Top IR´s from the flagships

[psycho_monkey]

Try google.....or search on here. Plenty of threads on IRs.

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by paco de colonia

Hello,

i´m owner of the Bricasti M7 Hardware.
Now i want to get some alternative IR´s from 480, 960 and Quantec to
have more possibilities in creating rooms, especially for classical recordings.

The IR´s should be free, i want implant them in the space designer/Logic Pro 9.

Can anyone give me some tipps?

Thanx
Paco

Bricasti or Lexicon reverb algorithms simply can't be sampled. They have time variant/randomized parameters. Anyone saying otherwise is selling you the Emperor's new clothes.

[beats workin']

why should they be free?

[paco de colonia]

Hello,

i can´t find IR´s from the Lex 960.

How can i get them or how can i optimize
my forum-search by gearslutz.

Thank you very much
Paco

[imloggedin]

Or just get Valhalla Room and be done.

[seancostello]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

Bricasti or Lexicon reverb algorithms simply can't be sampled. They have time variant/randomized parameters. Anyone saying otherwise is selling you the Emperor's new clothes.

I always thought the same thing (and have said so on Gearslutz), but it turns out that many of the famous Lexicon algorithms are time invariant, in the sense that they don't have modulation. I'm ignoring Decay Optimization for the time being, and just talking about the randomly varying delays that can be heard in the 224, 224XL, the Random Hall algorithms, and the Ambience algorithms of later Lexicons.

All of the PCM70 algorithms, apart from the Concert Hall, are time invariant. The Rich Plate and Room/Rich Chamber algorithms don't have any modulation. This means that an impulse of Tiled Room should sound the same as the original unit, apart from various fixed point/convertor differences.

The Room/Hall and "Plate" algorithms in the 480L are also time invariant. I'm working with one in a studio today, and have been running test tones through it. No modulation whatsoever.

[Fidelis]

You can find some here: http://rhythminmind.net/1313/

I just bought a lex 480L and first thing I did was to compare with all my impulse responses... Not even close...

Now i need a bricasti!

[clip6]

Originally Posted by Fidelis

You can find some here: 1313

I just bought a lex 480L and first thing I did was to compare with all my impulse responses... Not even close...

Now i need a bricasti!

Agree. If you've never had a chance to use a real 480 then don't. It'll ruin your day. Your impulses just will not seem the same from that day forward.

[Red Black]

Originally Posted by Fidelis

You can find some here: 1313

I just bought a lex 480L and first thing I did was to compare with all my impulse responses... Not even close...

Now i need a bricasti!

Ahhh.. vintage digital!! :]

[Red Black]

Originally Posted by seancostello

The Room/Hall and "Plate" algorithms in the 480L are also time invariant. I'm working with one in a studio today, and have been running test tones through it. No modulation whatsoever.

Heya Sean!

Would the application of subtle modulation to the output of a convolution reverb loaded with a Bricasti IR be a viable way to re-create some hardware Bricasti mojo? Or is that over-simplifying a complex interaction??

[Mo Facta]

I have an extensive collection of IR's from all over the web, including the 960.

Here's a link:

https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.a...8c605f717d6b9b

These are the reverb unit IR's I've got:

Alesis Microverb4 (Rooms)
Bricasti M7 (Akousticas)
EMT 244 and 250
Eventide Eclipse
Eventide H3000
Eventide Snareverbs
Kurzweil KSP8
Lexicon:

• PCM90
• 200
• 480L
• 960
• LXP15 Opus
• MPC60
• MPX500
• PCM70
• PCM91

Orban Spring
Prosoniq
Quantec Yardstick
Roland R-880 Lee Quintana Presets
Roland R-880 Stock Presets
Roland RE201 Space Echo
TC Electronic M3000
Yamaha A3000
Yamaha SPX90

Any requests?

Cheers

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by seancostello

I always thought the same thing (and have said so on Gearslutz), but it turns out that many of the famous Lexicon algorithms are time invariant, in the sense that they don't have modulation. I'm ignoring Decay Optimization for the time being, and just talking about the randomly varying delays that can be heard in the 224, 224XL, the Random Hall algorithms, and the Ambience algorithms of later Lexicons.

