Well - yes and no.

Some algorithms share the same code-base, but the 6000 has another processor-structure (with co-processors) which the PowerCore hasn't. Which means: even seemingly "identical" algorithms could give slightly different results, and people who know told me that the 6000 will win in any case. [H]

Apart from that there are many routing-options that make the 6000 much more powerful and versatile.

HTH,

/Dietz

I work with Powercore PSI, don't know the 6000.

Powercore is good for me - easy to work with and sounds good instantly.

Coming from live orchestrating, I am at the technical level where I know what I want but not yet able to say "x ms of this and y compression of that gives result z".

Powercore is easy and so far has enough muscle for me.

Best. Jorgen

The only reason that your friends have come to this conclusion is because about six months ago, TC released the MD3 multiband mastering compressor and Brickwall Limiter, both of which use algorithms from the system 6000. I use and like the Powercore, although most of the plugins I now run on it are third party. I tried the demo of the MD3, and liked it so much that I bought it (it's not cheap), but I think it's worth it. I now have the MD3, Brickwall Limiter and Sony Oxford EQ on my main mix bus in Logic, and I'm very happy! The full hardware system6000 is obviously more powerful than these two software derivatives, although I have never used the 6000 personally,....I'm just very pleased they are sharing some of the technology with Powercore users! By the way, I used to like and use the megaverb all the time, until I bought......Altiverb!!...wonderful.
BTW....the Virus softsynth is supposed to be very good on Powercore, and I would expect the V-station from Novation to be pretty cool also. It's a great product for avoiding CPU strain.

Regards, Andy

Watch this site in the coming weeks: www.Samplicity.com as I will be releasing a collection of Impulse Responses from nearly 100 presets of the TC 6000 in "true stereo". These IR's are very, very good!

Cheers,
Peter
www.PeterRoos.com

This is a great link. But please keep in mind that almost all synthetic reverb-algorithms rely _a lot_ on a very diverse set of modulation of several parameters; modulation can't be captured with linear convolution by definition. It's simply not possible. - Real rooms can be considerd to be linear, that's why convolution is so effective in recreating them virtually.

... this doesn't meant that these IRs ae not interesting, from a producer's point of view; they are just not "true" samples of the System 6000 (as they wouldn't be from a L960 or any other advanced artificial reverb).

/Dietz

I found that the 6000 uses modulation very modestly. In fact, I could not really tell the difference when quickly switching off the modulation parameters. I have recorded several programs both with and without modulation for comparisons and to have an alternative. Sometimes (sometimes!) the modulation gives a noticeable aliasing effect in the tail of the deconvoluted IR. I take this as an indication that modulation IS a signifant part of the preset. If a 30 sweep sinusoidal sweep can be deconvoluted without noticable aliasing effects, the modulation effect was neglectable.

In some review I read that the Lex 960 depends more on modulation. I'll see with my next project [[;)]]

Lexicon has always chorused the tails. That's what the Spin parameter is, and it's very effective.

.... and I chorus the tails of sampled reverbs, too, sometimes .... ;-] ... manual "spin", so to speak.

/Dietz

Hm - "chorus the tail" - could you explain how and why - please?

best, jorgen.

The "how" is easy to explain: just insert a (hi-quality) chorus-effect into the reverb-return, and add to taste :-]

The "why" is a little bit mor difficult to explain, but in a nutshell this is a simple way to decorrelate the reverb from the dry signal even more, thus makeing it more "interesting" for the ear.

Mind you - I'm talkin about a _little bit_ of chorussing.

HTH,

/Dietz

IMO it would be a great addition to convolution plugins to have this kind of extra processing only on a configurable part of the IR's tail. I'll check what Aleksey of Voxengo thinks about this.

If you apply (a bit) of chorus after the reverb, it is of course also applied to the earlier part, which IMHO is less desirable.

Cheers,

Peter

The funny thing is that Lexicon did that to smooth out the reverb tail! Now that we have more bits, it's probably not necessary to do it for that reason, but it's probably one of the things that gives Lexicons the characteristic thick sound.

@Peter Roos said:

IMO it would be a great addition to convolution plugins to have this kind of extra processing only on a configurable part of the IR's tail. [...]
Peter

Remember - no need for chorussing if you want to convolute a real room. I don't think that the interest is too big regarding that little issue.

@Dietz said:

.... and I chorus the tails of sampled reverbs, too, sometimes .... ;-] ... manual "spin", so to speak.

/Dietz

Now, that's a great idea!

Hi Dietz,

What do you think about the new VSS3-reverb that comes out these days for the powercore? Did you already test it and if you did, can you tell
us about your impressions?

I´ve downloaded the demo-version and switched through some parameters, imho it sounds good, much better than the standards classicverb and megaverb...but...could it really come close to a TC6000-verb?

Thomas

Sorry, no hands-on experience on my side (don't have a PowerCore for testing). I suspect the System 6000 being still the slightly better-sounding platform due to its co-processors (which the PoCo lacks, AFAIK).

/Dietz

When I recently worked with the TC System 6000 I found out that the VSS3 algorithms have a much higher noise level and dc-offsets than the (more advanced) VSS4 algorithms (say -85 dB vs -120 dB).

So I got the impression that actually (from the viewpoint of the 6000) the VSS3 programs are actually "older" (that is, ported from previous machines).

Funny to see that "old" things can become "new" again, just by reselling it with cheaper hardware.

[;)]

Peter

i've got the powercore, but have never really liked the megareverb as much as other people seem to. I'll use it sometimes on some projects, but never on orchestral instruments. For me, it is a dissapointment. i love the other plugs for powercore, though, and use them frequently.

but what i have fallen in love with, is a relatively cheap outboard verb that seems to me to be very underrated -- the kurzweil ksp8. I was planning on buying a lexicon 300L, and cancelled the order when the kurzweil came in - it is fabulous. and the RSP "LARC" style remote makes it very easy to tweak.

anyone else out there use it? any thoughts?

@SyQuEsT said:

Some of my friends told me that the Powercore is as good as the System 6000 ... is it true ?

Thanks

Oh I would love to believe that since I have one. Depends on the sequencer actually, namely latency compensation - could be a problem in Logic without some workaround and adjustments. Plus some of the processing in the 6000 emulation for Powercore adds additional latency - be sure to drill TC about it before making the plunge since the plug in is quite hefty in price.

An informative link on measuring and adjusting latency in Logic:

http://www.revolver.co.nz/logic/latency.html

@Frederick said:

be sure to drill TC about it before making the plunge since the plug in is quite hefty in price.

There should a demo vresion to download, I suppose.