Reverb Subculture

[el-folie]

Am I the only one who thinks that the pcm96 claves example sounds like having phasing issues in the tail? The 224 sounds much more natural and consistent/substantial to my ears.

The drum plate example has shorter decay on the pcm96 so it´s hard to compare to the 224.

[seancostello]

I gotta admit I like the PCM96 Plate more than the 224 Plate, at least for the drum machine example. The initial bass drum on the 224 Plate sounds really fluttery. The 224 Plate has more character, but I prefer the smoothness of the PCM96 Plate.

The 224 Hall sounds, on the other hand, are super dreamy.

[zmix]

Originally Posted by warbler

The 224 sounds much more interesting in that last example.
Kind of makes the 96 sound a little sterile and clinical.

Any idea why?

That's a scientific phenomenon called "Personal Preference"

I think that these two algos have some obvious similarities, but if you listen closely you will notice aliasing distortion in the 224, particularly in the sleighbells and hihat. I think that this contributes to the sense of 'presence' in the 224 but the PCM96 has greater transparency. We choose our tools based on what we want to hear, right?


Could you be more specific about your observations?

[warbler]

My observations are based on the clips you posted.

Obviously this is highly subjective and based on personal preferences.

The 224 sounds more "analogue" and organic.
It reminds me of tape recording and the old days.

That being said, I've just finished mixing 2 CDs with the PCM96 as my main verb.
For me, the results have been extraordinary.
It may not be as "dreamy" as a 224, but in the context of very complex mixes, it provided the perfect spaces.

Go figure.

[zmix]

Here's a closeup of the 224 Concert hall modulation with 1/4 second demarcations.

[zmix]

Look at what my neighbors 4 blocks away have.....

[seancostello]

Originally Posted by zmix

Look at what my neighbors 4 blocks away have.....

Cool! Is that a Vibro Champ?

Any chances of modulation graphs from these beasts?

[zmix]

Originally Posted by seancostello

Cool! Is that a Vibro Champ?

Any chances of modulation graphs from these beasts?

Sean..

DOY!! My mistake, I thought it was a silver face princeton reverb, and you know, since this thread is about -reverb-... oh well, next time I'll move those forklift operator's control units out of the way and get a closer look.... sorry!

[seancostello]

Originally Posted by zmix

At the extreme and highly random peaks I have measured up to 50 cents of modulation... yowza!

What is the timescale on this picture? Also, can you tell if these are discrete pitch modulations, or the result of summing several modulation signals together?

Looks pretty chaotic. Is this for a long or short decay?

[zmix]

Originally Posted by seancostello

What is the timescale on this picture? Also, can you tell if these are discrete pitch modulations, or the result of summing several modulation signals together?

Looks pretty chaotic. Is this for a long or short decay?

the lines along the bottom represent 1 second.

I made this file the same way I made the lexicon files, minimum decay, full HF rolloff

Here is an MP3 of the stereo file. It 'sounds' like a single modulation, but you can hear a lot of amplitude modulation which isn't simply phase cancellation.....

[seancostello]

Originally Posted by zmix

the lines along the bottom represent 1 second.

I made this file the same way I made the lexicon files, minimum decay, full HF rolloff

Here is an MP3 of the stereo file. It 'sounds' like a single modulation, but you can hear a lot of amplitude modulation which isn't simply phase cancellation.....

With a sine wave, I can't tell if it is phase or amplitude cancellation, as both would sound identical. Is there a way of doing the same test with a sawtooth, square, or other waveform with a broader mix of frequencies? The square wave tests you used for the earlier chorus examples helped in hearing the modulation waveforms.

BTW, I appreciate your posting these examples. I have never seen one of these beasts in person, let alone three. And a mighty silver face Vibro Champ to boot!

[zmix]

But of course....

[seancostello]

Originally Posted by zmix

But of course....

Thanks! Sounds like slow random delay modulation of output taps, much like Casey described earlier in this thread. The noise heard in the sine example might be due to linear interpolation distortion, or slow updating of coefficients, or something like that.

[zmix]

We have the EMT 250, the original Lexicon 224, the Lexicon PCM96 and the Audio Damage Eos here... care to guess?

[seancostello]

Originally Posted by zmix

We have the EMT 250, the original Lexicon 224, the Lexicon PCM96 and the Audio Damage Eos here... care to guess?

