The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Something that feels sad to me "hint: reverbs"
Old 3 weeks ago
  #61
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gravyface View Post
Because it's a controlled environment: they chose to have a stable platform to develop on, where they 100% controlled every facet and didn't have to make any compromises to play nicely with general purpose hardware/OS/etc.

That comes at a price of course, and with that, more risk, more upfront cash.
If you really break it down Bricasti is pretty fairly priced for a quality pro audio unit designed in the states. It's also more of a boutique piece so it warrants a higher price. Right or wrong plugins killed the studio hardware market. In the 90s they would have sold 5x what they sell now. Supply and demand. If he sold more units they would probably have better volume pricing.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #62
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bstapper View Post
Complexity of the math in respect to reverbs and the processing power required
Yes Freshman/Sophomore undergrad math is definitely complex. The Math behind Algorithmic reverbs is pretty much covered in AP high-school math books.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #63
Yes, reverb signal processing is quite simple in block diagram form. What isn't simple is tweaking that processing so that it actually sounds good. Also the more filters and other tweaks you put in to avoid metallic-sounding periodicity and the more complex your early-reflection modeling, the more extra parameters there are to adjust, and the more difficult the product becomes to use. So a lot of the "art" in reverb design is in how to map a lot of adjustable parameters into a small number of user-accessible controls that actually make sense and produce decent results at most settings. Some reverb manufacturers do a better job of this than others, but the latter usually spend an equivalent amount of time creating good sounding presets so users won't have to. Either way, you're paying for intellectual property, not just hardware.

Let's say you're an experienced reverb designer with a couple decades of hardware experience and you have an idea for the "Reverb: The Next Generation". Are you going to put your idea on hold for several years while you learn to develop on PC and MAC platforms, or are you going to do what you already know how to do and get on with actual value-added development. Well, we know what choice Casey made. You can say "Bricasti reverbs cost too much!", but nobody I know is replacing them with Behringer. Bricast is unapologetically a premium-priced brand -- if you have any doubt about that, price out their DAC.

Designers who push the state of the art expect to get paid for their time and creativity. Over time, successful innovations get copied by others and sold at a lower price. Look at all the cheap 1176 clones on offer today. But the 1176's distortion-cancelling circuit topology is only obvious today in retrospect. When Bill Putnam invented it he expected to be paid handsomely for his creativity, and he was.

David L. Rick
Old 3 weeks ago
  #64
Lives for gear
 
vernier's Avatar
And btw, 3 mics in a small room with no verb can be a good thing!

Old 3 weeks ago
  #65
Lives for gear
I dunno man, I haven't found a plug-in that sounds like my PCM-80 or PCM-96s.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #66
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bstapper View Post
explain to me this: why is the Bricasti in an expensive, inflexible hardware box instead of in plugin form?
Secret code!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #67
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
Yes Freshman/Sophomore undergrad math is definitely complex. The Math behind Algorithmic reverbs is pretty much covered in AP high-school math books.
Different types of reverbs are quite difficult to model. For example, Spring reverb is way more complicated to get right than a lot of other types (such as a hall) because the behavior of the springs and things like crosstalk, response to transients, and filtering are difficult to get right. There's a lot of art in that type beyond just simple math.

Plate is also more complicated than you would think.

However, a good hall does take more raw processing power, typically, since you have more delay lines involved.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #68
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
We had a thread a while back where one of the Lexicon developers showed up in person and said flat out that the plug-in was the exact algorithm from the hardware unit. People (with no background in coding) just about accused him of lying, because they perceived "differences" that they felt were too much to be attributed to analog input sections.

Other listeners agreed the sounds matched up. So who is right?

The thing is, if you believe in the conspiracy theory, you will hear That Magic being "missing" whether it is missing or not. How many people with the OP's attitude have actually blind tested A/B/X?

As far as the supposed magic being located in the hardware front end, or obsolete converters? I mean, come on. It may account for some "differences", but an "improvement"? Should they be modeling this magically compromised front end?

Yeah, that's what I have always wanted: "graininess" in my sound. That's what everybody wants, and why the entire history of audio recording is a progression from good sound to increasingly grainier and grainier sound. .

