The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
sony dre 2000 mystery Reverb/Delay Processors (HW)
Old 19th August 2012
  #1
Gear Maniac
 
atticmike's Avatar
 

sony dre 2000 mystery

Wazup fellas,

What's actually all the fuzz about sony's 80s dre 2000 reverb unit?

Isn't a contemporary digital plugin reverb much better than those old rack units?

Mike
Old 19th August 2012
  #2
Mho
Lives for gear
 

Lord Alges drum verb...
I would like to know how it sounds like...
Old 19th August 2012
  #3
Gear Maniac
 
atticmike's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mho View Post
Lord Alges drum verb...
I would like to know how it sounds like...
so what? just because Mr. Alge uses an ancient "digital" reverb doesn't make it automatically sound good. Especially because it is "digital" and "ancient", two things I wouldn't dare to utter in one sentence.
Old 19th August 2012
  #4
Lives for gear
 
waveterm's Avatar
 

Why not ? Why not accept the fact that some things cannot be exchanged with a plugin ?

There are more to ancient digital reverbs than just the code.

WT
Old 19th August 2012
  #5
Gear Maniac
 
atticmike's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by waveterm View Post
Why not ? Why not accept the fact that some things cannot be exchanged with a plugin ?

There are more to ancient digital reverbs than just the code.

WT
I agree on compression, eq and anything that's analog in a sense.

But digital units are pretty much a temporary thing that's outdated at the day of its release / your purchase.
Old 19th August 2012
  #6
Lives for gear
 
waveterm's Avatar
 

Well.....ok then !

WT
Old 20th August 2012
  #7
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by atticmike View Post
...But digital units are pretty much a temporary thing that's outdated at the day of its release / your purchase.
Why then is the Philips TDA1541A S2 (circa 1994) DAC chip still considered by most Audiophiles to be the best sounding converter in the business?
It still wins in double-blind shoot-outs against many modern DACs which should sound better (based on specs).
Old 20th August 2012
  #8
Gear Maniac
 
atticmike's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitrax View Post
Why then is the Philips TDA1541A S2 (circa 1994) DAC chip still considered by most Audiophiles to be the best sounding converter in the business?
It still wins in double-blind shoot-outs against many modern DACs which should sound better (based on specs).
well you can't argue that those units lack the sonic depth / sharpness contemporary converters have, on the other hand, there is the analog processing section on those units which makes them by the sound in general, regardless of the sonic depth better than contemporary converters, overall.

Same thing goes for the 192 by digi which rounds off the sound in a positive manner, on the other hand lacks the sonic depth I get with the symphony or lynx.

I for my part chose to swap the 192 for lynx's aurora but at times I miss the punchiness of the 192 at the moment of recording but then, there is also the post processing via your outboard gear at the mixing stage which makes up for that initial loss so it's all in all not an easy topic to debate about in that case though regarding digital effects units from the 80s, I really don't see why they're supposed to be superior, especially since I've seen pictures from its guts and there wasn't much trace of a huge analog section, nothing that I couldn't get with an api summing stage...

And I most def. don't want a digi reverb for its analog stage...

If I wanted the reverb to be more distinguished and warm, I'd simply run it through any unit with large in and output transformers...
Old 20th August 2012
  #9
Lives for gear
 
waveterm's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by atticmike View Post
well you can't argue that those units lack the sonic depth / sharpness contemporary converters have, on the other hand, there is the analog processing section on those units which makes them by the sound in general, regardless of the sonic depth better than contemporary converters, overall.
There you go, BAAM !

The end result is more than then sum of the parts.

WT
Old 20th August 2012
  #10
Lives for gear
I guess my point is: regardless of how reverb algo's have (or haven't) progressed, there may be some merit to the fact that some older verb hardware simply had better (or at least smoother) conversion.

No matter how sophisticated your new reverb plug-in may be, it cannot change the quality of conversion that took place feeding it or leaving it. If you are mixing OTB (or summing stems OTB), you are subject to the quality of your conversion x 24 or more, and of course, if you're mixing through a console off of tape, there would be a HUGE advantage to (good) stand-alone reverb hardware.