OK, give us some hints...which algorithm for each unit? Obviously, the EMT250 is what it is, but are we talking plates or halls?

[zmix]

Originally Posted by seancostello

OK, give us some hints...which algorithm for each unit? Obviously, the EMT250 is what it is, but are we talking plates or halls?

Well, to be fair to the 250, I had to use "Halls" in the other devices since that's what the 250's "reverb" algo is simulating....

[Warp69]

Well, I'll start.

1: Lexicon PCM96
2: EOS
3: Lexicon 224
4: EMT250

[zmix]

Originally Posted by Warp69

Well, I'll start.

1: Lexicon PCM96
2: EOS
3: Lexicon 224
4: EMT250

Thanks Warp. Not entirely correct, however.

Everyone on this thread has a different set of priorities when judging reverb, it's so context driven that an 'accurate' assessment of 'merit' is nearly impossible under these circumstances, yet these observations are all valuable. When I hear the 224 plate on that kick drum in the previous sound clips, I think "wow kick ass! that is the sound" and yet someone else comments that it is "grainy". I find this discussion to be quite fun.!


Please tell us what led you to the conclusions above...!


...and keep 'em coming folks!!

[Warp69]

Originally Posted by zmix

Thanks Warp. Not entirely correct, however.

I have probably switched the PCM96 and Eos around - I don't have the PCM96 or the Eos (or the original 224 for that matter) so Im unable to comment the sounds .

I think #2 has shorter decay time for higher frequencies compared to the others.

[seancostello]

I'm going to guess that #3 is Eos, because I hear a touch of digital clipping in the beginning of the wave. For some reason, this seems more likely to happen with a plugin than with sending the signal to an external signal processor.

I last heard a 224XL back in 1992, and have never seen an EMT250 or PCM96 in person. So, here's my totally uninformed guesses:

Wave1: PCM96. Sounds modern, maybe higher modal density.
Wave2: 224, maybe. It has a weird resonance in the low frequencies, that sounds like the Bass Multiplier is a bit unstable. If this is Eos, I'm going to be upset - although going head to head against these reverbs, I should probably cut myself a little slack. Some fast modulation. Similar initial echo density to Wave1, which makes me think that both are Lexicons running some version of the Concert Hall.
Wave 3: Eos, or maybe PCM96 driven via digital inputs. Lots of modulation. Nice decay.
Wave 4: EMT250. Tons of modulation, both in the running reverberance and in the decay. Ringing in the decay that definitely sounds like a lower modal density, as opposed to the ringing of an allpass in a recursive loop. Higher initial echo density than the other algorithms.

[Warp69]

Originally Posted by seancostello

Wave2: 224, maybe. It has a weird resonance in the low frequencies, that sounds like the Bass Multiplier is a bit unstable. If this is Eos, I'm going to be upset

Heh - you really dislike #2.

Originally Posted by seancostello

Wave 3...................Lots of modulation

isn't that one of the trademarks of the 224(XL)?

[zmix]

Originally Posted by seancostello

I'm going to guess that #3 is Eos, because I hear a touch of digital clipping in the beginning of the wave. For some reason, this seems more likely to happen with a plugin than with sending the signal to an external signal processor.

I last heard a 224XL back in 1992, and have never seen an EMT250 or PCM96 in person. So, here's my totally uninformed guesses:

Wave1: PCM96. Sounds modern, maybe higher modal density.
Wave2: 224, maybe. It has a weird resonance in the low frequencies, that sounds like the Bass Multiplier is a bit unstable. If this is Eos, I'm going to be upset - although going head to head against these reverbs, I should probably cut myself a little slack. Some fast modulation. Similar initial echo density to Wave1, which makes me think that both are Lexicons running some version of the Concert Hall.
Wave 3: Eos, or maybe PCM96 driven via digital inputs. Lots of modulation. Nice decay.
Wave 4: EMT250. Tons of modulation, both in the running reverberance and in the decay. Ringing in the decay that definitely sounds like a lower modal density, as opposed to the ringing of an allpass in a recursive loop. Higher initial echo density than the other algorithms.

Excellent response, Sean, I appreciate your insights and specificity! (however.... )
When I post the sources, I am tempted to do so in order of original purchase price the range is from $49 to $22,000....


There are really no "wrong" answers here we all benefit be listening through other's ears. Barry Blesser commented that a particular modulation he could readily identify in the 250 he can no longer discern 30 years later.

