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.

Hi!

It would be very interesting for me and maybe also to others, to exchange the experiences of some good reverb-parameters. Can anyone recommend any settings that sound very realistic or that maybe simulate a famous concert hall? I mean parameters like room size,predelay,decay,distance,...
Does anyone use an additional delay and if yes, how do you use it?
Thanks.

Thomas

what I find is that it depends on specific reverb units/plug ins.

Generally I use multiple reverbs for different "placement" in the room.

Using reverbs with high early reflection volume, and shorter decay trails, to simulate the stage and placement.

and reverbs with longer decays, much less early reflection data, and some EQ to emulate the "hall"

I'll also put a reverb onto the horns usually, to simlate the "slap back", then putting both the dry signal and the "slap back" into the other reverbs. putting the slap back in "back" via pre fader adjsutments.

One must understand that pre delay is an important factor. Usually long predelays occur with large halls. Generally 50ms is long, I tend to keep it around 35-40 unless the "slap back" isn't noticable enough in the horns.

Dry signal to wet signal ratios are important as well, they, as well as EQs/filters help with placement of instruments "within" the emulated room.

the less dry signal and the less high frequency data in the dry signal the farther you go back. On problem people have is actually removing high frequency data BEFORE you put it into the reverb, which is unatural, and why people get muffled performances. You need to consider WHAT signal you are EQing. Pre EQ/fader auxillary sends help you EQ and still get the sprkle you need.

This doesn't mean you dont need to EQ the reverb send signal a bit, its jsut that it will be a little different than the EQ of the dry signal you want to keep.

another thing to watch out for are "close mic'd" samples that have too much proximity effect. In which you may want to lower some low mids in the actual sample. Snare drums especially give me this problem.

VSL's stuff isn't close mic'd tho, so you shouldn't have much of a problem.


on a Side ntoe, I tend to lower some low mid's on my stuff in the final to help it from getting muddy.


Have I confused you yet?

I don´t know about him, but for me it was sort of an accelerated course on reverb, lol. [:D]

I understood most of it though, and it was VERY informative (thanks). The only thing I coulnd´t get was the slap back and predelay stuff for the horns. That was chinese. [*-)]

Generally, Pre delay setting in reverbs is the setting you use to set how long it takes for the reverb to "sound", its especially noticeable with higher early reflection settings. What you essentially get is "delay time" like you would get in normal delay/tap delay effects. Its just the delayed signal is also reverb.

Horns face away from the conductor. Essentially the sound you hear from horns is from the reverberation. The farther you move away from the front of the orchestra, towards "cheap seats", the more this becomes noticable, as you start to lose actual "placement" of the horns in the mix.

Whats happening is you are hearing the sound of the horns playing towards the back wall, and bouncing off into all directions.

Usually in orchestral recordings you hear the horn sound bounce back pretty quickly of the studio wall. Being that its usually not too far from the players in studio settings, you actually hear precise reflections from teh center of the back wall. Its really noticable on articulations like Stacatto at f/ff and anything that has a bit of power (or in softer sections and short articulations)

Even with baffles set up in a real recording, I'd expec to hear the sound of the horns bounce off any back wall, since they are still pointing that direction. The only time it wouldn't happen is in overdubs in a small room, or if you had a stereo rig hanging not too far above the horns *ONLY*, and no overheads on the orchestra, and no other mics on the
other instruments. Which is why I believe we always got that "direct stereo"
As i mentioned before, I tend to but the horns through its own reverb setting with a pretty short decay, but enough predelay to hear defined early reflections, then I collapse the reverb's "wet" signal to near mono, to simulate the "back wall". Essentially creating a slap back. I tend ot EQ the reverb return as well, but its to taste.

I'm sure Dietz has his own ideas too, he's pretty amazing at what he does. It'd be interesting to see what these guys do in terms of helping VSL users get more variety in their sounds. I know they are very forward thinking and aren't looking at this product as "its flexible its up to you to make it work for you", its more like "Its flexible and we want to help it work for you".

All we can do is support them and feel confident that the end user is someone they intend to help.... and wait [;)]

I still cant believe whats gone into this library. I'm a geek for samples, but these people are mad. The legato instruments alone take 23 times as long as it would take a normal sustain instrument to sample, not to mention the programming, and feature developments.

Thanks a lot for your answer.

Multiple Reverbs? I heard that the standard of hollywood-filmscores should be to give the
brass a small room/hall and strings a large room/hall.
I think your suggestions are to simulate also the mic-positions.
Outriggers for room sound, I think that need much of experience to simulate it with the other reverb-parameters of every group. I imagine
to give every orchestra group a lot of direct signal and try to add carefully
the "outrigger-simulation" with the more diffuse signal (dry/wet - in/out function, predelay-parameter,...) Of course EQ is always a good additional and indispensably "toy" to
give the groups more back or forward - but to know the right level in connection with the effect-parameters [8-)]
o.k. i´ll try and try again what sounds the best way and if it´ll be someday
as good as I imagine (maybe not so good for other ears?) [:)] I´ll describe it.

Thomas

Don't forget that (dynamics-) compression is another powerfull tool to vary the impression of a true room. As a matter of fact, real acoustic environments tend to be unlinear above a certain point of loudness. Apart from that, my ears like the added density I'm able to avieve this way.

... in non-classical context, I even distort reverb-tails pretty often. It gets this incredible "ooommmph" like an old Led Zeppelin-record ;-]

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

this thread is going in the right direction [H]

Thanks guys !! I wish I could add something useful myself, but my experience concerning classical reverberation is limited.
If somebody wants to know something about certain DX or VST plugins, i'm be able to help I think [:)]

Geert.

Dietz, haha, EXACTLY

so I was right [:)] I wonder how much of that takes place in larger halls.

Though this has been a very technical discussion of equipment I'm sure I will never own due to not being a billionaire several times over, I'm wondering what Dietz thinks about this problem put in very non-technical terms -

I think it is absolutely FORBIDDEN to use more than one type of reverb, because that is contrary to my entire goal of creating in the simplest way the natural sound of instruments within a space. The exact opposite of what I'm trying to do is found on pop recordings, where you hear strings with heavy artifical reverb tails while the singer is upfront and dry, etc. I am not talking about what engineers have or have not done on recordings, but rather the experience of a person sitting in a concert hall listening to orchestral music. If you tried to create that most directly, it would involved one reverb dry/wet level for everything, because the sound is actually coming from all the instruments at about the same ambient level at any one position. So in effect, you would have to use a rather wet amount on percussion, which is always in the back of the orchestra, but which is always traditionally mastered very dry. And the violins would have no more reverb than the percussion. But that is opposite of what is done on recordings, for good reason.

What I've done is to cheat, and I'm wondering if that is basically your approach. You HAVE to use more reverb on strings, because psychologically they need more "space." And you HAVE to use less on percussion or harp or they become muddy. Likewise for other things, like solo woodwinds, etc. So I attempt to tweak only one reverb type very delicately and subtlely, and hopefully a listener thinks it is all one level of dry to wet, though it actually isn't.


Is this something like what you do? Do you have any tips for someone with limited means. I am using a Lexicon externally because I've never heard any software reverb I liked.