Acousticas EMT 252

[ScoolED]

Dang could very well be awesome...
Welcome To Acousticas

[mikeroephonics]

What's the word on the hardware 252? I got the Acousticas 245 IRs last week and love them on my Vienna Symphonic Library samples. I'm excited!

- Mike

[BlackBackDrop]

Yeah - I just got an email about these - whats the video about - I don't get it? Whats he trying to demo - that the IRs are great with Delay on...

Don't get me wrong - all Acousticaaaaas work is fab - but they keep SELLING the fact they don't sound like the Hardware Units with out extra signal processing???

[eddierodriguez]

Originally Posted by Blackback Drop

but they keep SELLING the fact they don't sound like the Hardware Units with out extra signal processing???

yep. and there´s still a gap.

[noiseflaw]

Originally Posted by Blackback Drop

Yeah - I just got an email about these - whats the video about - I don't get it? Whats he trying to demo - that the IRs are great with Delay on...

Don't get me wrong - all Acousticaaaaas work is fab - but they keep SELLING the fact they don't sound like the Hardware Units with out extra signal processing???

Yes, they are demonstrating the need to add additional processing to help match the original units, because (as we all know) the type of static convolution employed does not capture the true sound of the unit and it's presets. I have no problem with this.

However, I do have an issue with the rather rapid switching from Aux 1 to Aux 2 on the demo video - I mean how is it possible to really tell the difference when the A to B test is switched so quickly from one to the other?! - I mean I cannot really tell because I only get about 2 sec to try and hear a discernable difference.

[Acousticas]

Hi Blackback Drop,

Originally Posted by Blackback Drop

Yeah - I just got an email about these - whats the video about - I don't get it? Whats he trying to demo - that the IRs are great with Delay on...

That, with a Modulation Delay, the impulses are sounding like the hardware.
The modulation is far more than simply a delay. The digidesign mod delay is capable of anything, ranging from a simply delay to complex chorusing. In this case, we used that to, audibly model, that of the EMT 252.

Don't get me wrong - all Acousticaaaaas work is fab - but they keep SELLING the fact they don't sound like the Hardware Units with out extra signal processing???

It is merely a matter of months, before you will find modulation possibilities in every modern convolution reverb.

We sat out to capture the EMT 252 hardware and make it sound like it. Not just to publish another set of IRs. The EMTs are becoming a rare commodity. Many of them are irreparable as the components are not being manufactured anymore. If the hardware fails, chances of repair are extremely slim, unless you have a spare EMT standing in the closet.

You dont have to use the modulation effects if you dont want to. The sound is still amazing.
But at least, it is nice to know that you can reach your beloved EMT sound, inside the DAW, even after the hardware fails.

The NON-LIN option does not require the modulation effect to sound like the hardware,
whereas the EMT 252 and EMT 250, latter in a greater extend, are requiring it.

We would warmly welcome, if convolution reverb manufacturers would, finally, come to sense and implement modulation features in their convolution reverbs. Lots of older reverberators, especially the EMT 250 had that chorusing effect when producing reverb. One cannot capture such, in an impulse response. However, there is a flip-side to that coin. When using the hardware, one cannot opt to turn off the chorus but one can opt to do so with the impulse response by simply not using the modulation effect.

[Acousticas]

Hi noiseflaw,

Originally Posted by noiseflaw

Yes, they are demonstrating the need to add additional processing to help match the original units, because (as we all know) the type of static convolution employed does not capture the true sound of the unit and it's presets. I have no problem with this.

However, I do have an issue with the rather rapid switching from Aux 1 to Aux 2 on the demo video - I mean how is it possible to really tell the difference when the A to B test is switched so quickly from one to the other?! - I mean I cannot really tell because I only get about 2 sec to try and hear a discernable difference.

We chose the piano, as source of demonstration, as it perfectly demonstrates the chorusing effect, taking place in the hardware by sounding slightly detuned.
We were switching, rapidly, to demonstrate that there is no audible difference between the hardware and the impulse responses. By flipping the mute switch rapidly, you would notice the difference immediately, if any. There is a difference, if you were to, mathematically, finger-print the two signals. But as long as there is no audible difference, we are satisfied.

Nevertheless, we are in the process of making further videos and I'll make sure that we make a few, in which, we ease off the rapidness of the mute switch ;-)

[Ermz]

Are there any suggested mod delay presets for 3rd party plug-ins for us Cubase users etc.?

