Best reverb for classical music?

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:04 pm

The Lenovo as configured above was only $1400. The TC box does take most of the CPU load, one of the reasons I bought it, and I have recorded 14 hrs of 4 channel 96/24 audio with it, without a hitch or should that be glitch.

I am keen to try a 12 channel recording with it soon, 12 channels of 96/24 will be interesting. I think the HDD is the bottleneck in these setups now and it should not have any problems with 12 x 96/24.

On the whole very happy with this new setup. Nagra are going to have to perform miracles to get me anywhere near interested in the VI.

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:30 pm

FYI - In case anyone is interested or cares -
I just also purchased an off-the-shelf laptop for audio and have run 12 tracks of 24/192 for several hours using the fireface.

The config specs are almost identical to the specs that David listed. The difference is, it's a Dell. (Insert gasp here. I actually used to work for Dell and IBM as an on-site repair guy for laptops during 2000-2001 timeframe. I repaired about 8-20 a day for around 2 years. Overall, despite most people's bitching about them, Dells are made quite well. I will agree the IBM is a more solid piece, but nowadays, the difference is marginal).

Anyway- the WHOLE reason I chose the Dell was that the Ad that they sent me stated that they had a new machine catering to small businesses and that this particular machine would be configured (software and hardware) EXACTLY as you wish. No AOL? No problem. No MSN Messenger? No problem.

The maching cost $479 and included Win XP Home (which is fine for audio since the biggest differences in XP home and pro are network and workstation features). The great thing is - when I turned it on and went to the "Remove Programs" list fully expecting to see a bunch of other CRAP software in there, it was virtually empty. There was one Dell piece of software that I removed and nothing else.

After adding a nice external HD and a Siig Firewire card (TI chipset) and a nice case, I was out under $1k.

The longest session I have done on it was yesterday with over 8 hours at 10 tracks (two different recordings though - about 4 hours on each) and have done in total since then (first of the year) 14 location jobs and not a glitch yet.

All that being said - my point is - Simmo, you're right. The off-the-shelf laptops today are quite powerful and if your plans are mainly centered around tracking (not heavy/hardcore editing and effects) most laptops can be easily configured to accept the load.

Cheers-
Jeremy

PS - One note - the machine I got does not have the widescreen - only the regular 15" screen. As I understand it, they've gone up $100 since then as this was a Christmas promotion.

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:37 pm

Although, I should add to my PS, that I had a 15" LCD in a very small and light road case that I would take with me when using my old portable PC. I can drag that with me (it's in a case the size of a briefcase) and thanks to WinXP, I can have both the laptop monitor and the external monitor active and have a dual monitor setup very easily. This comes in seriously handy keeping the interface mixer on one screen and the DAW software on the other keeping from having to minimize and redraw each time (which I've found causes dropped packets sometimes.)

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:57 pm

Bricasti reverb is something that has no paralel around. The natural, very real sound of its reverbs is quite amazing. It is something very different than Lexicons or TCs (BTW it has 16 times more DSP power than Lexicon 960L). Not speaking of the ease and creativity of the controls. For classical music, it would be very difficult to find a better, more natural choice. The most remarkable feature is a feeling of being "really in the space" without any usual sound artifacts. With the original source sounding intact and with full details.

Altiverb is nice, but a bit "blurred" and thin sounding in comparison. Breverb sounds to me just as one of many software reverbs (and probably not the best).

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:37 pm

Yeah that Bricasti really has something going on. I heard one at AES and
decided to order one, there goes the budget. It's got to be one of the most impressive pieces of gear out there. It sounds like it reflects the whole sound of the recording, not just some of the frequencies like the
software convolution reverbs. It has it's own sound, dense and clean,
and sets a nice stage for the music to sit in. The convolution reverbs are great for creating a sense of another better space, but not so much for a noticable background of reverb, unless enhancing a recording which already has one. I'm looking forward to using the Bricasti with clean, dry recordings of acoustic music made in a highly sound absorbent room, as well as for enhancing location recordings. And last but not least, to increase the realism of midi recordings made for low budget films.

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:05 am

aracu wrote:

The convolution reverbs are great for creating a sense of another better space, but not so much for a noticable background of reverb, unless enhancing a recording which already has one.

The theory of convolution reverb should refute this statement. Convolution reverb has the ability to be the closest to a real hall, after all, its the hall's impulse response at the receiving mics which should be being used. Its only limited by the quality of the impulses, many of which are still not well aquired.

The other reverb that seems to be talked about in numinous terms is the SONY DRE S777, which I haven't heard, but which, I think, uses convolution as its method of calculating reverb.

What calculation method does Bricasti use?

