The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
hardware convolution reverb vs. software convolution reverb
Old 7th August 2010
  #1
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
hardware convolution reverb vs. software convolution reverb

I use a Yamaha SREV1 in my studio. I have converted the impulse responses of the bricasti M7 from "Acousticas" into the SREV1 format. I couldn't hear a difference to the new bricasti impulse responses from "Samplicity", so I decided to use the ones of Acousticas.

I used the Waves IR-1 to compare the convolution quality. If you use Altiverb, you get the same result than Waves IR-1 does.

The attached soundfiles were recorded with the following equipment:

Brauner VMA
Manley SLAM
Motu HD192
Vovox cables
SSL-XLogic Channel compressor (slightly used)

Can you hear a difference between hardware and software convolution? The M7 doesn't have a lot of modulations in the reverb tail. I think it is an ideal unit for the use of impulse responses. When you try to use Altiverb or Waves IR-1 in a song, I always have the feeling, that the voice isn't embedded in the song. But if you use a hardware convolution reverb, you achieve better results. I have heard of people, who sold their Lexicon 480L after hearing the impulse responses with a Yamaha SREV1.

I have used the presets "Boston Hall A" and "Large Wooden Room".
Attached Files

SREV1 bricasti.mp3 (1.27 MB, 3827 views)

IR-1 bricasti.mp3 (1.21 MB, 3709 views)

SREV bricasti 2.mp3 (1.27 MB, 3543 views)

IR-1 bricasti 2.mp3 (1.30 MB, 3483 views)

Old 9th August 2010
  #2
Lives for gear
 
World Studios's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
I think the hardware sounds more smooth and less metallic. More depth, perhaps because it is more separated from the direct signal in a good way. I have not had much sucess with convolution reverbs in my busy pop mixes for sure. They take up too much space, if nothing else, and sound a bit boring compared to algorithmic ones. I have the M7 and that one is the bomb.
Old 11th August 2010 | Show parent
  #3
AvS
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
I totally agree. IR-1 sound metallic. SREV1 just sounds better here.
Old 13th August 2010
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starstreet View Post
The M7 doesn't have a lot of modulations in the reverb tail. I think it is an ideal unit for the use of impulse responses.
The M7 actually use a lot of modulation - it does sounds very smooth thou.
Old 15th August 2010
  #5
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
hardware convolution reverb vs. software convolution reverb

I wanted to show you, that hardware convolution reverbs still can generate reverbs you will not get by any available software. There could still be a small market for new units.
This technique was never dead.
Old 17th August 2010 | Show parent
  #6
Lives for gear
 
The Listener's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starstreet View Post
I wanted to show you, that hardware convolution reverbs still can generate reverbs you will not get by any available software. There could still be a small market for new units.
This technique was never dead.
Meh, I don't buy that explanation... anyway - try Virsyn REFLECT 2 for great convolution reverb software... and the algorithimc software reverb plug-in by Lexicon rules them all... software reverb is right there with the hardware at the moment... HW units are only for those who need suitable interface for their OTB set-ups... (IMO)
Old 18th August 2010 | Show parent
  #7
Lives for gear
 
jupiter8's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starstreet View Post
I wanted to show you, that hardware convolution reverbs still can generate reverbs you will not get by any available software. There could still be a small market for new units.
This technique was never dead.
Convolution 100% exactly defined mathematically. There's only one way to do it. There's absolutely no difference between HW or SW in that regard. All you get from HW is a ADA roundtrip.
Old 18th August 2010 | Show parent
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jupiter8 View Post
Convolution 100% exactly defined mathematically. There's only one way to do it. There's absolutely no difference between HW or SW in that regard. All you get from HW is a ADA roundtrip.
Casey also argue that the Sony DRE-S777 sound different and much better than Altiverb and other software based convolution engines.

@Starstreet : How did you hook up the SREV1 - via AES/EBU? Could you post the exact same results 100% wet via digital?
Old 19th August 2010 | Show parent
  #9
AvS
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jupiter8 View Post
Convolution 100% exactly defined mathematically. There's only one way to do it. There's absolutely no difference between HW or SW in that regard. All you get from HW is a ADA roundtrip.
I have a hard time beliving that difference in those samples is just the convertion.
Old 19th August 2010 | Show parent
  #10
Lives for gear
 
jupiter8's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by AvS View Post
I have a hard time beliving that difference in those samples is just the convertion.
If you know another way of doing convolution please do tell.
Old 29th August 2010 | Show parent
  #11
AvS
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
No idea but surely the developers must take alot of choices while making a convolution reverb rather than just write the "convolution formula" down?
Old 31st August 2010 | Show parent
  #12
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
@Starstreet : How did you hook up the SREV1 - via AES/EBU? Could you post the exact same results 100% wet via digital?[/QUOTE]


Yes it was connected via AES/EBU to the Motu HD192.

