PT HD Reverb plug-in

[rr1073]

Hello Charles and everyone:
What are your favorite reverb plug-ins for PT HD? I used to like Lexiverb, but have upgraded to PT HD and it is no longer available. What is the best sounding, smoothest, most functional reverb plug-in available for PT HD?

Thanks...

[Rail Jon Rogut]

HD or HD Accel?

Waves IR-1 is excellent... so is Altiverb on a G4 or G5... TL Space is going to be great as well... and the new Digi ReVibe (Accel only).

Reverb One isn't horrible (much better than LexiVerb IMO).

Rail

[nikki-k]

Hi!
Ditto what Rail said.

For Accel, TL Space and ReVibe (when they are both out), and then IR1 (HTDM).

[rr1073]

HD3 Accel. G5. I'll have to check out Altiverb...

[rr1073]

Has anyone tried Reverb 2016?

[Jan Folkson]

Eventide Reverb is pretty great for a plug-in.

[Nutmeg II.]

http://www.uaudio.com/products/softw...erb/index.html

[morpheus]

Originally posted by rr1073
HD3 Accel. G5. I'll have to check out Altiverb...

The Altiverb license restrictions have really turned me off that product....pretty outrageous if you ask me!

http://www.noisevault.com/elephantta...opic.php?t=458

Who do they think they are?

[mpr3]

Originally posted by morpheus
Who do they think they are?

They spend thousands of dollars traveling around the world shooting impulses of amazing spaces and you think they should allow their IRs to be free for all other convolution reverbs to use?

IMO, the IRs are more valuable than the plugins themselves!

[morpheus]

Originally posted by mpr3
They spend thousands of dollars traveling around the world shooting impulses of amazing spaces and you think they should allow their IRs to be free for all other convolution reverbs to use?

Either you didn't read the post or you didn't understand it. The issue has nothing to do with the impulses created by Audio Ease.

Altiverb are claiming if users create their own impulses using Altiverb, they are only 'permitted' to use them in Altiverb.

That basically means you can't share your impulses with anyone else. And imagine the professional who spends a couple of years working with Altiverb and then decides to move to another DAW (maybe they want to run on PC or something). Do they have to throw away all their Altiverb impulses they have created? It's just crazy...

And anyway - if I paid $400 for the Altiverb impulse library, I should be able to use it in any reverb software I like. What difference does it make to Audio Ease if they have my money?

If I buy a sample library in Akai format, am I be prohibited from using it in Mach 5 or Kontakt? There is absolutely no difference. As long as I have purchased the samples legally, I should be able to use them.

[mpr3]

Originally posted by morpheus
That basically means you can't share your impulses with anyone else. And imagine the professional who spends a couple of years working with Altiverb and then decides to move to another DAW (maybe they want to run on PC or something). Do they have to throw away all their Altiverb impulses they have created? It's just crazy...

When you shoot your own IRs, you own those. They are your recordings made by your equipment. If you decide to use them with Altiverb, then you use their pre-processor to prepare them for use with Altiverb. It is this pre-processor that demands usage with only Altiverb. Again the samples that you shoot are your own, to be used with whatever convolution reverb you wish.

What is happening is that these other companies are making convolution reverbs but are encouraging their users to use Audio Ease's pre-processor to make compatible IRs because their own pre-processors are either inferior or non-existent. This is wrong! Audio ease worked their asses off on the pre-processor, and now these dime a dozen convolution reverbs are leaching off their copyright!

[morpheus]

What 'copyrighted format' are you talking about? You can't copyright a format. Maybe if Audio Ease had patented the format it would be an issue...but it isn't.

If users paid for Altiverb, the audio that users create shouldn't be restricted. If Audio Ease wants to restrict it, they should at least have the common decency to note this restriction on their website instead of hiding it in a license agreement.

If the moderator of the Altiverbers list didn't know about this restriction, it's pretty obvious Audio Ease haven't been upfront about it.

It comes down to the fact that other plugin companies (i.e. Waves, Voxengo) are kicking Audio Ease out of the comfortable niche they have been in for several years...

[mpr3]

Originally posted by morpheus
If I buy a sample library in Akai format, am I be prohibited from using it in Mach 5 or Kontakt? There is absolutely no difference. As long as I have purchased the samples legally, I should be able to use them.

