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
Relab LX480 Reverb/Delay Processors (HW)
Old 11th May 2010
  #1231
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannes_F View Post
Could it be that the LX480 lowers the pitch of the reverb? I was hearing something like being out of pitch and couldn't believe, so I feeded a 1 kHz sine wave to it. And right, the reverb signal (LX480 in default mode) goes down about 5 Hz.
No...... And yes. The use of modulation (Spin & Wander) will result in pitchshifting/chorusing, but equal higher and lower pitch.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannes_F View Post
And ... could we please (pretty please) have the reverb without noise? I am delivering single stems on a regular base and believe me, noise sums up in this case. I don't care whether this is 'realistic' or not ... since I am doing acoustical recordings I am always fighting noise anyways and if I want I can have plenty of it.
Well - that's far from easy. I can remove some of the noise (the mentioned noise with zero input), but most of it is inherited in the actual processing. This can of course be removed, but that will change the sound (and the reverb will loose some of the charm).
Old 11th May 2010
  #1232
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus View Post
No pc VST?
The beta supports Mac VST/AU and PC VST. You're able to test the PC VST version.

The PC was delayed a day or so compared to Mac.
Old 11th May 2010
  #1233
Lives for gear
 
Hannes_F's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warp69 View Post
I can remove some of the noise (the mentioned noise with zero input)
That would be very nice. Two reasons: The effect is only charming as long as it can not been noticed conciously. And - when zipping long stems with silent passages in them a clean zero saves significant space and upload time compared to a hum @ -80 dB. Thank you!
Old 11th May 2010
  #1234
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warp69 View Post
No we (Relab) haven't. But we haven't received any reports about problems in Sonar from those who have tried the beta.
Thank you! This is a good message.
Old 11th May 2010
  #1235
Registered User
 

Quote:
Could it be that the LX480 lowers the pitch of the reverb? I was hearing something like being out of pitch and couldn't believe, so I feeded a 1 kHz sine wave to it. And right, the reverb signal (LX480 in default mode) goes down about 5 Hz.
That's why it sounds so good! heh

I'm lovin' it on vocals, really iconic, these are, without doubt exciting times.

T
Old 11th May 2010
  #1236
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warp69 View Post
No...... And yes. The use of modulation (Spin & Wander) will result in pitchshifting/chorusing, but equal higher and lower pitch.




Well - that's far from easy. I can remove some of the noise (the mentioned noise with zero input), but most of it is inherited in the actual processing. This can of course be removed, but that will change the sound (and the reverb will loose some of the charm).

Hi Warp,

please let it be like it is or like it should be as an emulation of the 480. If ever please only implement a user switchable option to remove the noise from input or algorithm processing. Any change would make it another reverb but not the 480 any more.

BTW when is the Concert Hall algo available for beta testing? I must admit I´m not that experienced with 'Random Hall' and can´t seem to make it sound like the deep old lush swirly chorused Concert Hall which I´m after the most in reverb land. Maybe it´s because Random Hall only goes up to 38 m...

Cheers
Old 11th May 2010
  #1237
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by el-folie View Post
BTW when is the Concert Hall algo available for beta testing? I must admit I´m not that experienced with 'Random Hall' and can´t seem to make it sound like the deep old lush swirly chorused Concert Hall which I´m after the most in reverb land. Maybe it´s because Random Hall only goes up to 38 m...
The Concert Hall from the Classic Card is NOT the same as the Concert Hall found on the 224(XL). A 224(XL) emulation might be available in the future, but now Im concentrating on the current emulation.

The other Hall algorithm does have the ability to make a chorused sound.
Old 11th May 2010
  #1238
Here for the gear
 
Joachim_K's Avatar
 

Cool

Hi Tony, Hi Relab,

My congratulations on very good reverb! heh
However I would like to pass you some comments.
When I compared your plugin directly with Lex 480, I found couple of things which I did not like.