I have some nice verb plugs, but find the resources they consume aren't worth the difference in convenience and I prefer some of the presets from my oldest reverb unit (Dynacord DRP-20) to most of my software verbs (or to ANY processing I can do to the software verbs) and even to some on the Bricasti.
Old 20th August 2012
  #11
Gear Head
 
Rune Rask's Avatar
To my ears hardware digital reverbs, has a so much more depth than plugins.

Especially convolution reverb plugins are borring to me, no matter what sample program im using, i tend to get bored by the sound/tone of the plugin, to me its like it only has one continuous tone/ringing.
When i use my spx90, lxp15 or dp4 (none of those are expensive) its so much more interesting to listen to, and the mix ends up with a wider 3d feeling.

Please enlighten me if you have a plugin better than algorithm hardware.

i read great things about Valhalla, i will try it tonight.

best

Rune
Old 20th August 2012
  #12
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by atticmike View Post
well you can't argue that those units lack the sonic depth / sharpness contemporary converters have, on the other hand, there is the analog processing section on those units which makes them by the sound in general, regardless of the sonic depth better than contemporary converters, overall.

Same thing goes for the 192 by digi which rounds off the sound in a positive manner, on the other hand lacks the sonic depth I get with the symphony or lynx.

I for my part chose to swap the 192 for lynx's aurora but at times I miss the punchiness of the 192 at the moment of recording but then, there is also the post processing via your outboard gear at the mixing stage which makes up for that initial loss so it's all in all not an easy topic to debate about in that case though regarding digital effects units from the 80s, I really don't see why they're supposed to be superior, especially since I've seen pictures from its guts and there wasn't much trace of a huge analog section, nothing that I couldn't get with an api summing stage...

And I most def. don't want a digi reverb for its analog stage...

If I wanted the reverb to be more distinguished and warm, I'd simply run it through any unit with large in and output transformers...
That is the beautiful thing about equipment. Even digital gear.
While there might technically be stuff out there that is made with better components, and that specs better, it isn't always about that. I often use an old 12 bit reverb because it is much less dynamic. It isn't that the unit sounds superior in construction... It is superior in certain applications.
Old 20th August 2012
  #13
Gear Maniac
 
atticmike's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitrax View Post
I guess my point is: regardless of how reverb algo's have (or haven't) progressed, there may be some merit to the fact that some older verb hardware simply had better (or at least smoother) conversion.

No matter how sophisticated your new reverb plug-in may be, it cannot change the quality of conversion that took place feeding it or leaving it. If you are mixing OTB (or summing stems OTB), you are subject to the quality of your conversion x 24 or more, and of course, if you're mixing through a console off of tape, there would be a HUGE advantage to (good) stand-alone reverb hardware.

I have some nice verb plugs, but find the resources they consume aren't worth the difference in convenience and I prefer some of the presets from my oldest reverb unit (Dynacord DRP-20) to most of my software verbs (or to ANY processing I can do to the software verbs) and even to some on the Bricasti.
Well, outside of my bias, I'd still like to hear the sony in action. However, units such as the Bricasti didn't really impress me, considering it's price. And you can't argue that you couldn't achieve a similar sound by simply processing your plugin output through an outboard unit. I'm really not the guy who takes either the digital or analog side of things. Actually, I'm a complete analog ****** with things such as EQ, compression etcetera. I've tried most of nowadays's eq / compression plugin types but nothing beats the outboard I possess, especially because 80 % of it is DIY and built with quality components by my choice.

But when it comes to "Digital" units for reverb and such, especially when you've built your own "high end audio gear" and now how a digital reverb works, it is hard to believe a DRE 2000 and Bricasti would be any different, apart from its "output stage" which could be easily recreated by going out of the box, through a fancy analog outboard unit and back inside the DAW, ain't it?
Old 20th August 2012
  #14
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rune Rask View Post
To my ears hardware digital reverbs, has a so much more depth than plugins.
This is largely because hardware can sum several delay lines at slightly different phase to each other into a composite stereo signal.
Now, software can do this as well, but its phase relations can be no more exact than +/- one sample (at output), whereas hardware can provide frequency-dependent phase relations between multiple engines (or multiple outputs from the same engine) with infinite resolution (using analog filters and discrete circuits).