When you buy sample libraries you agree to the terms of their licensing agreement. In many of the giga libraries that I own, I am forbidden from using their samples in movie trailers without first reaching a financial agreement with maker of the Giga library. Is this an outrage? Perhaps to some, but it is in the agreement you made by installing their samples and either you break the law or you negotiate.

If you read the Altiverb agreement, one of their stipulations says that all IRs generated by their pre-processor must only be used by Altiverb. Is this an outrage? Perhaps to some, but it is in the agreement you made by installing Altiverb and either you break the law or except the usage limitations of their product.

I have shot roughly over 100 IRs in the past 3 years of various churches, rooms, swimming pools, etc. and if I were to start using another convolution reverb, it would not be that difficult for me to re-process the files using the new pre-processor supplied with the reverb. So that point is mute.

The main concern for Audio Ease has to do with the non-owners of Altiverb taking advantage of Altiverb pre-processor, and in one apparent case, a developer of another convolution reverb soliciting usage from Altiverb users!

[NeoVXR]

I can understand the reasons of Audio Ease, but from what I can read here and in the other thread, I think it is a very difficult situation, and in many countries this kind of agreement may not be effective.

An agreement that makes program material proprietary by using a certain device during its production is very questionable. It seems to belong to the encoding world, e.g. the GIF, divX or mp3 problem.
If you commercially distribute content that is encoded, you must have a license agreement with the makers of the encoder.
Same might apply at pre-processed convolution impulses.

So it is the question whether my own music becomes part of the agreement that I have with a plug-in company, when I run it through their plug-in or when I use software from this plug-in (which the impulses in fact are) together with other plugins to process my music.

From what I understand, users record their impulses, and then encode them with Audio Ease technologies, so they become software that can technically be used with other devices. It is clear that users are holding rights in this "software", but whether the tool-makers have rights, too, is difficult and could depend on national, complex laws.

It is not so, and must never be so, that a simple act of buying stuff (shrink-wrapped or online by very few mouse-clicks) can enforce any type of exotic agreement. It has to be a very simple standard situation defined by law, for all times, else making business becomes nearly impossible because no one can afford the dangers and the costs of these law suits, when suddenly one of the contractors has the idea to make a hit with something written in small letters. Law should be on the side of the customer, because production is not something on its own purpose, but to fulfill needs of others.

So, I think, Audio Ease might be better on, making their pre-processor a distinct product with good reputation, easy rules and a good price. It may be of importance that they did _not_ encrypt the impulse data for only use in their system.

[MJGreene Audio]

My only responce to this crap is if you don't like how Altiverb words their license then use another program. Audio Ease makes an amazing product. Still the best on the market that I have heard. I have made many of my own IR's and used their processor. I have shared them with friends to use and when I have spoken to Arjen about this and many other Altiverb questions and issues he has been very kind and helpful. I have seen many of your posts on other sites about this issue and I think it is time to get over it or move on. Quite bashing a revolutionary product and use something else to make your IR's that you wish to sell.

Michael Greene

[morpheus]

Originally posted by NeoVXR
From what I understand, users record their impulses, and then encode them with Audio Ease technologies, so they become software that can technically be used with other devices. It is clear that users are holding rights in this "software", but whether the tool-makers have rights, too, is difficult and could depend on national, complex laws.

Impulse responses aren't software - they are just audio files.

http://www.noisevault.com/elephantta...opic.php?t=456

Originally posted by MJGreene Audio
I have seen many of your posts on other sites about this issue and I think it is time to get over it or move on.

was this addressed to me or someone else?!?

[MJGreene Audio]

I spoke before I double checked my sources. In the time it has taken for you to respond I have checked and I am wrong. It was not you but someone else on the Altiverb user group and the PSW forum. You have my sincere apology. I am just pissed off that this has taken wings the way it has when I don't think it should be such a big issue. If other companies want to make a processor that works as well and sounds as good as Audio-Ease's then they should spend the time and money doing so instead of finding ways to rip of someone elses hard work.

OK I am getting off my soapbox.

Again I am sorry for the incorrect comment.

Thanks,
Michael Greene

[NeoVXR]

> If other companies want to make a processor that works as well and sounds as good as Audio-Ease's then they should spend the time and money doing so instead of finding ways to rip of someone elses hard work.