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:26 am

I certainly agree with you about the theory of convolution reverb, although
in practice I've found it subjectively to work well as long as the reverb effect is kept to an absolute minimum, unless the original recording already has a fairly noticable background of reverb, otherwise it starts to sound quite unnatural in a destracting way. I haven't heard the Sony either so I can't comment on it. It's been said that the software reverbs are limited in sound quality due to the limitations of a computer's dsp, and have to make comprimises in the overall reproduction of the original dry sound. I don't know if that is true or not. As I understand it the Bricasti is a completely synthetic reverb, modeled by the designers to sound like real spaces and improved versions of studio reverbs, not exactly what one would expect to sound "natural". It could be criticized as sounding too "perfect" (like an idealized version of a real space). If we had great sounding spaces easily available to record in with lots of time to set up microphones, there would not be such a need for electronic reverbs for enhancing acoustic music. They would be more necessary in the production of electronic, electro-acoustic and midi based music.

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:04 am

DavidSpearritt wrote:

Its only limited by the quality of the impulses, many of which are still not well aquired.

I think this is the biggest problem. What is required to make a good impulse? I'd imagine you'd need a sound source that could excite all frequencies equally (20Hz to 20kHz) and evenly (i.e. ominidirectional radiation pattern).

Then there's the question of whereabouts to place the impulse source in the room, and where to place the microphones. Speaking of which, what technique do you use to capture the room's response? Mono, coincident stereo, near-coincident stereo, spaced omnis, etc.

So many challenges to overcome...

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:27 am

Simmosonic wrote:

I'd imagine you'd need a sound source that could excite all frequencies equally (20Hz to 20kHz) and evenly

I don't think you will find any impulse that would affect all frequencies equally. The same as the room you want to capture will likely not affect all frequencies equally. Just a stupid point. Yes, I'm nitpicking.

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:17 pm

I'm thinking about getting SIR v1 (the freebie) to test out as a VST plugin in Wavelab for some post work. Of course, the issue of good impulses comes up as mentioned above.

Can anyone provide sources for GOOD usable impulse responses for classical music for use with SIR1? I don't need crap like "toilet bowl" or "cave" ... more like concet halls and churches of various characters. Any help would be appreciated!

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:35 pm

If you search the SIR site, they actually have links to some pretty good impulses. Halls, churches and the like.

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:42 pm

They also have great links to impulses of classic units such as Lexicon 960s and Quantec boxes. Most of which are quite true to the original (since, after all, they are impulses of the actual devices).

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:53 pm

Cucco wrote:

They also have great links to impulses of classic units such as Lexicon 960s and Quantec boxes. Most of which are quite true to the original (since, after all, they are impulses of the actual devices).

Yes, but I have never understood this. What's the point of reproducing a synthetic reverb or another silly box when the problem is, it never sounds like a real hall. Why not just use a real hall, ie a real impulse.

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:00 pm

Ah...I guess I should have explained -
I don't just use it to simulate halls. For certain vocalists, I like some of the 960 reverbs. For outdoor marching bands, the Quantec rocks. For certain jazz ensembles (particularly big band) the TC VSS3 reverbs rock. This way I can use impulses of these boxes and not have to pay to rent them or buy them.

Although, if the Bricasti is as nice as everyone claims, I'll likely be keeping/buying my review sample.

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:00 pm

Simmosonic wrote:

DavidSpearritt wrote:

Its only limited by the quality of the impulses, many of which are still not well aquired.

I think this is the biggest problem. What is required to make a good impulse? I'd imagine you'd need a sound source that could excite all frequencies equally (20Hz to 20kHz) and evenly (i.e. ominidirectional radiation pattern).

Then there's the question of whereabouts to place the impulse source in the room, and where to place the microphones. Speaking of which, what technique do you use to capture the room's response? Mono, coincident stereo, near-coincident stereo, spaced omnis, etc.

So many challenges to overcome...

The measurement process is extremely important and quite complex. While a spark or balloon burst or gunshot has a flat frequency emission, there's not enough energy there to excite the hall properly, so generally a swept sine is the way to go. I reckon the sound source should go where the musicians are and the measurement mics should go where you would stick a couple of omnis for a main pair.

The measurement mics should be omnis because you want flat pickup and you want the return from the hall, ie behind the mics, but it would also be interesting to have Blumlein and ORTF measurements as well. After all you are trying to reproduce what happens at the mics during a real recording.

My acoustical mate James Heddle and I are still planning to go into the Con Theatre and measure it carefully and properly at 44/24 and 96/24 with a variety of mic techniques. James is working on a fantastic point source speaker system to radiate big SPL's in as close to point source as possible, so its still going to be awhile yet.

In the meatime I will probably buy SIR2 and some of those Penguine impulses and also continue to use the new TC box. Bricasti looks like a wonderful bit of gear, but the budget doesn't extend that far at the moment.

This topic sponsored by: