Try TC Native Reverb - its my fav, maybe the best sounding software reverb for PC, or whats your opinion Dietz?

Thomas

I think a combination of verbs might be the best option for software.

I know you said you dont liek the Waves verbs, but oyu may want to try a combo of Trueverb and Ren Verb. Using Trueverb to create early reflection data and shape a "stage" sound and use Ren Verb to get the "trail". This helps you keep a defined sound, instead of using just Ren verb alone, which will jsut muddy up the sound, or just true verb alone which sounds like poo poo in terms of long trails.

I personally haven't found a software verb I'm really fond of. I am in favor of convolution, but its, right now, processor hungry in most apps (except the new samplitude, I hear). Its all bound to change this year tho, with new software and such coming out soon, someone will add better reverb options for us.

I still think your best bet is to route out of Cubase into a hardware verb, then back in, if you're looking for a master verb. Even the Roland verbs in the VS systems are pretty good.

If you're not looking for this reverb to be realtime for playback, you may want to look into Acoustic Mirror, from sonic foundry, with the right set of impulses, you can go far with it. Its a similar conept to "altiverb". Its just that its processor AND buffer hungry, so cubase may have problems with it (I dont know about SX, it might be fine)

aha, thanks for sharing on me [:)]

i'm going to do some new tests ..

Geert.

By the way - is it advisable to use a master reverb at a final orchestral recording (for example a HD-Recording with ProTools/ Giga (VSL-Instr.)I don´t think so because every single group of an orchestra needs another reverb (more direct or more diffuse reflections) depending
on the position of the source in the room (trying to imitate the sit positions of real orchestras). Maybe I´m wrong or I didn´t understand what you mean [8-)]

@KingIdiot said:

I think a combination of verbs might be the best option for software.

I know you said you dont liek the Waves verbs, but oyu may want to try a combo of Trueverb and Ren Verb. Using Trueverb to create early reflection data and shape a "stage" sound and use Ren Verb to get the "trail". This helps you keep a defined sound, instead of using just Ren verb alone, which will jsut muddy up the sound, or just true verb alone which sounds like poo poo in terms of long trails.

I personally haven't found a software verb I'm really fond of. I am in favor of convolution, but its, right now, processor hungry in most apps (except the new samplitude, I hear). Its all bound to change this year tho, with new software and such coming out soon, someone will add better reverb options for us.

I still think your best bet is to route out of Cubase into a hardware verb, then back in, if you're looking for a master verb. Even the Roland verbs in the VS systems are pretty good.

If you're not looking for this reverb to be realtime for playback, you may want to look into Acoustic Mirror, from sonic foundry, with the right set of impulses, you can go far with it. Its a similar conept to "altiverb". Its just that its processor AND buffer hungry, so cubase may have problems with it (I dont know about SX, it might be fine)

One reverb may perfectly do the job, as long as you don't feed your whole mix through it; if you do it the "classical" way - with AUX-sends from the single channels - you are able to get more or less reverb for each instrument.

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

Thank you! I´ve described not very well, but I meant of course one
reverb but for every channel another settings (software) or another Aux-level (extern). I just thought they meant a reverb for mastering (end-mix). ;o)

Thomas

@Dietz said:

One reverb may perfectly do the job, as long as you don't feed your whole mix through it; if you do it the "classical" way - with AUX-sends from the single channels - you are able to get more or less reverb for each instrument.

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

Try the "classical verb" that is optional to the powercore plugs!
That one will definitely blow you away,
especially for use with VSL!!!!!! [:D]


Best regards

Matt

generally I find that its a mix of what I'm looking for in terms of sound and terms of time I have.

I've been known to throw 4 seperate reverbs together to simulate wider responses.

tricks to try.

Try long predelays, and collapsing the stereo field a bit (keeping it fairly center)on one reverb, then throw the Horns into it. Then remove ALOT of the top end, and low mids. It simulates a bit of "slap back" from the back wall. Keep the decay on the verb pretty short

Or use a delay to do this (I always think its the "cheap" way out, since I believe you need some decay to simulate this)

Also look into FX systems like Cakewalk's Soundstage/FX3. It's quite good, but takes some learning to get used to it. I wish there was a tutorial with some demonstrations. I took some time away from it, and came back to realize its not so bad. Do NOT use this for long ambient decays, use the "trappings" settings and others to kill the decay, but keep early reflection data. The orchestral Studio preset is a good starting point, remember to remove alot of the dry signal.

Use a good reverb on top of it, or on the dry signal.

Also look into effects like Waves Stereo Imager, which really helps for placement of stereo recordings.

Everyone should keep up on impulse technology. I have a strong feeling it will play into what we can do with libraries like VSL. It can be used for more than jsut recreating live ambience. It can be used to recreate linear signal chains.

... or even non-linear behaviour - ever tried the Sintefex Replicator, King?

-> http://www.sintefex.com

... one of Europe's best-kept secrets ;-]


/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

Dietz, i've been following that sucker for about 6-8 months now [[[[:)]]]]

I want one, but I dont knwo anyone that has it. Dynamic convolution is definitely something I'm looking forward to expanding.