There is a guy in germany, who sells a CD with impulse responses from 960, 480, M6000, just for the SREV1. The seller is called "logic-platinum" and the actual ebay article number is 380150303619. He explained me, that there are different ways to calculate a convolution and the SREV1 would do a "1:1" convolution. But I didn't exactly understand what he tried to say. But he mentioned that Altiverb an Waves would not do it the same way and this would be the reason, why the SREV1 sounds always so much better. I can only repeat, what I have heard.
Old 6th April 2011 | Show parent
  #13
theother
Guest
The SREV1 really shines only if you sample through the SREV1. I know because I have one and tried it. But porting existing samples over to the SREV1 you lose most of its power. I guess it still has a slight edge though.

To make an honest comparison you should sample and playback from the SREV1 hardware and then sample and playback via software only.
Old 8th April 2011 | Show parent
  #14
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Wow massive difference! 1 thing though doesn't IR-1 have an algo reverb in it as well as convolution? Is that part definately turned off?
Old 10th May 2011 | Show parent
  #15
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by CeretoneAudio View Post
Wow massive difference! 1 thing though doesn't IR-1 have an algo reverb in it as well as convolution? Is that part definately turned off?

yes, of course I turned it off.

I have now the Sony DRE-S777 AND the Yamaha SREV1 in my studio. Read my new thread and compare both units with Altiverb.
Old 5th June 2011 | Show parent
  #16
Lives for gear
 
andrew montreal's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Hmmm... there's something happening here and I'm not sure why it hasn't been mentioned. The voice in the SREV version sounds very much dry and separate from the reverb whereas the voice in the IR-1 seems like it's as well going through the effect... there is a slight loss in the highs in a natural way that one would here if a person what not singing 6 inches from your ear. The early reflections seem to be more closely married to the voice thus pulling into the room.

This might be explained by the plugin being dropped right on the vocal track. If the test wasn't done that way then I have to say that I'm more impressed by the IR-1. Perhaps the difference can be explained by the fact that the reverb in the SREV version is slightly delayed, having had the signal go in and out of the computer.

Is anyone hearing this difference?
Old 1st August 2011 | Show parent
  #17
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 10 years
Altiverb and SREV-1 were both integrated in Cubase as FX-Channels. In the meantime I have sold the SREV-1 because I was more impressed by the DRE-S777. The small rooms sounded larger/deeper in the SREV-1, but the large halls in the DRE-S777 are brilliant. Some of the big reverbs e.g. in the Japanese Acoustic Library sound so good, that I checked my 480L, if there is something wrong.

I you play with the effect send slider in Cubase and compare Altiverb/SREV-1, the difference is really obvious. It is as big as comparing the Lexicon 480L to the Lexicon PCM Native Bundle (which sounds like crap).
Old 1st August 2011 | Show parent
  #18
Lives for gear
 
7 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by World Studios View Post
I think the hardware sounds more smooth and less metallic. More depth,
Agreed. I think the hardware version sounds a bit more natural also to my ears.
Old 11th August 2011 | Show parent
  #19
Lives for gear
 
famousbass's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
<DELETED BY MODERATOR>

But you are selling the one you built.

Last edited by GS moderation; 11th August 2011 at 06:14 PM.. Reason: Posting only to generate sales
Old 11th August 2011 | Show parent
  #20
Here for the gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by famousbass View Post
But you are selling the one you built.
listen man, this makes the second time ive replied to you, if you dont want to look at the vst a mastering engineer of 10 years built and is selln it for dirt cheap then dont look at it, this forum is about sharing knowledge and helping people, which is what im doing, offering such an effect for pennies and sharing secret knowledge tips and tricks, i dont hound other users of the forum. offer some music knowledge of your own or contributions youve made to the industry such as building effects or stop posting cuz im gettn tired of defending my self to you
Old 11th August 2011 | Show parent
  #21
Lives for gear
 
