EBU? Could you post the exact same results 100% wet via digital?

[AvS]

Originally Posted by jupiter8

Convolution 100% exactly defined mathematically. There's only one way to do it. There's absolutely no difference between HW or SW in that regard. All you get from HW is a ADA roundtrip.

I have a hard time beliving that difference in those samples is just the convertion.

[jupiter8]

Originally Posted by AvS

I have a hard time beliving that difference in those samples is just the convertion.

If you know another way of doing convolution please do tell.

[AvS]

No idea but surely the developers must take alot of choices while making a convolution reverb rather than just write the "convolution formula" down?

[Starstreet]

@Starstreet : How did you hook up the SREV1 - via AES/EBU? Could you post the exact same results 100% wet via digital?[/QUOTE]


Yes it was connected via AES/EBU to the Motu HD192.

There is a guy in germany, who sells a CD with impulse responses from 960, 480, M6000, just for the SREV1. The seller is called "logic-platinum" and the actual ebay article number is 380150303619. He explained me, that there are different ways to calculate a convolution and the SREV1 would do a "1:1" convolution. But I didn't exactly understand what he tried to say. But he mentioned that Altiverb an Waves would not do it the same way and this would be the reason, why the SREV1 sounds always so much better. I can only repeat, what I have heard.

[theother]

The SREV1 really shines only if you sample through the SREV1. I know because I have one and tried it. But porting existing samples over to the SREV1 you lose most of its power. I guess it still has a slight edge though.

To make an honest comparison you should sample and playback from the SREV1 hardware and then sample and playback via software only.

[CeretoneAudio]

Wow massive difference! 1 thing though doesn't IR-1 have an algo reverb in it as well as convolution? Is that part definately turned off?

[Starstreet]

Originally Posted by CeretoneAudio

Wow massive difference! 1 thing though doesn't IR-1 have an algo reverb in it as well as convolution? Is that part definately turned off?

yes, of course I turned it off.

I have now the Sony DRE-S777 AND the Yamaha SREV1 in my studio. Read my new thread and compare both units with Altiverb.

[andrew montreal]

Hmmm... there's something happening here and I'm not sure why it hasn't been mentioned. The voice in the SREV version sounds very much dry and separate from the reverb whereas the voice in the IR-1 seems like it's as well going through the effect... there is a slight loss in the highs in a natural way that one would here if a person what not singing 6 inches from your ear. The early reflections seem to be more closely married to the voice thus pulling into the room.

This might be explained by the plugin being dropped right on the vocal track. If the test wasn't done that way then I have to say that I'm more impressed by the IR-1. Perhaps the difference can be explained by the fact that the reverb in the SREV version is slightly delayed, having had the signal go in and out of the computer.

Is anyone hearing this difference?

[Starstreet]

Altiverb and SREV-1 were both integrated in Cubase as FX-Channels. In the meantime I have sold the SREV-1 because I was more impressed by the DRE-S777. The small rooms sounded larger/deeper in the SREV-1, but the large halls in the DRE-S777 are brilliant. Some of the big reverbs e.g. in the Japanese Acoustic Library sound so good, that I checked my 480L, if there is something wrong.

I you play with the effect send slider in Cubase and compare Altiverb/SREV-1, the difference is really obvious. It is as big as comparing the Lexicon 480L to the Lexicon PCM Native Bundle (which sounds like crap).

[Jomox]

Originally Posted by World Studios

I think the hardware sounds more smooth and less metallic. More depth,

Agreed. I think the hardware version sounds a bit more natural also to my ears.

[famousbass]

<DELETED BY MODERATOR>

But you are selling the one you built.

[anaverb]

Originally Posted by famousbass

But you are selling the one you built.

listen man, this makes the second time ive replied to you, if you dont want to look at the vst a mastering engineer of 10 years built and is selln it for dirt cheap then dont look at it, this forum is about sharing knowledge and helping people, which is what im doing, offering such an effect for pennies and sharing secret knowledge tips and tricks, i dont hound other users of the forum. offer some music knowledge of your own or contributions youve made to the industry such as building effects or stop posting cuz im gettn tired of defending my self to you

[famousbass]

Originally Posted by anaverb

listen man, this makes the second time ive replied to you, if you dont want to look at the vst a mastering engineer of 10 years built and is selln it for dirt cheap then dont look at it, this forum is about sharing knowledge and helping people, which is what im doing, offering such an effect for pennies and sharing secret knowledge tips and tricks, i dont hound other users of the forum. offer some music knowledge of your own or contributions youve made to the industry such as building effects or stop posting cuz im gettn tired of defending my self to you

I'm not a Moderator.
BTW you sent me PMs but don't permit replies.
So you force me to reply in public.
It's hard to miss you since you have a reply selling your product in every active reverb topic.
Your posts aren't without snippets of wisdom some may appreciate.
It looks like you have to sell more than anything else.
You tell me you got experience, great. Fantastic. Welcome to Gearslutz.
After 30 years in the biz I don't have to defend myself to anyone with what my experience constitutes.
I'm finding it difficult to accept your apology as such since your last answer still stubbornly contains a shameless plug for your dirt cheap coding thing.
So we all know why you're here.
And your entire campaign smacks of Selling Online 101 if you ask me.
Have a nice day.

[emilision]

Originally Posted by andrew montreal

Hmmm... there's something happening here and I'm not sure why it hasn't been mentioned. The voice in the SREV version sounds very much dry and separate from the reverb whereas the voice in the IR-1 seems like it's as well going through the effect... there is a slight loss in the highs in a natural way that one would here if a person what not singing 6 inches from your ear. The early reflections seem to be more closely married to the voice thus pulling into the room.

This might be explained by the plugin being dropped right on the vocal track. If the test wasn't done that way then I have to say that I'm more impressed by the IR-1. Perhaps the difference can be explained by the fact that the reverb in the SREV version is slightly delayed, having had the signal go in and out of the computer.

Is anyone hearing this difference?

Yes, but it's simply that the IR-1 is degrading the sound...it seems to fit more because it's more grainy/blurred...however, if you listen on good cans/speakers this effect itself becomes more apparent and just sounds cheap.