I dont talk about it much, because I want it to be one of MY secrets when I get one [[[[:)]]]]


I do talk alot about dynamic convolution tho [[[[:)]]]] I think a combination of linear and dynamic is going to be one of hte ways to go for "realism" I've always believed that rooms respond slightly differently depending on the volume stuff is being played at. I dont believe that linear impulses would let one recreate this.

then agian. I'm going on "back alley"/street knowledge and not any technical data, so I could be completely wrong...[[[[:)]]]]

I worked with one for several weeks last year. Not really straight-forward, but very impressing once you found your way 'round.

Our mastering-engineer talked to the inventor of the Sintefex, who told him that they refrain from reverberation as a dynamic model. Go figure ...

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

I think its due to the way they create their dynamic impulses. They are "ticks" of short responses I believe. 256 of them or so.

It would take a massive amount of memory to create 256 linear responses. Without comprimizing some sort of quality.

I believe thats the issue. But thats jsut thinking with no knowledge of how it really works.

I did alot of reading on dynamic convolution, and alot of it went WAAAAAYYY over my head, but it was interesting none the less.

I'd like to see some sort of "modeling" setup like the pod and so working for reverbs with impulses and EQ or something. This is why I think dynamic mixed with linear convolution could be really cool. I dont think the decay is my main concern, but the early response and reflections could be where we get the "meat" of what some people call room compression. Using the dynamic convolvers for the early reflection data, and linear for the decay might be somethign to try.

This is all talking out of my ass though. I've never really sit down and studied how sound works, and I NEVER plan to. I'm just combining all the littl ebits of info I've picked up over time, which is like combining mathmatic formulas to create an anser you like. Its generally wrong [:)]

Anyhow, I'm glad you dug it. I really want one, and am looking at picking one up at some point. I jsut have to jsutify the purchase somehow. I'm not doing much recording, and I dont really like the idea of doing multiple stereo passes jsut to get "NEVE" sounds on the stuff I do.

he KingIdiot,

When you talk about the SINTEFEX FX8000 REPLICATOR, you are starting to sound like Gollem (Lord of the rings) when he talks about the ring... "My Precioussss......."

[[;)]]
Geert.

my preeeecious,....nono master treats us nice.......my preeeecious....but master.....

hehee, I'm so glad I never read the books, I'm getting quite a bit more out of the movies because of that

I'm glad I don't have a SINTEFEX FX8000 REPLICATOR
- my life would be in danger if ever I ran in to Smeagol/King Idiot [[;)]]

Anyway I read the books several times and I'm not dissapointed
with the movies - not at all. The carton thing years back was a
major dissapointment, especially because they never made part 2.
But not Jacksons epos - they are great and i can hardly wait for
The return of the King - -he he maybe thats you Ashif?
Will you return? - I bet you will.


Kind regards
Deagol

Dietz,

I looked at the SINTEFEX FX8000 REPLICATOR, but I see no reverb emulation or something comparable, while this thread was about reverb. Do I miss something here, or was it a sideway. :-}

Geert.

blackhole, it was a bit of a sideway. [[[:)]]]

There's a ton of detail we could go into about the replicator and what you could possibly do with it with regards to reverb,....but it wouldn't result in anything but techie discusion.

I dont think thatts where we should start going [[[:)]]]

Maybe we can offer some ideas on EQ, and reverb settings if you post som eMP3s of the results you're getting.

Reverb is definitely one of the things I like to talk about and talk about tweaking.

I'm gonna really like it when these discussions pop up with actual use of VSL samples. So many ways to try differnt things [[[:)]]]


and Sapkiller,

Damn right I'll be back!! I'm the KING after all [;)]

Well, you sound like you're just the guy I want to talk to [:)]

As soon as I've got my VSL in the house, I need to render 12 classical remixes with it, and I would be very pleased to borrow [:)] some ideas about reverb and panning etc.

Maybe the Admin can create a files section, where we can upload mp3 demos, and other usefull stuff

Geert.

@blackhole said:

Dietz,

I looked at the SINTEFEX FX8000 REPLICATOR, but I see no reverb emulation or something comparable, while this thread was about reverb. Do I miss something here, or was it a sideway. :-}

Geert.

To sum it up: We were talking about convolution reverb (i.e. linear convolution, up to now). King was suggesting dynamic (i.e. non-linear convolution) as even superior technique, to what I added the information that the only commercially availavble dynamic convolutor is the one from Syintefex - which referains from reverb, as you found out already :-]

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

Geert

Dietz will probably be more of "the person to talk to". [[:)]] Being part of the team that developed this library will put anyone there [;)]


Anyhow, I believe there are going to be many routes to get specific sounds out of VSL. I've learned over time that you can coax quite a bit out of all types of samples, with minimal tweaking, and just that tiny bit more with maximum tweaking [[:)]] This is of course, if you dont like the way VSL sounds on its own.....which is hard to do. The samples are extremely clean and "work", I think quite a few people aren't used to that.