famousbass's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by anaverb View Post
listen man, this makes the second time ive replied to you, if you dont want to look at the vst a mastering engineer of 10 years built and is selln it for dirt cheap then dont look at it, this forum is about sharing knowledge and helping people, which is what im doing, offering such an effect for pennies and sharing secret knowledge tips and tricks, i dont hound other users of the forum. offer some music knowledge of your own or contributions youve made to the industry such as building effects or stop posting cuz im gettn tired of defending my self to you
I'm not a Moderator.
BTW you sent me PMs but don't permit replies.
So you force me to reply in public.
It's hard to miss you since you have a reply selling your product in every active reverb topic.
Your posts aren't without snippets of wisdom some may appreciate.
It looks like you have to sell more than anything else.
You tell me you got experience, great. Fantastic. Welcome to Gearslutz.
After 30 years in the biz I don't have to defend myself to anyone with what my experience constitutes.
I'm finding it difficult to accept your apology as such since your last answer still stubbornly contains a shameless plug for your dirt cheap coding thing.
So we all know why you're here.
And your entire campaign smacks of Selling Online 101 if you ask me.
Have a nice day.
Old 27th January 2012 | Show parent
  #22
Deleted 0833250
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew montreal View Post
Hmmm... there's something happening here and I'm not sure why it hasn't been mentioned. The voice in the SREV version sounds very much dry and separate from the reverb whereas the voice in the IR-1 seems like it's as well going through the effect... there is a slight loss in the highs in a natural way that one would here if a person what not singing 6 inches from your ear. The early reflections seem to be more closely married to the voice thus pulling into the room.

This might be explained by the plugin being dropped right on the vocal track. If the test wasn't done that way then I have to say that I'm more impressed by the IR-1. Perhaps the difference can be explained by the fact that the reverb in the SREV version is slightly delayed, having had the signal go in and out of the computer.

Is anyone hearing this difference?
Yes, but it's simply that the IR-1 is degrading the sound...it seems to fit more because it's more grainy/blurred...however, if you listen on good cans/speakers this effect itself becomes more apparent and just sounds cheap.
Old 8th July 2017
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
I know this thread is old, but it's still an important topic, and worth reviving. There is indeed a huge sonic difference between ITB convolution reverbs and the Sony DRE-S777, for example. Warp 69 knows much more about this than I do, but if I remember correctly, those hardware units sample in the time domain, while the ITB software samples in the frequency domain. This takes much less CPU, but sounds different (worse, to my ears).
There are indeed two different ways of impulse response sampling (time domain and frequency domain).
Martin (and any capable others), please correct me if I'm wrong!
Old 20th July 2017
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Casey about time domain vs. frequency domain: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/7552595-post11.html

Last edited by Rumi; 6th August 2017 at 04:00 PM..
Old 6th August 2017
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Rumi's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
And by the way, I find the examples here of IR-1 fake sounding, and those of the Yamaha real sounding. And that's even with IRs that weren't done through the SREV-1.

On a side note, I know it's a terrible form of dΓ©formation professional, but I had a surprisingly hard time listening to the bad edits in that voice example.
Old 19th October 2020
  #26
Lives for gear
 
axisdreamer's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
When I listened to these files in headphones the IR-1 sounds 1 dimensional and not as real or natural as the Yamaha srev1 file which feels separate from the vocal track but adds so much more depth and a natural wider space around the vocal.

The Yamaha has so much more processing power than a single computer has. I own the Yamaha and would someday like to try different converters with it after reading some people doing that and getting better results. I think the stock converters sound good but I haven't used this reverb as much as some others on here because my studio work came to a halt after I got this reverb. I only used it for weekend jam sessions that me and a few friends would do since I have owned it but am starting to do some more mixing of my own projects now.
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 2 views: 1697
Avatar for zero1tech
zero1tech 29th September 2006
replies: 63 views: 22072
Avatar for stephent28
stephent28 8th December 2011
replies: 204 views: 51466
Avatar for Hardtoe
Hardtoe 6th November 2014
replies: 245 views: 78153
Avatar for NBarnes21
NBarnes21 15th May 2014
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
πŸ–¨οΈ Show Printable Version
βœ‰οΈ Email this Page
πŸ” Search thread
πŸŽ™οΈ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump