Orchestral reverb

[Martin Kantola]

Originally Posted by audiomichael

The Bricasti M7 flipped me out when I heard it. I was coming from a TC4000, and the M7 really blew it away (to my ears) in dimension and realism.

Yes, incredible device!

Martin

[David Rick]

I have to agree with Mark on a lot of points.

The need to graft a tail onto a previously recorded hall sound occurs frequently in classical music production. One might think a really clear-sounding box would be best for this, but often the reverse is true. I've seldom had access to the higher end Lexicon reverbs, but the PCM 90/91 has been a real workhorse for me. When I was shopping for a second good hardware reverb, I auditioned several boxes. I'd heard good things about the Quantec, so I borrowed a Yardstick for a while. In some ways, it's a lovely-sounding box. But when I filled out the report card at the end, I checked the box marked "does not play well with others". The Quantec algorithms were just so, um, complete, that they didn't seem to leave any room for the reverberance that was already on tape. I also tried a couple of t.c. electronic reverbs: first a M2000 and then a M3000. Neither was as easy to integrate into a recording as the Lexicon, but I found the sounds useful for other types of production, so I still have the M3000 in my rack. I haven't had a chance to try the M4000. Compared to the Lexicon, the TC boxes make it possible to tweak advanced reverb parameters without having to leave a trail of breadcrumbs to find your way back.

Both the Bricasti and the newest Lexicon were being shown at AES. I only had time to hear the Lexicon, but I'm starting to wonder if I even want to buy another hardware reverb. With so much of my work ITB now, software reverbs are a lot less fuss. Lately I've been using the Magix Variverb plug-in a lot. I imagine that if I actually compared it to my favorite hardware algorithms, it might come up short. But the advanced editing controls are so easy to use that I spend much less time getting to a sound that actually works in the project. My experience with software convolution reverbs is that they often don't blend well, and when they don't there isn't much you can do about it except to keep trying different impulse responses. By the time you've listened to a dozen or more impulses, you could have just built something with an algorithmic reverb and gotten on with your life.

[Remoteness]

The Bricasti was quite the buzz on the AES floor this past October.

What's the street price of a Bricasti M7?

[mpdonahue]

Originally Posted by Remoteness

The Bricasti was quite the buzz on the AES floor this past October.

What's the street price of a Bricasti M7?

I believe it is listing for $3600.
-m

[rmdivito]

With so much of my work ITB now, software reverbs are a lot less fuss.


Can you tell us which ITB reverbs you find most useful for blending with existing hall reverb?

best regards,

Robert DiVito
MSI

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by rmdivito

With so much of my work ITB now, software reverbs are a lot less fuss.


Can you tell us which ITB reverbs you find most useful for blending with existing hall reverb?

best regards,

Robert DiVito
MSI

altiverb for me.

[rmdivito]

thanks for the reply.

do you find convolution reverbs like Altiverb hard to mix with existing recorded material like a hall pickup with reverb already? do the "artificial" algorithmic based reverbs like lexicon and TC work better for that?

regards,

RD