I tried to compare Random Hall algorhythm at RHall, or RHall+Stage, in the same time at the plugin it should be the preset "TONY Large Hall & Delays.lx480"; I chose lower quality (non HD). In order to get the comparable sound of the plugin and the hardware device I had to modify couple of paramaters: first of all I had to modify the filters a little, and deeper way I modified the shape of the reverb. The SPREAD parameter I found the most differrent from the original, but I had also to touch the SHAPE. Of course playing with them I had to modify the reverb time simultaneously, but I noticed bigger problem.

Trying to come close to the 480L sound, I found that the hardware device started to sound closer to the plugin sound when I narrowed the stereo image of my reverb returns from 480L at the mixing desk. Beside these changes the plugin sounded still a bit differrent. I had also the impression that I shoud use the M/S filters to remove some "tan artifacts", which I found were concentrated somewhere towards the stereo image center. It is possible that such modification might cause "imaginary broadening" of the stereo image of the plugin, and thanks to this the image narrowing I metioned above, would not be so important.

I should emphasize that in my opinion the manipulating in stereo width at the plugin is unacceptable (Width knob).

It is all better in Random Hall HD mode.
Sometimes, when I compared the plugin sound with the hardware sound I found some parameters needed a bit of modification, but it is much less than before. But I find much better definition of audio bandwidth and the stereo image definition - both are much better compared to the reduced algorhthm version.

What do you think about my conclusions?
Do you plan any adjustments/modifications of the algorhthms? I mean maybe filters, maybe shaping of the reverb response for non-HD version?

I think you made great product. If I buy it I suppose I will use HD almost all the time, so this is why I asked you my questions.

I am looking forward to having from you the rest of beta alorythms

Best regards
Joachim
Old 11th May 2010
  #1239
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim_K View Post
I tried to compare Random Hall algorhythm at RHall, or RHall+Stage, in the same time at the plugin it should be the preset "TONY Large Hall & Delays.lx480"; I chose lower quality (non HD). In order to get the comparable sound of the plugin and the hardware device I had to modify couple of paramaters: first of all I had to modify the filters a little, and deeper way I modified the shape of the reverb. The SPREAD parameter I found the most differrent from the original, but I had also to touch the SHAPE. Of course playing with them I had to modify the reverb time simultaneously, but I noticed bigger problem.

Trying to come close to the 480L sound, I found that the hardware device started to sound closer to the plugin sound when I narrowed the stereo image of my reverb returns from 480L at the mixing desk. Beside these changes the plugin sounded still a bit differrent. I had also the impression that I shoud use the M/S filters to remove some "tan artifacts", which I found were concentrated somewhere towards the stereo image center. It is possible that such modification might cause "imaginary broadening" of the stereo image of the plugin, and thanks to this the image narrowing I metioned above, would not be so important.

I should emphasize that in my opinion the manipulating in stereo width at the plugin is unacceptable (Width knob).
Of course you had to tweak them.... because, they are not the same preset. heh

They are presets I created, that is why they are called the TONY presets. The TONY Large Hall & Delays preset probably has many of the parameters the same as RHall and Stage (similar reverb times, shape, diffusion, spin/ wander, etc...). But, some of my settings are different I'm sure (delay times/ filter settings)... they are meant as a starting point for people to get going with.

All the "stock" 480 presets will be included in the released version... In the meantime, if you want to do a A/B test, just match up the settings from your unit to the LX480 and turn the Analog I/O emulation on. You can save what you come up with as a preset and share with everyone here.
Old 11th May 2010
  #1240
Lives for gear
 
elambo's Avatar
It sounds like the plugin CAN emulate a 480 very closely, but you've discovered some additional sonic textures. In my book that makes it superior to a hardware 480. Best of two worlds.
Old 11th May 2010
  #1241
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 

Hi Joachim,

Thank you for the comparison.

As Tony stated - his presets is NOT the presets from the 480L - so you can't compare those presets with what you have in the 480L.

For 'LG RHALL + STG' comparison try the attached file.

Please be aware of my delays compare to the 480L - I have them in a different display order in the plugin - you can see that in the preset.

Im looking forward to your comparisons.