I think this is a very just comment.
OTOH I would congratulate if Audio Ease sell their processor as a separate product, maybe half the price of the full system, so it can be used with all other convolutional devices.

---
@morpheus
software represents an algorithm to process data (besides much else) and is distributed in some form of language or code. so if a reverb device uses a WAV as a model to process other signals, the WAV becomes part of the software. If data is a model for processing, sometimes it is called software, too. But this is much about philosophy, and resembles the question whether light is waves or particles... it depends on usage.. thumbsup

[morpheus]

Originally posted by MJGreene Audio
I spoke before I double checked my sources. In the time it has taken for you to respond I have checked and I am wrong. It was not you but someone else on the Altiverb user group and the PSW forum. You have my sincere apology.

Apology accepted.

Audio Ease could probably reduce the whining if they would just put it on their website...i don't think anyone wants to rip them off, I just think they need to be upfront about it so people know what they are spending their money on.

[karl]

I agree with original post from rr1073. I am still on OS9 because I like Lexiverb even though I bought 0SX and Pro Tools 6. Impulse reverbs would eat up too much power for my system. Reverb One sounds great when I have the drums solo'd with verb, but seems to disappear when I bring the rest of the mix in. This never happened with an SPX900. Are there any TDM softverbs that sit in the mix better apart from impulse types?

[NeoVXR]

karl, just an idea, did you try it with less density? or add an eq after the reverb, or put a plugin into the _feed_ of the reverb that gives color, like kind of light distortion? depends on the style...

[karl]

Thanks for the idea Neo. It is just a general thing with soft verbs for me. They do seem to disappear a bit compared with the hardware units. Maybe the amount of CPU is not enough on TDM chips with my Mix system. I guess I should think of it a bit like Charles suggested in a previous post. Treat the soft version as a new kind of effect. My thoughts were that the Lexiverb and reverb one both sounded better quality than my Lex MPX500 and various SPX and Zoom reverbs in isolation. They all seem to fall way short of a 480, when I have been lucky enough to have one, but I guess they will catch up soon.

[rr1073]

Interesting comments. It is an issue changing operating systems/plug-ins. I had spent 3 years with Lexiverb building up my favorite reverbs. After upgrading to PT HD3 Acell I have Reverb one, Trueverb and D-verb. I have to start all over again. I'm not sure what the solution is...I guess you just have to try and keep up as much as possible. I definitely want to check Altiverb, but don't want to spend another 3 years using it and then have to throw it away...although I guess 3 years is a pretty long time in this business.

[Alécio Costa]

Karl, sometimes I have the same impression. Several times I preferred the SPX990 ( 02R efx) and MPX1 over Lexiverb 1.0/2.0 . They are dense, you might add color like someone also suggetsed , but somthing is missing... sense of depth?

[karl]

Hey Alecio. I have just completed a mix using Reverb One for the drum sound instead of the SPX900. I think it takes a while to get used to because it does not sound so immediate. The drummer likes the sound though and it is a better result than I had before. I used the Wood Room as a starting point mainly because I like that name sound on the 480L for drums. After a bit of adjustment and bringing in a little more low end it's working. It still seems like you need more effect to heart in the mix though.

[speerchucker]

I agree that Audio Ease has a right to protect the process that they developed. However, it's kind of silly to try to regulate the end-user.

They should be going after the software developers that make c-reverbs which can use these same IR's. I assume that they ARe doing this, and that they have a patent on the process itself. (I hope so. they certainly deserve to reap the rewards of their R&D.) -but going after a sound developer seems like an impossible, un-enforceable task.

It does raise interesting legal questions.
-----------------------------------------------

As for the original question, revibe is absolutely amazing. I did a number of the factory presets, and have been mixing with it for a few months now. It has almost completely replaced my TC 6000 and Lex 480. Seriously.
AND it runs at true 96K, with no up-sampling.
Massive coolness abounds....

When it becomes available, by all means check it out. (Accel card required)

I'm also loving the (soon to be released) TLL c-reverb. Great parameter control for this type of reverb.

[nikki-k]

ReVibe is out!

Big plus on this one is it does 5.1, as well as doing 96K (as mentioned previously).

With TL Space on the horizon, really getting good now