x
johnlgrant 24 March 2014

Is there a "legit" online source for these, used (but loved)?

Thanks,

JG

Topic Tags

Comments

johnlgrant Mon, 03/24/2014 - 15:23

Sorry, Bricasti M7. Sound equip dealers are telling me that folks are moving more and more to software verbs. But anything I've ever heard online using this hardware just sounds to my ears lightyears ahead of the best vat convolution reverbs.

But I've had no luck finding "used" at places like "audiogon."

JG

johnlgrant Mon, 03/24/2014 - 19:17

First off, don't know where that icon on the left that denotes "me" came from!

Anyhow, it's simple. I've been playing with and at keyboard (piano) synth stuff since the days of Atari ST. I just love it. Never made any money out of it. Never will.

Probably the ONLY aspect of the process from performance to midi recording to making the end product (audio file) that ever really BOTHERED me was the quality of the REVERB. It would be preferable NOT to use it, I suppose, but I have yet to come across a piano sample that did NOT require SOME kind of reverb.

Even the best software reverb always left me cold. When I do something I really like, I'll actually rent hardware verb to create a "hall" dimension to the sound, rather than use convolution. I used to rent LEX stuff. But I recently purchased the first piano vst that I really liked, and the company that makes the vst used a Bricasti m7 to add just a hint of verb.

I have never heard a more convincing hall verb in my life. So I said to myself: "I have to have that unit."

I may just break down an purchase one (about $3700 Can plus tax). Insane, I guess. But so was laying out 4500?? for these Neumann KH310 monitors, until I started using them. Worth every penny.

If someone's certain you can get what I heard for significantly less, I'm open. But somehow, I don't think so. At least, I haven't heard anything as good in my humble opinion.

audiokid Mon, 03/24/2014 - 22:37

well said, we walk the same on that .

Of all the things I have here, its the Bricasti's that makes the big difference. You don't even need much of one ( level of effect that is). I love them so much that I would love to have 8 of them . One for each stem. But of course, one is plenty enough.

Ya, they are special on keyboards.

Have you watched any Bricasti video's with Casey?

RemyRAD Mon, 03/24/2014 - 23:29

If things start to pick up for me, one of those is on my shopping list of must haves. Though the QWANTEC, I had 23 years ago was a rather fascinating sounding, high-end reverb box. It did some real nice ambient spaces. Certainly didn't have the awesome power the M-7 has. That's the hot ticket today.

I'm older and slower but my reverbs ain't.
Mx. Remy Ann David

kmetal Tue, 03/25/2014 - 02:18

the only 2 software reverbs that made me go wow was the stock adobe audition 2.0 convolution verb, and the new lexicon verbs that just came out. i hate to admit it, i almost like the lexicon, but i need more time to play w it to make a true judgement.

that said, they don't touch the bricasti to my ears. its a large step up. as a fan of not making computers do anything they dont have too, theres something in that dedicated box th just = fabulous. chris used it on a snippiit of one of tracks, and I ive heard some online demos, all impresive. it is the only modern outboard reverb i would buy (w the the spx-90, and h3000 being on the affordaable classic peices list) while I'm sure it's not quite the same there is a company that does make an emulation of the bricasti m7, I'd hafta look it up or ask my buddy which one it is, I know he said it sounded good, but I doubt it is as sophisticated, and rich sounding as the real thing. But if money is an issue, it might do the job. Just an option, but I'd get the real deal if I could. Dave Pensado (highly paid mixer) loves his, and while it doesn't seem to get talked about much, I have never heard anyone who's heard it say anything but "I love this thing". Took 30 sec for me to be convicted it's the best digital reverb out there.

audiokid Thu, 03/27/2014 - 00:23

here ya go. And as a reminder, I don't claim to be a Mastering Engineer nor do I even want to be. This is a quick example of a Bricasti using the Amsterdam Hall preset with a touch of the STC-8 on the master bus, captured on a second DAW and uploaded to here.

I couldn't do it all Miklos, as I have my entire studio dedicated to a play right now but I did one track for you. Hope you like it.

If that you singing Miklos? Its a wonderful performance!

Before:
[MEDIA=soundcloud]audiokid/miklos-before-1
[="https://soundcloud.com/audiokid/miklos-before-1"]View: https://soundcloud.com/audiokid/miklos-before-1[/]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]

After

[MEDIA=soundcloud]audiokid/miklos
[[url=http://="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]="https://soundcloud…"]View: https://soundcloud…]

RemyRAD Thu, 03/27/2014 - 10:19

Yeah... these things are smooth. It makes a Lexicon reverb sound like an effect. I heard it at the AES this past October. No wonder they make a controller to control more than one. OMG! Makes my old Lexicon, MRC, look like a joke. All I can do now is dream.

Hard-to-find used because they haven't been around all that long.

I'm moving to Austin
Mx. Remy Ann David

johnlgrant Sun, 03/30/2014 - 09:47

Well, being of a rationalist, scientific, almost ... even anti-theist bent ... I'd be asking: How is it that a software verb can't DO this???? It seems to me almost anti-diluvian (... against modern or modernized technology...) to acknowledge that the Bricasti verb is just ... well... a whole lot more convincing than the latest "advanced" software algorithms. Are there digital v.s. analog issues at play?