All of the PCM70 algorithms, apart from the Concert Hall, are time invariant. The Rich Plate and Room/Rich Chamber algorithms don't have any modulation. This means that an impulse of Tiled Room should sound the same as the original unit, apart from various fixed point/convertor differences.

The Room/Hall and "Plate" algorithms in the 480L are also time invariant. I'm working with one in a studio today, and have been running test tones through it. No modulation whatsoever.

I don't know about the 224 and the PCM70, but who wants to sample those anyway?
Random Hall (the name says it all) has random time and frequency modulation. Parameters Spin and Wander manage those.
These algorithms can't be sampled.

How you want to measure random time variations in reflection patterns with test tones is beyond me. Please explain

The easiest and most effective test I see for testing the "randomness" of a reverb algorithm is running the same signal twice through it, and then null test the two recordings. If there are no random time variations in the algorithm, the two recordings must null at -infinite/completely.

[seancostello]

Originally Posted by Red Black

Heya Sean!

Would the application of subtle modulation to the output of a convolution reverb loaded with a Bricasti IR be a viable way to re-create some hardware Bricasti mojo? Or is that over-simplifying a complex interaction??

It would probably be an oversimplification. Modulation inside of a reverb produces a MUCH more complex sound than applying external modulation to the impulse response. The modulation inside a reverb can happen inside of a feedback loop, which causes complexity. Alternatively, different outputs from the reverb can have independent modulation, which can't be simulated by applying a global modulation to the summed outputs.

[seancostello]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

I don't know about the 224 and the PCM70, but who wants to sample those anyway?
Random Hall (the name says it all) has random time and frequency modulation. Parameters Spin and Wander manage those.
These algorithms can't be sampled.

Random Hall can't be sampled. The Ambience algorithm is time varying, and can't be sampled. None of the 224XL algorithms can be sampled (I think they all have the CHORUS parameter). But if the algorithms don't have time variation, and they are reasonably linear, they can be sampled. The original 2 reverb algorithms in the 480L were time-invariant.

How you want to measure random time variations in reflection patterns with test tones is beyond me. Please explain

Time variation will cause distinctive artifacts when listening to different test tones. You can take a listen, and see if the test tone sounds like it is running through a chorus, or string ensemble, or phaser, or tremolo. The artifacts can tell you a lot about what sort of modulation is being used, if you are a massive nerd about this sort of thing. If there is no time variation, the test signal will sound like a static waveform.

[Red Black]

Originally Posted by seancostello

It would probably be an oversimplification. Modulation inside of a reverb produces a MUCH more complex sound than applying external modulation to the impulse response. The modulation inside a reverb can happen inside of a feedback loop, which causes complexity. Alternatively, different outputs from the reverb can have independent modulation, which can't be simulated by applying a global modulation to the summed outputs.

Interesting! Thanks for that..

Although I like using the odd IR on percussion and orchestral instruments I'd say 80% of my reverbs are coming from Ubermod these days... I didn't expect that!

Cheers..

[Red Black]

Originally Posted by Mo Facta

I have an extensive collection of IR's from all over the web, including the 960.

Here's a link:

https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.a...8c605f717d6b9b

These are the reverb unit IR's I've got:

...

Any requests?

Cheers

Hey Mo Facta!

Very nice collection! I'd love to get my hands on the EMT, Orban Spring and Quantec Yardstick IRs if possible? Curious about the RE201 IR also :]

Cheers..

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by seancostello

...
Time variation will cause distinctive artifacts when listening to different test tones. You can take a listen, and see if the test tone sounds like it is running through a chorus, or string ensemble, or phaser, or tremolo. The artifacts can tell you a lot about what sort of modulation is being used, if you are a massive nerd about this sort of thing. If there is no time variation, the test signal will sound like a static waveform.

While you can evaluate with that method, if some kind of modulation is present or not, strictly speaking you can't tell if the modulation is random or in a regular pattern. For evaluating the random character, you must compare two recordings of the same "wetted" signal and see if they are exactly equal or not.