The setting on the 480L :

RTM 2.61sec
SHP 120
SPR 158
SIZ 38m
HFC 3.402kHz
PDL 0ms

BAS 1.2
XOV 493Hz
RTC 3.591kHz
DIF 65
MOD Reverb
MIX All Effects (100% wet)

L>L -8dB
R>R -8dB
R>L -7dB
L>R -7dB
SPN 43
WAN 10ms

L>L 14ms
R>R 20ms
R>L 40ms
L>R 48ms
SHL 0
LEV 160

LEV controls the level of the reverb and reflection on 480L. On the plugin the Reverb Level ONLY controls the level of the Reverb. If people wants the exact same level behavior as the 480L, then please say so.
Attached Files
File Type: zip Large RHall + Stage.zip (298 Bytes, 99 views)
Old 11th May 2010
  #1242
Shy
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warp69 View Post
LEV controls the level of the reverb and reflection on 480L. On the plugin the Reverb Level ONLY controls the level of the Reverb. If people wants the exact same level behavior as the 480L, then please say so.
Of course not, please don't change that.
Also, would the sample rate in the 480L have a significant impact on the sound?
Old 11th May 2010
  #1243
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shy View Post
Of course not, please don't change that.
Then people with 480L's has to compensate for the level difference of the reflections in the plugin.

If you look at the 'Large RHall + Stage', you can see that the reflections has the following levels : -8dB, -8dB, -7dB and -7dB. But the LEV parameter is at 160 (around -4dB) which also effects the reflection levels, so in reality the reflections in the plugin should have the following levels instead : -12dB, -12dB, -11dB and -11dB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shy View Post
Also, would the sample rate in the 480L have a significant impact on the sound?
Well - more so than other reverbs. The standard samplerate in the 480L is 48kHz, but it doesn't scale the delay line values when choosing 44.1kHz - it actually keeps the values of the 48kHz mode. In reality the 480L sound 8% larger when working in 44.1kHz. The same is true in the plugin.
Old 11th May 2010
  #1244
Lives for gear
 
Hannes_F's Avatar
 

Quote:
I can remove some of the noise (the mentioned noise with zero input), but most of it is inherited in the actual processing. This can of course be removed, but that will change the sound (and the reverb will loose some of the charm).
Quote:
Originally Posted by el-folie View Post
Hi Warp,

please let it be like it is or like it should be as an emulation of the 480. If ever please only implement a user switchable option to remove the noise from input or algorithm processing. Any change would make it another reverb but not the 480 any more.
To be clear, I am not (very much) for removing the noise from the processing, but making the 'no input' noise switcheable seems to be a very good idea.

To understand what issues I have with noise ... I am recording a lot of end notes with strings. When strings fade out acoustically (not by fade out) then there comes a point in the decay when the signal does not mask the noise any more and it becomes apparent. Depending on how high the noise level is it can appear to the ear as if a noise source was suddenly turned on. If you ever happened to examine sample libraries you will probably heard that in release samples and piano notes.

Since I deliver section stems that are inserted then into mixes I try to keep the noise @ - 110 dBFS in the treble and @ - 90 dBFS in the bass. That way the final of the strings submix is still below - 100 dB and - 80 dB in the bass. But an added constant noise of - 80 dB to - 110 dB by stem would make a significant difference here.

I agree that there are situations where this matters much less. Thanks, keep up the good work.
Old 11th May 2010
  #1245
Lives for gear
 
Hannes_F's Avatar
 

Cracking sound

OK, here is another small issue (this is a beta test, so if I should send this privately please tell me so).

When I loop the playback in Reaper for a shorter time span than one second or so I get very loud pops. The meter says they are at over + 500 dBFS, so I am happy I use Reaper's built in limiting function. This does not happen with other reverb plugins or with longer loop times.

Cheers
Hannes
Old 11th May 2010
  #1246
Lives for gear
 
Warp69's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannes_F View Post
OK, here is another small issue (this is a beta test, so if I should send this privately please tell me so).

