Best reverb for classical music?
Reverb seems to be the thing I lack the most of.
digi verb is a POS, and space designer only runs on logic.
I want something that sounds very natural. To give recordings less dead space when the musicians pause.
I really don't want to spend over a grand on this.
Are lexicons and TCs any good at that price range?
I know the Reibe is a grand, and like using it when I get the chance. So that is an option. Also I may be buying the renaissances plug in pack, which comes with a decent verb. But i rarely use it, as I have revibe and a TC 6000 to work with as well (when I am at school).
I know every one has there own opinions, but I would just like to hear what people use for their classical mixes.
I have personally found that no reverb under $1k can really compete with a good plugin (such as SIR or Altiverb).
The TC 2000 is nice for some things, but lacks a little bit when it comes to classical. I find the main verbs to be a bit dry and brittle.
The Lexicon stuff under $1k works a little better IMO - especially a used PCM91 but I can almost always spot the use of a Lexicon reverb (this golden halo of euphoria around the reverb).
The Kurzweil Rumor is surprisingly good for the money, but is a little tricky to get dialed in just right.
I'll be reviewing the Bricasti M7 here soon but it's significantly more than the $1k price you were asking about. I suspect it sounds a bit nicer than the traditional reverb box too.
Other than that, I've truly found the SIR plugs to be phenomenal.
I'm also going to be trying the new "BREVERB" soon. It supposedly has some cool features that make it better than IR reverbs. I can't comment though as I haven't touched it.
Up until recently, we commonly used TC2000, TC3000 and SIR with some great impulses for all our classical live and mastering work. Of these SIR and the impulses sound the best. The TC 2 and 3000's are great for live stuff.
BUT, all of these pale into insignificance compared with the reverb in my new TC Studiokonnekt 48, which I believe are the Fabrik R algorithms from the 4000 and 6000 boxes. This reverb is so real, clean, misty and so easy to control and setup its scary.
You gotta clue me in David -
I've been using the Fabric R and just can't get it where I want. Would you be willing to send me a preset? That way I can see where I'm falling short.
Certainly. Will do it when I next power up the main PC and find one.
DavidSpearritt wrote: BUT, all of these pale into insignificance compared with the reverb in my new TC Studiokonnekt 48...
How much did you pay for that thing?
I *was* going to recommend SIR, partly because I've been using the free version for a while now and have been very happy with it - both for extending existing natural reverberation in a recording, and for giving life to recordings made in very dead rooms that have no reverberation at all.
But I've just visited the site and discovered that SIR2 is out, and it now costs money. The cool package would be SIR2 plus the 16 HDIRs to go with it, but at $299 US it's not the kind of thing to buy on an impulse. (Okay, I'll apologise for that one right now...)
The interface looks a lot nicer, there are Mac and PC versions, and I'm sure they've got some high quality impulses to go with it. But it's hard to recommend something I haven't used and that costs money. I am sure it will sound great, at least as good as the earlier free version.
Has anyone here tried it?
(Am I behind the times? If so, how far?)
They still offer the free version though, don't they?
Last time I was on their site, I saw both, though I had to dig a little for it.
My ears just perked up a little.
Where can I find such things?
I should add that I am a mac user (although the logic thing kinda gave that away but I figure I would just clarify)
DavidSpearritt wrote: They are really cheap on eBay at present.
Hmmm.... What are you running yours with? A ThinkPad, if I remember correctly, but what specs?
Just bought a cheap Lenovo, but they are pretty powerful machines now. T61, 2GB ram, 2.2Ghz Core Duo (T7500), 160 eSata drive, 15" widescreen, 1394a, Wireless etc etc. Runs so quietly you can record in the same room. It came with Vista and a whole lot of unsolicited crap installed but this only last minutes before it was nuked, of course. Now running XP SP2.
DavidSpearritt wrote: Just bought a cheap Lenovo, but they are pretty powerful machines now. T61, 2GB ram, 2.2Ghz Core Duo (T7500), 160 eSata drive, 15" widescreen, 1394a, Wireless etc etc. Runs so quietly you can record in the same room.
Well I'll be hornswoggled! [insert sound of hornswoggling taking place, allow to run until end of message]
Actually, I love the fact that standard off-the-shelf PCs and laptops are now powerful enough for most audio needs. Granted, you're probably running some DSP in the TC box, so I'm going tangential here, but nonetheless. I can remember not too long ago when putting together a PC for audio was a very serious undertaking; now you can buy an off-the-shelf laptop, hook up something like the Konnect and there it is.
DavidSpearritt wrote: It came with Vista and a whole lot of unsolicited crap installed but this only last minutes before it was nuked, of course. Now running XP SP2.
Yeah, I can't 'see' the point in Vista for audio... [Ouch! Gentle with that hornswoggler, boy...]
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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).
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.
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?