There are many really great reverb plug-ins already. IMO, the problem is that people have designed a mental picture of what they think is going on, and now no reverb will ever sound good to them because it's "digital". No plug-in will ever sound good to them, because they assume it is deliberately "crippled". My problem with such a plot is that every programmer has to be "in on it" for it to succeed. Do they have "meetings" where they all sit around a big conference table - wearing hoods? If even one guy thought: "hey this is my chance to make something great, cut the price and corner the market" the whole conspiracy collapses.

I think some programmers have done that already and that there are many excellent reverb plugins, IMO. As just one example, I think that UAD's Ocean Way sounds more like a "room" and less like a "reverb" than anything from any hardware unit I have ever heard.
One of the main features of the Eventide SP 2016 plugin is they modeled the analog/digital I/O of the reverb hardware, in addition to the main "algorithm."

If you just want the "algorithm" you can use the 2016 Room plugin, which does not have such modeling.

I believe that some of the UAD reverb emulations also do this type of modeling but I am not 100% sure. And if you just want the "algorithm" you can just use the Relab stuff for example.

Also I don't see why someone couldn't just run their reverb through a D16 Decimort or something like that do do some slight modeling of "crappy digital." In fact I have a friend who loves that sound who uses decimort on his master bus for that "old digital" sound I guess.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #69
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoepedals View Post
Different types of reverbs are quite difficult to model. For example, Spring reverb is way more complicated to get right than a lot of other types (such as a hall) because the behavior of the springs and things like crosstalk, response to transients, and filtering are difficult to get right. There's a lot of art in that type beyond just simple math.

Plate is also more complicated than you would think.


However, a good hall does take more raw processing power, typically, since you have more delay lines involved.
I've implemented reverbs using plugin APIs and in FPGAs like xilinx and Altera and IMO I think it's basic math and basic physics. Everything I used was stuff I learned in HS or in early undergrad. Even the vhdl and verilog I learned in my freshman year in college. It's very basic stuff. I will say that in 2000s beyond, with the internet there are so many resources available to learn this stuff. I obviously could not have done it in the 70s or 80s or even early 90s. And to be fair the verbs I implemented were not production level, but neither are 1/2 the plugins or 1/2 the hardware units available in the market.

I'm curious what specific aspect of reverb algorithm you think is challenging? it's seems to me by reading your comment that you are treating implementation and theory as the same thing. They are different. Just to clarify I agree the implementation is mush harder than the theory. However much of the stuff you appear to find challenging like filters crosstalk, response to transients is all well documented and you don't need to re-invent the wheel. There are plenty of APIs that take care of all that stuff. And even if you want to implement it yourself there is loads of documentation and sample code available. However from the perspective of pure theory it is pretty basic textbook stuff.

Verbs are different now too. Moorer and Schroeder styles have been exhausted. There is no point in using those approaches since they do not sound good. Modern approaches are done by modeling using Wave equation via ODE and PDE. Specifically, modeling the wave equation and the heat equation through a vector spaces. That is still only just undergrad math too albeit a little more involved.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #70
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
I've implemented reverbs using plugin APIs and in FPGAs like xilinx and Altera and IMO I think it's basic math and basic physics. Everything I use is stuff I learned in HS or in early undergrad. Even the vhdl and verilog I learned in my freshman year in college. It's very basic stuff. I will say that in 2000s beyond, with the internet there are so many resources available to learn this stuff. I obviously could not have done it in the 70s or 80s or even early 90s.

I'm curious what specific aspect of reverb algorithm you think is challenging? it's seems to me by reading your comment that you are treating implementation and theory as the same thing. They are different.
It depends on the type of reverb you're trying to model, but, for example, if you're talking about a spring, you are not talking strictly about just the reflections of sound in a chamber of air with static size and shape. You are talking about an electro-mechanical device which has physical properties like acceleration of the medium and deformation of the medium, cross-talk between up to 3 different springs, the electro-mechanical effect of transducers on both ends of the medium, distortion and filtering from the surrounding electronic elements (tubes, in the more sought after cases), effects of gravity, turbulence, the delay of certain frequencies in the medium compared to others...I mean the list of issues to take into account if you want to truly model it properly is long and results in a pretty sophisticated algorithm. As to what year one learns the math, that's your argument, but I think it's a misleading one. All math is and all algorithms are made up of basic functions. It's the combination of basic functions that makes things more complex and challenging to execute.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #71
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bstapper View Post
explain to me this: why is the Bricasti in an expensive, inflexible hardware box instead of in plugin form?
It's a great form of copy protection for one thing.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #72
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
It's a great form of copy protection for one thing.
Exactly what Dre and Iovine were thinking. With Beats, never mind cloning them, you can't even share them.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #73
Lives for gear
 
axisdreamer's Avatar
I love my Yamaha SREV1 sampling reverb ! and I have owned a number of outboard reverbs over the years..

They are getting hard to find though..

I see someone is selling the Sony version the DRE-S777 on reverb right now..I never got to hear that one but these two machines have way more processing power in them than a single computer and plug in..


I would look at these two units..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #74
Lives for gear
 
Bstapper's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
I've implemented reverbs using plugin APIs and in FPGAs like xilinx and Altera and IMO I think it's basic math and basic physics. Everything I used was stuff I learned in HS or in early undergrad. Even the vhdl and verilog I learned in my freshman year in college. It's very basic stuff. I will say that in 2000s beyond, with the internet there are so many resources available to learn this stuff. I obviously could not have done it in the 70s or 80s or even early 90s. And to be fair the verbs I implemented were not production level, but neither are 1/2 the plugins or 1/2 the hardware units available in the market.

I'm curious what specific aspect of reverb algorithm you think is challenging? it's seems to me by reading your comment that you are treating implementation and theory as the same thing. They are different. Just to clarify I agree the implementation is mush harder than the theory. However much of the stuff you appear to find challenging like filters crosstalk, response to transients is all well documented and you don't need to re-invent the wheel. There are plenty of APIs that take care of all that stuff. And even if you want to implement it yourself there is loads of documentation and sample code available. However from the perspective of pure theory it is pretty basic textbook stuff.

Verbs are different now too. Moorer and Schroeder styles have been exhausted. There is no point in using those approaches since they do not sound good. Modern approaches are done by modeling using Wave equation via ODE and PDE. Specifically, modeling the wave equation and the heat equation through a vector spaces. That is still only just undergrad math too albeit a little more involved.
I’m surprised you haven’t spent a weekend developing a plugin that rivals the hardware alternatives. Sounds easy!
Old 3 weeks ago
  #75
Gear Addict
 

Chrischoir, since you obviously know this topic very well tell me please what is the main difference in implementation of reverb algorithms for Lexicon - PCM 81 for example and Eventide Eclipse?
Old 3 weeks ago
  #76
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thavma View Post
After my research on reverb units, plugins and gears I found out that all reverbs are digital emulations. Meaning something that you can have it in a plugin itself!

Not counting the real mechanical or chamber reverbs, knowing that the best are some like Lexicon 480L, Bricasti and TC 6000 which cost over 4k, feels a bit sad to me!

Why don't companies just make THE perfect reverb in a plugin, why do they have to sell the gear for 4k + to look good? .....

Can reverbs be better and cheaper too?....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thavma View Post
....Its an algorithm, why don't they do something better? Maybe they didn't do their homework? ....

This has been asked a hundred times before: "it's all just code, why don't they just port the code to a plug-in and sell it for less?"

At least in the case of Bricasti, the designer has said repeatedly that when he set about to create a new reverb, the only way he could effectively do it was to build hardware with a particular chip set that he knew could reliably run his new algorithm. He saw that PCs at the time didn't have the power to do it, and he evidently wasn't interested in researching the particular capabilities of this or that PC hardware architecture and various OS quirks to try to make his algorithm run on all of them, maybe with a little compromise here and there (and there, and there...). So he built the hardware unit, priced it at point that he thought sustainable, and set it loose.

Casey is not a fool. If he saw that he could run his algorithm without compromise on any available PC platform, he wouldn't have bothered to build the hardware. But despite the fact that I know basically nothing about IC design, even I know that not all chips are basically the same, save for which ones have "more power." He found DSP chips that were well-suited to that ONE task, and got on with it.

Granted, that was all 10 years ago, and computers today have far more power. But it appears those Bricasti boxes are still selling today at that premium price, so something distinctively good must still be going on in there that people value. And those boxes will still be doing their thing 10 and 20 years from now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
We had a thread a while back where one of the Lexicon developers showed up in person and said flat out that the plug-in was the exact algorithm from the hardware unit. People (with no background in coding) just about accused him of lying, because they perceived "differences" that they felt were too much to be attributed to analog input sections.

Other listeners agreed the sounds matched up. So who is right?

The thing is, if you believe in the conspiracy theory, you will hear That Magic being "missing" whether it is missing or not. How many people with the OP's attitude have actually blind tested A/B/X? ...
Good point. Placebo effect and confirmation bias are powerful things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
... IMO, the problem is that people have designed a mental picture of what they think is going on, and now no reverb will ever sound good to them because it's "digital". No plug-in will ever sound good to them, because they assume it is deliberately "crippled". My problem with such a plot is that every programmer has to be "in on it" for it to succeed. Do they have "meetings" where they all sit around a big conference table - wearing hoods? If even one guy thought: "hey this is my chance to make something great, cut the price and corner the market" the whole conspiracy collapses ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bstapper View Post
explain to me this: why is the Bricasti in an expensive, inflexible hardware box instead of in plugin form?
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
because they can?

Do you believe that, at least in the case of the Bricasti, the designer insists on building it as hardware and charging a bunch simply "because he can?" Why on earth, were it possible, would he not dispense with the hardware and sell his "code" for a tenth of the price and probably move fifty times more units? Who goes into business and willfully puts a complicated and costly ceiling on his potential earnings? You'd think a guy sharp enough to build a sophisticated DSP system would be astute enough to think like that "one guy" who sees through the silly ruse and seizes his opportunity.


I don't mind, indeed I applaud, people who point out that "this" is identical to "that" and demonstrate it with a null test, to illustrate that any claimed differences, good or bad, are illusory. I also have no problem with people who claim that X is in practice just as good as the more-expensive Y, and that anyone who spends a huge premium for Y is probably not getting a very useful return -- thats just a value judgment. But I think it's really goofy when people say "Y is awesome, but it costs too much. Why don't they make a cheap X version that's identical in every way, just for less money? It must be possible!"
Old 3 weeks ago
  #77
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor View Post
Do you believe that, at least in the case of the Bricasti, the designer insists on building it as hardware and charging a bunch simply "because he can?"
Perhaps as suggested above, the hardware approach had practical advantages when the unit was being created. But now that it is seen as an "elite" piece, what would happen if the price dropped by a factor of ten? I mean in real life?

the perception of exclusivity may be as valuable as the actual perception of the audio.

As you just said yourself:
Quote:
Good point. Placebo effect and confirmation bias are powerful things.
Quote:
Why on earth, were it possible, would he not dispense with the hardware and sell his "code" for a tenth of the price and probably move fifty times more units?
What if he only moves ten times the units? Then he is back in the peleton with everyone else. What if hackers break his copy protection? What if - as evidenced by the prevailing attitude in this very thread - a large number of users will automatically look down upon it because it is now in plug-in format and they simply refuse to believe it is the same?

That is exactly what happened to Lexicon.

We have threads where the developers themselves have chimed in and confirmed their plugin version has the identical algorithms and still the attitude persists. Lexicon was one of them. I find it risible that handful of extra "grain" from the converters and analog front end is the source of "magic". There's nothing special, no glorious analog circuitry in front of these boxes. Good serviceable stuff, low noise etc, But it's not a Neve 1073.