Listen to the stereo depth, too.... what do you hear? (speakers please, as you cannot image on headphones)

[seancostello]

Originally Posted by Warp69

Heh - you really dislike #2.

I think it reminds me too much of some technical issues I have had during algorithm development. So, I'm taking it personally. On the other hand, it could be that the Bass Multiplier or RT60Low or whatever is set too high on this - most of the other reverb files seem to decay away to more of a midrange sound.

isn't that one of the trademarks of the 224(XL)?

Honestly, all of these reverbs either have a ton of modulation by default (the EMT250), or can be turned up to ridiculous modulation levels.

[Warp69]

Originally Posted by seancostello

I think it reminds me too much of some technical issues I have had during algorithm development. So, I'm taking it personally. On the other hand, it could be that the Bass Multiplier or RT60Low or whatever is set too high on this - most of the other reverb files seem to decay away to more of a midrange sound.

I agree - I hope #2 is a result of some bad settings and doesn't represent the overall sound of that device. @zmix - which algorithm did you use from the PCM96?

[zmix]

Nice discussion guys...

In each example I had set the Bass multiply to 1.0 and the treble decay to full bandwidth. Obviously these are simply external control of internal coefficients, so the results will vary from designer to designer...

Only one of these reverbs was a mono in - stereo out device. how about relative depth?

[seancostello]

Another guess, based on logic.

Wave1: Lexicon 224. Sounds close to Wave3, and since these are (theoretically) the same algorithm, the fact that these 2 sound very similar to me should indicate that these are the same.

Wave2: Eos.

Wave3: PCM96. Sounds like Wave1, but digital clipping. So I would guess that the digital input was being used.

Wave4: EMT250. Doesn't really sound like other examples, and has lower modal density, which you would expect from a unit with ~400 msec of delay storage.

[seancostello]

Softball question, while we wait for the quiz results:

What are your favorite reverb algorithms, and why? These can be commercial algorithms, academic, your own, whatever.

I'll start: I have a soft spot for the reverb Miller Puckette and John Stautner published in the 1984 Computer Music Journal. It was the first decent reverb I implemented, and I still like the sound. The random delay line modulation makes the thing shine.

I also like what I have heard of the PCM70 Concert Hall. This can get a bit ringy, but the modulation is really nice.

[zmix]

Originally Posted by seancostello

What are your favorite reverb algorithms, and why?

Nice question Sean,

My favorites are:

The EMT 250: It's bright, wide and expansive at short decay settings, dreamy and ethereal at long decay settings, it is possibly the most useful single algorhythm ever devised. A "desert island" verb...

The Lexicon Concert Hall... all versions of this (except as noted above) have something beautiful and evocative in them, the later versions as found in the PCM-70 have controls for attack, definition and diffusion which can create some incredible rhythmic spaces and really transform a song. Lexicon have really captured the 'rolling spaces' of a real hall in this algo.

The Sony DRE2000 and the later generation (but nearly identical) versions in the Ibanez SDR1000 and Sony MUR-201. The basic algo ("plate" in the SDR and MUR) uses a novel layered reverb / sub reverb approach which allows for some interesting variations in the early and late width. True stereo and done correctly. These have always been my "anti-Lexicon" reverbs. Where Lexicon is dreamy, these are wakeful and crisp. They simply transform a lackluster performance into one with serious intention, particularly on percussive sources.

[oldgearguy]

I'll throw in the Eventide's SP2016 Stereo Room reverb.

I have an EMT 251 (with the 250 mod), SP-2016, Lex 224, 480, PCM 70, Bricasti, Quantec QRS, and others (AMS RMX 16, Roland R-880, Publison IM-90, Kurzweil KSP8) and they all have their own special goodness, but the Eventide is the one that surprises most folks that come over and listen to the different reverbs. I guess they all kind of expect the others to sound good, but the SP-2106 is less well known than most.

It makes things just sound right somehow. It's not super obvious, but it adds something nice to the source.

Describing reverbs is kind of like describing paintings. I know what I like and what moves me, but it's hard to articulate why with just dropping down into the tech side of it.

[zmix]

I changed the file format from MP3 to 24 bit WAV and added EMT and SONY examples to this post:

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/4356768-post209.html

PS... If you downloaded the Sony Wav before 3:15 e.s.t. on the 18th of July 2009, please download the file again..

I had the L/R sends to the reverb reversed!!!

As of NOW the file in the original post is corrected.