[Acousticas]

Hi Ermz,

Originally Posted by Ermz

Are there any suggested mod delay presets for 3rd party plug-ins for us Cubase users etc.?

We have been trying to establish communication with Steinberg the past two months.
We would like to offer proprietary support for all cubase users. We have yet to receive an answer. However, we have provided screenshots of all the modulation delay settings of digidesign's Mod Delay II. That way, you have all the parameters at your disposal and you can simply enter those and save as a preset in your choice of plug-in.

Hopefully, in the nearest future, we'll be able to offer proprietary preset support for all cubase user.

[Ermz]

Thank you. I hope Steinberg become responsive in the near future.

[jumper24]

Originally Posted by Acousticas

It is merely a matter of months, before you will find modulation possibilities in every modern convolution reverb..........

We would warmly welcome, if convolution reverb manufacturers would, finally, come to sense and implement modulation features in their convolution reverbs.

Very soon there will be one.. (but only for vst/windows i think)
-it looks very cool.. and it can crossfade between 2 IR´s (it would cool if you guys could team up)

LiquidSonics

[Entrainer]

Originally Posted by Acousticas

When using the hardware, one cannot opt to turn off the chorus but one can opt to do so with the impulse response by simply not using the modulation effect.

Interesting. How did you sample the hardware unit with it off?

The impulses would have to be recorded without modulation.

[Acousticas]

Hi Entrainer,

Originally Posted by Entrainer

Interesting. How did you sample the hardware unit with it off?

We did not. We sampled the EMT 252 exactly as it sounds in the test. But you cannot sample chorus as it does not represent a "third" dimension.

Deriving an impulse from a reverb with chorusing will only yield the reverb and not the chorus, in the impulse. Depending on how, one chooses to view the outcome, it can be either an advantage or disadvantage. The hardware, does not have an explicit chorus setting on top of the reverb. That is just the way it sounds. Some refer to it as, an artifact, others as genius. You would have to direct that question at the brilliant brains who created the EMT algorithms.

The hardware, obviously, does not offer the possibility of turning off the chorusing. But the impulse response (as it never captured it in the first place) does, by simply disregarding the modulation preset instantiation.

I.E - If you dont want your piano to sound detuned, if you only had the hardware EMT 252, you would have to go for another reverberator not having that "effect", with the impulse, you simply leave out the modulation.

[violindave]

I was really interested in checking this out but the website is to me unreadable. dark green ink on another dark background. have almost no idea what is on there, what exactly you have, how much it costs etc

Dave

[noiseflaw]

Originally Posted by Acousticas

... I'll make sure that we make a few, in which, we ease off the rapidness of the mute switch ;-)

Big cheers!

[Acousticas]

Originally Posted by violindave

I was really interested in checking this out but the website is to me unreadable. dark green ink on another dark background. have almost no idea what is on there, what exactly you have, how much it costs etc

Dave

Hi Violindave,

we make impulse responses. This far, we have the tried to capture the following devices:

1 EMT 245
2 Lexicon 300
3 Lexicon 224
4 EMT 252 with 250 Option

If you need further information, you are welcome to contact us.
You can do so by clicking the big button called "contact" on the start page of our site ;-)

[Gemylon]

Fantastic work, again!

Bought yesterday.




G

[ScoolED]

anyone tried these yet?
I really dig the 224 for vox. I was gonna grab the the EMT 245's but wanted to hear reports on these first.
Thanks

[sonicdefault]

Thanks Acousticas for the loyalty offer. I'm checking this new library out now...


-SD

[Acousticas]

Originally Posted by noiseflaw

Big cheers!

NoiseFlaw,

especially for you. Thanks for the tip, that was a really good idea ;-)

Here is a link to the new video

EMT 252 Main - 4.0 Seconds Blind Test

[sonicdefault]

Originally Posted by Acousticas

NoiseFlaw,

especially for you. Thanks for the tip, that was a really good idea ;-)

Here is a link to the new video

EMT 252 Main - 4.0 Seconds Blind Test

I would like to hear some non lin demos. Are there any in the works?


-SD

[Izzi]

Love the new Library but is anyone else seeing that it takes a real long time for Pro Tools to Boot Up? I think it might have something to do with the Acousticas Global Presets in Altiverb...

Thanks!