Quote:
like that "one guy" who sees through the silly ruse and seizes his opportunity.
I use the "one guy" as a thought experiment to dismiss the idea of a Massive Conspiracy. I believe that there are several of those "one guys" already out there and their products are dismissed because they are plugins. I am looking at some of those posts right now.
Quote:
Why don't they make a cheap X version that's identical in every way, just for less money? It must be possible!"
Why doesn't Ferrari make a cheap Pista Spider that is identical in every way and sell it for less and make it up in "volume"? Even when something is possible, it doesn't mean that's your best marketing strategy. Perhaps if all my neighbors had Ferraris, I wouldn't want one so much.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #78
Lives for gear
 
Dr. Mordo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bstapper View Post
explain to me this: why is the Bricasti in an expensive, inflexible hardware box instead of in plugin form?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philter View Post
It's a great form of copy protection for one thing.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Not that I blame him...
Old 3 weeks ago
  #79
Gear Addict
 

No, it’s not because he needs hardware part as a dongle. It is because there is no other way, still.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #80
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
Perhaps as suggested above, the hardware approach had practical advantages when the unit was being created. But now that it is seen as an "elite" piece, what would happen if the price dropped by a factor of ten? I mean in real life? ...

... What if he only moves ten times the units? Then he is back in the peleton with everyone else. What if hackers break his copy protection? What if - as evidenced by the prevailing attitude in this very thread - a large number of users will automatically look down upon it because it is now in plug-in format and they simply refuse to believe it is the same?...
It may be the case that what was not possible ten years ago is now possible, and that a Bricasti M7, for instance, could easily be realized at its full performance spec in plug in form today. Bricasti has steadfastly maintained that even now, that's still not possible, so one has to decide for oneself whether that's an honest claim. Perhaps it's a half-truth....maybe it could be done, but it might too much of a hassle trying to adapt the process to unknown engines, and a better bet overall to develop with a completely known quantity as the power source.

Bricasti has always publicly pledged to protect the investment of their existing customers and not water down the value of those purchases with incompatible version upgrades and such. So I guess it's possible that the hardware format is being retained, even if unnecessarily, for reasons of loyalty and, I suppose, exclusivity and perceived value. No real way to know.

Over the course several months a couple of years ago, Bricasti discussed in these pages the development of their new "V3" algorithm and associated DSP hardware upgrade. It hasn't dropped yet, because, we're told, the right kind of new chips aren't available to run the new software within the unit. Evidently the algorithm has pretty much been written, it just doesn't have an engine to run it away from the "bench." Maybe that whole storyline is a smokescreen, but that would be a pretty weird hoax. Hard to see why a developer would pre-announce the drop of a product upgrade, then say it can't be delivered until who knows when...while all along the thing could have been run on the existing platform -- or even as a plug in. Seems like a lot of unnecessary embarrassment.

Mind you, I don't really care much one way or another. I'm all ITB. But while it's true that hardware can be an object of fetish that may lead people to absurd claims, it also may be true that the fact that some given process is realized in code doesn't necessarily mean that just any modern digital engine can run it.

Last edited by sailor; 3 weeks ago at 02:17 AM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #81
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischoir View Post
...Right or wrong plugins killed the studio hardware market. In the 90s they would have sold 5x what they sell now. Supply and demand. If he sold more units they would probably have better volume pricing.
Wrong. I killed the studio hardware market. Me and thousands of others who have managed to master the art of doing it all in the computer.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #82
Lives for gear
 
chrischoir's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Extreme Mixing View Post
Wrong. I killed the studio hardware market. Me and thousands of others who have managed to master the art of doing it all in the computer.
ok lol
Old 3 weeks ago
  #83
Lives for gear
 
nightchef's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor View Post
So I guess it's possible that the hardware format is being retained, even if unnecessarily, for reasons of loyalty and, I suppose, exclusivity and perceived value.
The latter seems most plausible to me. I mean, if Briscati were to come out with a plug-in version of their product, they'd have some choices to make. Do you tout it as being a perfect facsimile of the box? Then what happens to the market for the box (including the resale market)? How do you price it? If you price the plug so high that the box still looks like a viable alternative, who's going to buy it? And if you price it competitively, what do you say to the people who just paid 10 times as much for something that differs only in being limited to a single use per mix?