When I loop the playback in Reaper for a shorter time span than one second or so I get very loud pops. The meter says they are at over + 500 dBFS, so I am happy I use Reaper's built in limiting function. This does not happen with other reverb plugins or with longer loop times.
I don't mind you post issues on this thread, but I don't know if the moderators will accept that I use GS as a beta testing forum. You more than welcome to use forum.relab.dk for beta testing issues (not just beta issues of course).
Old 11th May 2010
  #1247
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Just tried it briefly. Sounds great! Defintiely more "effecty" than the PCM plugs which is good if you are going for that sound. A few things I might suggest.....

1) Can all the decay/delay lines sync to divisions of the host tempo?

2) The sliders seems kind of fidgety. Can we get text input and jog wheel functionality?

3) Is the selection of HD global to the plugin and ignores the loaded preset? I'd hate to have to select HD everytime I load a preset if HD was off by default. I would make HD on by default.
Old 11th May 2010
  #1248
Gear Maniac
for everyone that finds it hard to dial in the right value with the LX480 sliders.
on osx hold down the shift key to increase/decrease in very fine amounts.
like you would do with the knobs on a real larc.
i have no idea about windows version, sorry

cheers
Old 11th May 2010
  #1249
Lives for gear
 
EddieTheRed's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sprawl View Post
hold down the shift key to increase/decrease in very fine amounts.
like you would do with the knobs on a real larc.
Old 12th May 2010
  #1250
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sprawl View Post
for everyone that finds it hard to dial in the right value with the LX480 sliders.
on osx hold down the shift key to increase/decrease in very fine amounts.
like you would do with the knobs on a real larc.
i have no idea about windows version, sorry

cheers

Yeah I figured shift would work as usual but it would still be nice if we had jog wheel and text input too.


And for some reason I only got 22 days in the demo, not 30 days. Though, it already seems like a winner to me so I will probably buy it contingent on pricing. I am not paying the equivalent of another Lex bundle. heh
Old 12th May 2010
  #1251
Lives for gear
 
Hannes_F's Avatar
 

Hi,

maybe some of you might be interested in a demo of the LX480 on real strings. Here is a recording I recently did as a background of a pop ballad (arrangers David William Hearn and Steve Anderson). I am only using this reverb for two days, so this is just a first test. Two instances of the LX480 here:

http://www.strings-on-demand.com/demos/StOD_Mandy_LX480_03.mp3

And here is the dry recording:

http://www.strings-on-demand.com/dem..._Mandy_DRY.mp3

I am just beginning to dive into the tweaking possibilities of this beast, so be patient.

Cheers
Hannes
Old 12th May 2010
  #1252
Lives for gear
 
thermos's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannes_F View Post
To be clear, I am not (very much) for removing the noise from the processing, but making the 'no input' noise switcheable seems to be a very good idea.

To understand what issues I have with noise ... I am recording a lot of end notes with strings. When strings fade out acoustically (not by fade out) then there comes a point in the decay when the signal does not mask the noise any more and it becomes apparent. Depending on how high the noise level is it can appear to the ear as if a noise source was suddenly turned on. If you ever happened to examine sample libraries you will probably heard that in release samples and piano notes.

Since I deliver section stems that are inserted then into mixes I try to keep the noise @ - 110 dBFS in the treble and @ - 90 dBFS in the bass. That way the final of the strings submix is still below - 100 dB and - 80 dB in the bass. But an added constant noise of - 80 dB to - 110 dB by stem would make a significant difference here.

I agree that there are situations where this matters much less. Thanks, keep up the good work.
Sounds like you are looking for the Lexicon PCM bundle. If you are that worried about noise, you probably don't want a dead on 480 emulation, because that seems to be a large part of the charm.
Old 12th May 2010
  #1253
Shy
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warp69 View Post
Then people with 480L's has to compensate for the level difference of the reflections in the plugin.

If you look at the 'Large RHall + Stage', you can see that the reflections has the following levels : -8dB, -8dB, -7dB and -7dB. But the LEV parameter is at 160 (around -4dB) which also effects the reflection levels, so in reality the reflections in the plugin should have the following levels instead : -12dB, -12dB, -11dB and -11dB.
Maybe there could be a switch for "original behavior" and new mode, which also has a global reflections level control.

