The Bricasti M7 = obsolescence of the good-sounding room?

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by bee

I'm curious if other Bricasti owners feel the same, any other Bricasti owners care to coment?

It seems Jim's comment is about another subject: mixing in the analog domain vs the digital domain.

I use my M7 digitally and it works great. I've also used it in an analog chain and the performance is just as good because the ADDA converters are outstanding.

Bottom line: It was designed to work both ways and it does. Perfectly.

[bee]

Originally Posted by MichaelPatrick

It seems Jim's comment is about another subject: mixing in the analog domain vs the digital domain.

I use my M7 digitally and it works great. I've also used it in an analog chain and the performance is just as good because the ADDA converters are outstanding.

Bottom line: It was designed to work both ways and it does. Perfectly.

Well he clearly stated he thinks the Bricasti sounds flat when being run digitally by saying " If the M7 is run digital I/O into a DAW, it does sound flat to me too.

[Earcatcher]

Originally Posted by bee

I'm curious if other Bricasti owners feel the same, any other Bricasti owners care to coment?

I have one. It seems Jim needs a better AD/DA for his DAW. One just as good as the one inside the M7 that he uses for his "analog" reverbs. I'm all for OTB mixing, but for the sound of the Bricasti alone it does not make any difference.

That being said, I try to avoid using my M7 simply because I prefer real spaces. There are so many situations though that you cannot use the real space for best results and then the M7 is your best friend.

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Earcatcher

I'm all for OTB mixing, but for the sound of the Bricasti alone it does not make any difference.

Originally Posted by bee

Well he clearly stated he thinks the Bricasti sounds flat when being run digitally by saying " If the M7 is run digital I/O into a DAW, it does sound flat to me too.

Jim can speak for himself but some of this is just logical: Since the Bricasti process is digital, any sonic difference between analog and digital usage would have to come from the onboard ADDA converters which exist of necessity to make the digital process available in an analog chain.

The options are

1. It's ADDA converters improve the M7 sound
2. M7 output sounds better mixed in the analog domain
3. Both

As good as the M7 converters are I don't agree with 1.
2 is matter of opinion; an interesting topic but not very germane.
Since I don't agree with 1, I can't agree with 3.

[bee]

Cool, I was just wondering what other Bricasti users felt. I know with a lot of classic reverbs people say that the converters play a huge part of the sound, so I was curious about the Bricasti.

[Ozpeter]

As (classical at least) musicians are (in my experience) very keen to become involved in location selection, and not just from the point of view of where the nearest bar is, then I wouldn't dream of suggesting this approach to them.

[Plush]

The title of this thread suggests a hall can be obsoleted by a reverb.
The assumptions surrounding this question are absurd.
Read the title and respond to that.

Any good reverb has nothing to do with real hall sound.

The Bricasti is now heard ubiquitously on many high end classical releases, especially choral records. I can now always recognize its tweaked presets! Recognizable is NOT a good thing.

You can't fool me.

[didier.brest]

Originally Posted by Plush

You can't fool me.

Yes, We Can !

[MichaelPatrick]

Originally Posted by Plush

The title of this thread suggests a hall can be obsoleted by a reverb.
The assumptions surrounding this question are absurd.
Read the title and respond to that.

Any good reverb has nothing to do with real hall sound.

The Bricasti is now heard ubiquitously on many high end classical releases, especially choral records. I can now always recognize its tweaked presets! Recognizable is NOT a good thing.

You can't fool me.

I think this is like the difference between good fresh foods and processed foods that contain lots of chemicals to fool a palate.

Recordists can have all options but should know what business they're in. Those who use lots of chemicals are in the fast food business no matter how much they may deny it. They may deny it because they've never tasted good food, and not everyone gets to work in nice rooms, including some who know exactly what they're missing.

I agree with you that real rooms are THE standard for acoustics and it is absurd to think something artificial could replace them. Still, even the best chefs keep salt and sugar around and know when to use them.

[redrue]

Not the obsolescence of the good sounding room.. I don't think anyone
would opt for the box if they had the choice of the real room (all other
things being equal). I wouldn't.

I wouldn't opt for a DAW if I had the choice of an analog board with
2" tape either. But I don't have that choice.

What I DO have is a Bricasti that, while I wouldn't argue is
a perfect replacement for a real room, is so close that only the
highly-trained, golden-eared engineer is likely to be able
to tell the difference (or care).