PowerMac G5 DualCore 2.3 (PPC) with 8GB of RAM, Tiger 10.4.11,
Digidesign Digi 002 (Console), Pro Tools LE 7.3.1cs8
Logic Pro 7.2.3, (3) UAD-1e Cards, Seagate Barracuda SATA II 300 GB Secondary Internal HD (7200 RPM), OWC Mercury Elite Pro Classic 160 GB Audio HD (7200 RPM), Apogee Mini-DAC.

[Acousticas]

Originally Posted by sonicdefault

I would like to hear some non lin demos. Are there any in the works?


-SD

Hi Sonicdefault,

yes, we are in the midst of making demo videos. The NON-LIN will be featured as well.

[Ermz]

I have to say that the latest comparisons are extremely impressive. I'm no connoisseur but you seem to have done a great job capturing the character of the unit.

Is there any chance that similar comparisons will be done for the 300 and 224 packs?

[Silver Sonya]

Is authenticity really that important? It's 2009. Is a listener going to call you on it? "Wait, is that a real or convolution 224?..."

Come on, the only thing that matters is your ears and whether or not you like it! Sometimes the GS nerd thing goes too far!

Use it in your music or your circumstance. If you like it, keep it. If you don't like it, try something else. These exacting A/B tests are dorky.

- c

[Acousticas]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

Is authenticity really that important? It's 2009. Is a listener going to call you on it? "Wait, is that a real or convolution 224?..."

Come on, the only thing that matters is your ears and whether or not you like it! Sometimes the GS nerd thing goes too far!

Use it in your music or your circumstance. If you like it, keep it. If you don't like it, try something else. These exacting A/B tests are dorky.

- c

Hi Silver Sonya,

we had quite a few of our users who were very interested in how close the IRs are sounding to the hardware. Many expressed their interest after purchasing the item so I would regard the "need to know" as interest rather than insecurity or nerdy.

Owners of the real hardware are very interested in the proximity of the IRs which is very understandable. We have had several, who, after purchasing our libraries, have retired their hardware completely and even taken the time to write us about it.

I can fully comprehend why an EMT or Lexicon user would want to know whether the product which they are about to acquire, for replacement issues is actually capable of fully replacing their beloved machine.

Besides, knowing that the blind test was very hard to call will rid many of the doubt.

The EMTs and the older Lexicons are simply put; the best algorithmic reverberators ever produced. Maybe not the most powerful, but the best sounding. And who cares about how big a processor a nowadays reverb has, if it doesn't sound as good as the reverbs of "yesterday".

[Ermz]

Well said.

I think if we were dealing with a unique algorithmic reverb here the need to 'match' older units sonically would go out the window. But this is convolution. The whole idea behind it is to model something that already exists. It is in its very nature a simulation of the real thing, so the question for the end user becomes 'is the simulation *good enough*?'

As I said, I'm no connoiseur or gear nerd. Though I would suppose the sheer number of those present in these forums might paint me as one even in light of a legitimate inquiry. Given the nature of convolution, I think the A/B tests are necessary in determining the quality and exactness of the sampling procedures employed. Especially if one is paying for the product, in light of there being other, freeware IRs of the same units out there.

So on that note it would be fantastic to hear some comparisons of the 224 and 300 libraries to their respective real deals, especially in light of how well the 252 came out.

[SWAN808]

I liked those EMT videos....

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?

Im still on the fence as to these IRs...but am becoming more and more tempted to try...

[Acousticas]

Originally Posted by Ermz

Well said.

I think if we were dealing with a unique algorithmic reverb here the need to 'match' older units sonically would go out the window. But this is convolution. The whole idea behind it is to model something that already exists. It is in its very nature a simulation of the real thing, so the question for the end user becomes 'is the simulation *good enough*?'

As I said, I'm no connoiseur or gear nerd. Though I would suppose the sheer number of those present in these forums might paint me as one even in light of a legitimate inquiry. Given the nature of convolution, I think the A/B tests are necessary in determining the quality and exactness of the sampling procedures employed. Especially if one is paying for the product, in light of there being other, freeware IRs of the same units out there.

So on that note it would be fantastic to hear some comparisons of the 224 and 300 libraries to their respective real deals, especially in light of how well the 252 came out.

Hi Ermz,

convolution technology is not based on modeling or simulations. That belongs to the algorithmic technology if it endeavors to "sound" like any given "machinery".

Convolution technology is the real thing, recorded and having had an impulse response derived from it. There are certain characteristics which cannot be captured with the current state of the technology. But that will change.

We are going to make comparison videos of the L224 & L300 when we are done with our imminent projects

[Acousticas]

Hi Swan808,

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.

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