Last edited by digitrax; 20th August 2012 at 12:33 AM.. Reason: sp.
Old 20th August 2012
  #15
Gear Maniac
 
atticmike's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitrax View Post
This is largely because hardware can sum several delay lines at slightly different phase to each other into a composite stereo signal.
Now, software can do this as well, but it's phase relations can be no more exact than +/- one sample, whereas hardware can provide frequency-dependent phase relations between multiple engines (or multiple outputs from the same engine) with infinite resolution (using analog filters and discrete circuits).
that sounds actually reasonable if the effect was more than a regular "room reverb". but don't people buy them because of the simple stuff whereas it'd be then by the plugin side of things rather redundant.
Old 20th August 2012
  #16
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by atticmike View Post
...when it comes to "Digital" units for reverb and such, especially when you've built your own "high end audio gear" and now how a digital reverb works, it is hard to believe a DRE 2000 and Bricasti would be any different, apart from its "output stage" which could be easily recreated by going out of the box, through a fancy analog outboard unit and back inside the DAW, ain't it?
I believe you could, if you had access to all the engine's taps, internal outputs, and the like, but that would require some serious hacking. Easier just to buy a hardware verb you like - or use a plug if that satisfies you. It just doesn't do it for me.
Old 20th August 2012
  #17
Gear Maniac
 
atticmike's Avatar
 

Also, since I'm not that big on hardware digital reverbs and have rarely heard any on my desk, is it possible with them to just output the reverb without the original source signal? Even with the DRE 2000 ?
Old 20th August 2012
  #18
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by atticmike View Post
that sounds actually reasonable if the effect was more than a regular "room reverb"...
I think it's actually the "simple 'room reverb'" that benefits most from the increased depth/phase resolution of mixing taps and lines within the hardware.
Just my 2¢.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atticmike View Post
Also, since I'm not that big on hardware digital reverbs and have rarely heard any on my desk, is it possible with them to just output the reverb without the original source signal? Even with the DRE 2000 ?
Yes - you can get 'just the verb' - no problem. Most units have analog mixing for % of wet/dry (some have digital mix as well).
Old 20th August 2012
  #19
Gear Maniac
 
atticmike's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitrax View Post
I think it's actually the "simple 'room reverb'" that benefits most from the increased depth/phase resolution of mixing taps and lines within the hardware.
Just my 2¢.

Yes - you can get 'just the verb' - no problem. Most units have analog mixing for % of wet/dry (some have digital mix as well).
The latter I was rather curious about because I don't think Mr. Alge would like to sub-mix the original signal with the reverb under the EQd track and mess it up with the old converters but rather having solely the reverb coming up on a different channel.
Old 20th August 2012
  #20
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

A digital hardware box will have a sound based on the sum of all of it's parts, including the analog stages and ADA converters. As well as the time and expertise spent in design, especially the algorithms and the programming.

Some of the older boxes are very sought after for these reasons. Just because it was designed 20 or more years ago does not mean that the sound is not as good or better than something that is brand new.

And cost is always a factor. It is expensive to have the best people spend the time it takes to do these things to the very highest level, whether that was in 1982 or today.

The Sony is just one example, and I don't have personal experience with it, but I believe it cost more than $40,000, which is a lot of money, especially in the early 80's.
Old 20th August 2012
  #21
Lives for gear
 
Marcocet's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitrax View Post
I guess my point is: regardless of how reverb algo's have (or haven't) progressed, there may be some merit to the fact that some older verb hardware simply had better (or at least smoother) conversion.

No matter how sophisticated your new reverb plug-in may be, it cannot change the quality of conversion that took place feeding it or leaving it. If you are mixing OTB (or summing stems OTB), you are subject to the quality of your conversion x 24 or more, and of course, if you're mixing through a console off of tape, there would be a HUGE advantage to (good) stand-alone reverb hardware.