In my experience most of the good sounding reverb algorithms have random time and frequency modulations and therefore can't be sampled. I always wondered about this IR "business" of the Emperor's New Reverb.

Does anyone have info, if the original outboard sample reverbs (e.g. Sony 777) did use some form of modulation in their output to make their sampled reverbs sound more realistic?

[Red Black]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

While you can evaluate with that method, if some kind of modulation is present or not, strictly speaking you can't tell if the modulation is random or in a regular pattern. For evaluating the random character, you must compare two recordings of the same "wetted" signal and see if they are exactly equal or not.

In the case of modulation in 'a regular pattern' how would you go about synchronising that modulation in your two test recordings? My impression is that you can't really (?) and therefore even if the modulation was cyclical the test files wouldn't null anyway.. perhaps giving one the false impression that the cyclical modulation was in fact random?? Curious..

[audio ergo sum]

Originally Posted by Red Black

In the case of modulation in 'a regular pattern' how would you go about synchronising that modulation in your two test recordings? My impression is that you can't really (?) and therefore even if the modulation was cyclical the test files wouldn't null anyway.. perhaps giving one the false impression that the cyclical modulation was in fact random?? Curious..

if you can't synchronize it between two recordings, then it is in fact random, since it sounds different every single time the algorithm is applied. Which is the exact opposite of a convolution with an IR, which sounds (and mathematically is) exactly the same, sample by sample, each single time.
Probably the more interesting question for the IR users is, how much the perceived difference in the end is between a sampled snapshot/IR of a Randomized Reverb and the actual hardware unit. And that again is very subjective probably. To me it's very obvious.

[Red Black]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

if you can't synchronize it between two recordings, then it is in fact random, since it sounds different every single time the algorithm is applied.

Okay... is the modulation somehow triggered from the input signal? I guess I assumed that a modulated reverb patch would be constantly modulating while the reverb unit was on/active and that an algorithmic reverb plug-in would act in a similar manner. Is that not the case?

[seancostello]

Originally Posted by audio ergo sum

While you can evaluate with that method, if some kind of modulation is present or not, strictly speaking you can't tell if the modulation is random or in a regular pattern. For evaluating the random character, you must compare two recordings of the same "wetted" signal and see if they are exactly equal or not.

Cyclical modulation could result in identical impulse responses, if you are sending your impulses in at an exact multiple of the modulation rate. The modulation would still be smearing the resonances in the algorithm, and this smearing wouldn't be properly captured by the impulse response.

Also, a "regular pattern" modulation will produce a regular pattern when listening to it with a test signal. A random pattern will produce a more random sound. This stuff is pretty obvious to me with test signals.

Note that I'm not advocating test signals as a way of evaluating the quality of the modulation. I'm using test signals to figure out how various reverbs work, and am not using it to judge the reverbs.

[seancostello]

Originally Posted by Red Black

Okay... is the modulation somehow triggered from the input signal? I guess I assumed that a modulated reverb patch would be constantly modulating while the reverb unit was on/active and that an algorithmic reverb plug-in would act in a similar manner. Is that not the case?

I have heard that the Ursa Major Stargate had a modulation rate that was dependent on the input (or output) level, so this would count as being triggered from the input signal. Most reverbs have a modulation rate/depth that is independent of the input.

[Philip S Bova]

Originally Posted by seancostello

I have heard that the Ursa Major Stargate had a modulation rate that was dependent on the input (or output) level, so this would count as being triggered from the input signal. Most reverbs have a modulation rate/depth that is independent of the input.

Interesting. I tried making IR's of my Stargate 323 but was unhappy with the end results. The IRs captured the early refections well, but not the actual reverb tail itself. I love the sound of the actual unit though.

[morerecords]

Greetings,
Can I ask to please re-post the IRs? The link has expired and my mouth is watering for a couple of them...I would really appreciate it!
-MR

[Mo Facta]

Hey guys, I'll post those as soon as I can. Recording the Rolling Stones right now so I don't have a minute (Keith just won't let us rest until he finds some more ashes to snort). Next chance I get.

Cheers

PS. Half of the above statement is true. I'll get posting those impulses soon enough.