As a vocalist and drummer (without a room)
the Bricasti is irreplaceable and
stands as the crowning piece of kit in my very carefully
chosen collection of gear.

on vox:
cm7>sca n72>Bricasti (sunset chamber)

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by studer58

Adding ambience electronically is not a new thing, been around since the advent of Lexicon in a 'serious' way and long before that if you consider plates, springs, live chambers, etc. Of course predating all those were cathedrals, monasteries, caves, Grand Canyon etc.

What's more rarely mentioned is that acoustic players/singers in significant sized spaces actually play to that acoustic...it figures in their timing, phrasing in the sense that they pace their playing to the reverb. You have to be an audience member in said auditorium to experience it first hand tho ! Now if that recording is done in a dry acoustic, and the 'verb is added later, the performance will not have those micropauses inherent in the playing...because the musicians were not playing to/with the reverb of the room.

So there will be a subliminal, probably even noticeable, disjunct between the performance and the surrounding acoustic, because it was plastered on after the fact. This could be averted by having the musicians playing with cans on, and said reverb fed to them during the recording process....indeed that's pretty standard pop/rock studio practice. A lot of classically trained musicians are averse to that procedure though, and would rather hear their fellow musicians in the studio minus cans. Same goes for classically trained singers...the cans can remove much of the vital 'biofeedback' that comes from jaw movement, bone conduction etc... so they prefer to leave them off.

Exactly. This concept is going to vary a lot depending on the type of music and recording situation. Being an engineer and musician taught me early on how much what you are hearing as you play affects how you play. This should be obvious to, for instance a guitar player who's playing is drastically affected by the echo's/reverb he hears as well as the distortion/feedback or lack of. But this also affects how the singer sings, how the drummer hits the drums, etc.

This can be done in a box, I've done this from the beginning. Most of my studios have been plastered with sound foam and very dead. And this can work out great even when you have a stack of Roland Dep 5's.

M7 is definitely on my next "set list".

Natural? Again, depends on the music. There is really nothing natural about recorded pop music. It is assembled to sound however the producers, engineers, and artists vision it. The space, real or artificial is but part of this assembly, only one of many aspects of the final sound.

Thus, I suggest that while the 'convo in a box' verbs will give the audio tail of the big space, they can't/won't give you the performance that would have happened in same big space (unless cans were on the musicians during the recording) Discuss.

Cans are your friend.

[Ozpeter]

an acoustically neutral/dead space (much easier to find and access)

Really? Properly done, such spaces are not cheap to hire due to the cost of creating them and the short supply. Nor is the use of multiple close mics to compensate for the shortcomings of a cheap space an inexpensive approach. In the days when I used to record classical CDs in churches, part of the rationale was that there was simply no budget to record in a significantly more costly studio. Given likely sales figures, a stereo pair in a good natural acoustic was the only approach that made economic sense (and appealed to the musicians). If you're recording music for a Hollywood movie, of course things might be different.

[aracu]

The electronic reverbs can't make real spaces with good acoustics obsolete
for western classical music. The sound and experience of halls with good acoustics is an important part of the tradition.

The tradition of classical music includes since the 20th century, every possible type of electronic audio processing imaginable.

Determining the difference between natural and artificial depends on
what definition of nature is used. One definition of nature "the universe,
with all it's phenomena" can be interpreted as including everything
man-made.

[Sheikyearbouti]

This was said already a few times - for the musicians the hall matters. Every time I record in a place with longer RT60 the musician comments that he played the piece faster at home. But not only - the acoustics, the instrument and the performance become ONE - they are one and without this the music will be sacrificed. And NO - classical musicians don't like to perform with cans, neither they like the sound of their instrument when close miked. The M7 is great, so it is the 960, the 480, TC6000, Eventide, Quantec, Altiverb, etc. But I love them more for non-classical records. They are just one my brushes when available. If I can do a classical without any reverb unit used, I have done a great job.

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by Plush

The title of this thread suggests a hall can be obsoleted by a reverb.
The assumptions surrounding this question are absurd.
....

+1

artificial reverb can NEVER replace a good sounding room.

for a wide variety of reasons...

including the fact that the musicians need to be able to hear each other clearly! the natural (good) room reverb helps with this.

and.... I own a M7.

[mathieujm]

Yes but the best acoustic for the musicians is not always the best for the CD, so...