Exactly. Just because a piece of gear is digital doesn't mean it's the same thing as a plugin. Digital reverbs, especially older ones, aren't designed anything like current computers, and the analog side of the circuit is completely different as well. They used specific chips and components that had side effects that needed to be dealt with. Managing those side effects with a plugin is exactly the same as emulating some analog piece of gear.

Plugins are a totally different thing than we've seen before. Calling a SPX90 digital doesn't mean it has much in common with my macbook.
Old 20th August 2012
  #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by atticmike View Post
I agree on compression, eq and anything that's analog in a sense.

But digital units are pretty much a temporary thing that's outdated at the day of its release / your purchase.
If you say so.

Or maybe it's time for you to compare some units against plugins.
Old 20th August 2012
  #23
Gear Maniac
 
atticmike's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by deft_bonz View Post
If you say so.

Or maybe it's time for you to compare some units against plugins.
I suppose it is. Never said I could be wrong but why shouldn't you take your point and be bold about it if there is evidence-based ground to lean on?

At some point I may stand corrected because people's experience around here seem to make sense with the theory that goes hand in hand with it.

Things that I talk about is 100 % experienced based and sometimes on Gearslutz, folks defend tooth and nail based on either none experience or nothing they've given yet much thought. Whereas access to all the engine's taps / internal outputs makes sense though and I find myself flustered for this and probably many more times in my life.

At the bottom of it all, it is still not to argue that doing an EQ on a plugin is nothing compared to rendering reverbs in the box. And since reverbs and echos are somewhat a spice for my taste in mixes, I wouldn't be mad If I missed 20 % performance compared to external effects processing units.

For EQ and compression it's a whole different story though as I consciously avoid anything plugin based at that matter.

I'd like to give those external effects processing units a try and compare them but the price, even with the DRE 2000 rather turns me off. Do you know any other competitive effects unit that sounds either as good or close to the DRE 2000 sound (wouldn't want to put Bricasti in one line with the DRE 2000), just for regular room / hall reverb and doesn't cost as much as the sony does?
Old 20th August 2012
  #24
Then I'd recommend you a PCM 70, 80 or 90. Used, they don't cost that much and deliver a very nice reverb.
Old 20th August 2012
  #25
Quote:
Originally Posted by atticmike View Post
The latter I was rather curious about because I don't think Mr. Alge would like to sub-mix the original signal with the reverb under the EQd track and mess it up with the old converters but rather having solely the reverb coming up on a different channel.
You would hope he'd have learned how to use send fx by now, yes.
Old 20th August 2012
  #26
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey View Post
You would hope he'd have learned how to use send fx by now, yes.



I think this thread shouldn't really be in high end.
Old 20th August 2012
  #27
Lives for gear
 
nickelironsteel's Avatar
 

nothing comes close to a SONY DRE 2000 for drums.
It's very natural, great on creating a room. I usually set it to 1s length for a short room.
i use the 2000 for snare and the 2000A for toms amongst a few others reverbs that i dial in. it has a sound that will stick out in any mix and create natural sounding impact.
for what it does to drums, to me, imho, yadda yadda, its the fairchild of reverbs.
Old 20th August 2012
  #28
Mho
Lives for gear
 

It would be great if you could post an example of how the 2000 sounds. A snare sample dry and wet
Old 20th August 2012
  #29
Gear Guru
 
Sounds Great's Avatar
 

They had one at Amigo when I worked there for a bit in 1984. One of the engineers showed me the "secret box", and I was shocked to learn how much it cost.
Old 20th August 2012
  #30
Gear Maniac
 
atticmike's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post



I think this thread shouldn't really be in high end.
bloated ego taking over on gearslutz once more

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mho View Post
It would be great if you could post an example of how the 2000 sounds. A snare sample dry and wet
yeah, I'd be really interested to hear it in action as well

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sounds Great View Post
They had one at Amigo when I worked there for a bit in 1984. One of the engineers showed me the "secret box", and I was shocked to learn how much it cost.
How much was the amigo and how much is it now?
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…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
triez / Geekslutz Forum
3
mastermix / Geekslutz Forum
1
djbizness / Rap + Hip Hop Engineering and Production
1
Duffster / So Much Gear, So Little Time
3

Forum Jump
Forum Jump