Quote:
Well - more so than other reverbs. The standard samplerate in the 480L is 48kHz, but it doesn't scale the delay line values when choosing 44.1kHz - it actually keeps the values of the 48kHz mode. In reality the 480L sound 8% larger when working in 44.1kHz. The same is true in the plugin.
Does this mean that if I work in 88kHz (which I usually do), I'll have no way to not get a seriously strange behavior from the plugin? And the presets would always sound vastly different in different sample rates? Those are very big problems.
Old 12th May 2010
  #1254
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 

I think some of these suggestions for additional features will delay the release a tremendous amount of time, and won't offer much added benefit...

Some of these ideas are great, and others really wouldn't make a difference to how it sounds/ works in the grand scheme of things.

For instance, almost everyone here is going to use the plugin set at full 100% wet almost ALL the time... Do we really want Martin to add a global reflections control for when it isn't in full wet? Not really, because we won't see the plugin for 6 months for such a small thing that will almost never make a difference.

Do we really want Martin to eliminate the noise that the original unit contains? Noise that is part of the magic it is emulating? Is it worth waiting a year for the plugin so that it can take the magic out?

Keep the ideas flowing... But, let's keep things in perspective, and not be disappointed if some/ most aren't implemented..
Old 12th May 2010
  #1255
Shy
Lives for gear
 

Adding at least a global reflections level control can't possibly take long. However, let's forget that. Having a vastly different and incorrect behavior in projects with sample rates higher than 48kHz is a very big problem. I don't intend to change the sample rate I almost always work in during mixing, as it's mandatory for many other things, starting from A/D D/A conversion. Personally yes, I want this to be solved, but it's not like I'm forcing anyone.
Old 12th May 2010
  #1256
Lives for gear
 
Hannes_F's Avatar
 

Tony ... you ask, we answer. What you do then and how you sort the priorities is in your hands obviously If you don't want to hear our findings ... simply don't ask.

Quote:
Do we really want Martin to eliminate the noise that the original unit contains? Noise that is part of the magic it is emulating?
Since you ask: Yes I opt for not hearing noise when the input is silent. I don't need magic being added to silence.
Old 12th May 2010
  #1257
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shy View Post
Adding at least a global reflections level control can't possibly take long. However, let's forget that. Having a vastly different and incorrect behavior in projects with sample rates higher than 48kHz is a very big problem. I don't intend to change the sample rate I almost always work in during mixing, as it's mandatory for many other things, starting from A/D D/A conversion. Personally yes, I want this to be solved, but it's not like I'm forcing anyone.
That is easy via internal downsampling algorithim. Doesn't the hardware 480L run at 48Khz internally?
Old 12th May 2010
  #1258
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannes_F View Post
Tony ... you ask, we answer.
Just trying to keep anyone from being disappointed if their feature request isn't added.
Old 12th May 2010
  #1259
Gear Guru
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyBelmont View Post
I think some of these suggestions for additional features will delay the release a tremendous amount of time, and won't offer much added benefit...

Some of these ideas are great, and others really wouldn't make a difference to how it sounds/ works in the grand scheme of things.

For instance, almost everyone here is going to use the plugin set at full 100% wet almost ALL the time... Do we really want Martin to add a global reflections control for when it isn't in full wet? Not really, because we won't see the plugin for 6 months for such a small thing that will almost never make a difference.

Do we really want Martin to eliminate the noise that the original unit contains? Noise that is part of the magic it is emulating? Is it worth waiting a year for the plugin so that it can take the magic out?

Keep the ideas flowing... But, let's keep things in perspective, and not be disappointed if some/ most aren't implemented..

I don't think anyone is saying to delay the release to add this stuff. Just revisit them in future updates maybe.
Old 12th May 2010
  #1260
Lives for gear
 
Coyoteous's Avatar
 

Beautiful strings!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannes_F View Post
Yes I opt for not hearing noise when the input is silent. I don't need magic being added to silence.
Use a gate?
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Warp69 / Music Computers
764
leonardo777 / Music Computers
33
beatpete / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
2
TNM / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
5
seancostello / Product Alerts older than 2 months
1

Forum Jump
Forum Jump