It seems like the only way to make this work from a practical marketing point of view would be to license the code to somebody else, like Waves or UAD, so that your existing users can at least save face by saying of the plugin version, "yeah, it sounds great, but it's not really a Bricasti." Then you could have lots of Gearslutz threads where some people are posting their screenshots of null summing graphs while other people swear they can hear the difference.

Last edited by nightchef; 3 weeks ago at 05:57 PM..
Old 3 weeks ago
  #84
Lives for gear
Another thing is that dedicated DSP offers some advantages, like low RTL. I don't know what the RTL on a Bricasti unit is, but I do know native plugins can really be a drag in a live environment. Intel CPU's are not really designed with RTL in mind.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #85
Gear Guru
I would like to point out that Casey has said (I believe on this forum), that Seventh Heaven is a very good ITB Bricasti sound and I also believe has been supportive of impulses for convolution.....Soooo all this talk of cork sniffery is kinda misplaced. If you want a "kinda Bricasti" they are out there like kinda Lexicons. Studio folk don't seem to be the type of people that throw money around for trophy boxes and a rich dentist I'd think, would be much more into a high priced tribute guitar to impress his trophy girlfriend......

Things exist and survive in the marketplace for a reason and these days no one has idle cash to buy something for blingyness, especially a grey box with some blinking lights......a flashy mic would be much more visible....
Old 3 weeks ago
  #86
Lives for gear
 
robert82's Avatar
IRs are just not algos, as you know. The LX480 uses reverse-engineered algorithms of the 480L, and many users report it sounds exactly like the original. I seriously doubt that the Seventh Heaven IRs can approach the complexity to the tails in the M7. That's an easy endorsement for Casey to make, as it's just not up to the quality of the hardware. But if someone were to reverse-engineer the M7 and tailor it to current CPU capacity? The question is whether Intel chips can effectively run those algos.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #87
Gear Addict
 

Well, Fusion IRs could be “fused” together and modulated. This way you could achieve pretty close results. I personally know at least 3 high level professional mixing engineers who sold their hardware Bricasti and exclusively using Seven Heaven instead. They are always busy, got jobs coming their way, so they can afford hardware.

Doesn’t mean I’m going to sell mine, still I use Seven Heaven in addition to hardware here and there. It is incredibly close.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #88
Lives for gear
 
gravyface's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by nightchef View Post
The latter seems most plausible to me. I mean, if Briscati were to come out with a plug-in version of their product, they'd have some choices to make. Do you tout it as being a perfect facsimile of the box? Then what happens to the market for the box (including the resale market)? How do you price it? If you price the plug so high that the box still looks like a viable alternative, who's going to buy it? And if you price it competitively, what do you say to the people who just paid 10 times as much for something that differs only in being limited to a single use per mix?

It seems like the only way to make this work from a practical marketing point of view would be to license the code to somebody else, like Waves or UAD, so that your existing users can at least save face by saying of the plugin version, "yeah, it sounds great, but it's not really a Bricasti." Then you could have lots of Gearslutz threads where some people are posting their screenshots of null summing graphs while other people swear they can hear the difference.
A good comparison would be the Diva plugin (soft synth) that was a notorious resource pig, quite justifiably, considering what it could do.

If they made a Diva hardware unit I absolutely think there would be a market for it.

Some people just don’t want to faff about with tweaks and DAW hardware upgrades, they don’t want to have to think about it.
Old 3 weeks ago
  #89
Gear Guru
If I was in the market for a high end 2 channel converter, I'd look at the Bricasti and figure I was getting a really great converter as well as a great reverb. Just a thought.....
Old 2 weeks ago
  #90
Lives for gear
 
XAXAU's Avatar
I haven’t heard the expensive hardware reverbs but have tried a lot in software

Had an eventide space but sold it cause it sounded very metallic no matter what I did, the good plugins like valhalla have the same character as well

I like the robo sound but I prefer the UAD reverbs, can’t go wrong with those, they all sound different and so smooth, brings a big smile every time

I use a duo card for reverbs only these days
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
Forum Jump
Forum Jump