Neil Young has complained that our ears are getting dumbed-down by years of mass-marketed inferior sound. And there's something to his remonstrations. I might fork-out for something in reverb that is patently (I think) vastly superior to the software alternatives. But on the "Internet", who will notice? Who really cares? What are the "ears" of the average listener really interested in?

kmetal Sun, 03/30/2014 - 23:32

Neil Young has complained that our ears are getting dumbed-down by years of mass-marketed inferior sound.

i have a feeling he wasn't referring to the M7 specifically.

not everything over the "internet" is degraded quality, netflix is hugley popular and streams in Dolby 5.1. i think if a reverb the level of the bricasti was available as an affordable pluggin, they would have hard selling the rack units. and eventually the quality level overall will increase w everything else, so theres no reason that makes sense to me to not record w the best quality possibly. whether this means some trashy pre amp that distorts wildly, or the best digital reverb i ever heard.

theres nothing at all against modernized technology in liking the M7, in fact, just the opposite, enthusiaim that something artificial, can sound as realistic, or good, as it does.

audiokid Mon, 03/31/2014 - 00:00

To add, there is more to the Bricasti than just the reverb "effect". There are undeniable difference mixing OTB. The Bricasti, with other things in a chain opens a mix in a way that I cannot duplicate ITB. I also use it in the simple analog domain, apposed to aes or like many, round trip. My preferred method is inserted before and after a console which is always on its way to the capture system uncoupled from DAW 1.

Many people have asked Casey (Bricasti ) why don't they build it in a plug-in and he started, it would take 7 computers to do what one does proficiently in a DAW. CPU's have been improved since that statement but as our CP's improve, so will dedicated processing. If I was using 3 instances of Bricasti's I know my 960 i7 would suffer serious problems.

There will always be people that choose the special stuff. Not only for their lust, but for a client base that prefers to be above the noise too.
There will always be dedicated hardware that needs an entire computer for just one effect, why wouldn't it continue? and so it goes... good, better, best and the constant race to improve something with everything ya got. .

do we need better, I don't know. I'm pretty satisfied already. But, its no longer about real. Real isn't enough for humans and commercial success. We are in pursuit of shock and virtual amazement. Thats where its going and why I do it too I suppose.

But that all said, its just pain awesome creating space with these.

apstrong Mon, 03/31/2014 - 02:15

audiokid, I'm curious about your workflow with your Bricastis. I know you're running a hybrid system., but these things are pricey and only do two channels. You've got more than one, but even then, are you running them on multiple stems before you capture them in your second DAW, and then on the stereo mixdown too afterwards (and capturing in a separate DAW again?) or just on the stereo output from the first DAW? Or something else? Know what I mean?

audiokid Mon, 03/31/2014 - 02:26

apstrong, post: 413100, member: 36444 wrote: audiokid, I'm curious about your workflow with your Bricastis. I know you're running a hybrid system., but these things are pricey and only do two channels. You've got more than one, but even then, are you running them on multiple stems before you capture them in your second DAW, and then on the stereo mixdown too afterwards (and capturing in a separate DAW again?) or just on the stereo output from the first DAW? Or something else? Know what I mean?

This says it best:

Boswell, post: 408687, member: 29034 wrote: Yes, partly, but the hybrid systems that Chris and I were talking about work rather differently.

Consider for a moment the analog loop that you mentioned that routes out of a DAW and straight back in again. This is going to incur a quality loss due to D-A-D conversion with two lots of anti-aliaising filters, and nothing positive to show for it. Because it's in and out of the same DAW, the input and output sampling rates have to be identical and phase-locked, and there is no randomization of sampling instants.

If you take the analog output from one DAW, put it through an analog process that's more than a piece of wire and then re-sample in an independent second DAW, you have uncoupled the first output from the second input. The non-synchronous sampling of the second DAW, even if it's at the same nominal frequency as the first, results in the digital values of the re-captured waveform being different from the ones put out by the first DAW, even with no intentional process such as amplitude change or application of EQ being performed by the analog process. It doesn't matter whether there is a sample-rate reduction between the two DAWs or whether they run at the same nominal frequency, the point is that you get a different set of numbers describing your mix.

There are several things you can get out of this. The first relates to down-sampling (e.g. the 96KHz to 44.1KHz I mentioned in my earlier post). Performing the sample rate conversion (SRC) by re-constructing an analog waveform at 96KHz and re-sampling it at 44.1KHz eliminates the use of digital SRCs, which I have shown in demonstrations introduce subtle but unpleasant high-frequency effects. It also means that the 44.1KHz input sees the high-bandwidth analog input as a natural analog waveform, as though from the output of a pre-amp without having had any of the 44.1KHz anti-aliaising filters applied to it. It will, of course, have been through 96KHz anti-aliaising filters, but the effects they introduce in the high passband are well outside the audio range. Doing a digital summation in a DAW running at 44.1 or 48KHz with many input channels each of which has been through an anti-aliasing filter tends to sum the effects of the filter as well as the audio, and I maintain these effects have an audible component. It was things like the effect of summing multiple channels each of which had been subject to a 44.1KHz filter that I was trying to get away from when talking previously about trying to emulate the quality of the old direct-to-disk recordings.

When considering this hybrid approach, not only is it necessary to have two separate computers or other digital devices (such as HD24XRs) with no sampling clock lock between them, it's also important that there is some external analog processing in the mix path to introduce such things as amplitude change and frequency-dependent phase-shift that emulate the real-world processes that the human ear is naturally comfortable with. In Chris's case, he has built up to having the very highest quality analog processes in the mix path, so achieves the pinnacle of performance. In my case, I use more modest processes such as standard but high-quality mixing desks, and yet achieve a sonic quality using this method that I have not been able to match using a DAW.

apstrong Mon, 03/31/2014 - 14:54

audiokid, post: 413102, member: 1 wrote: My chain looks like this:

AD> Orion32 > DAW1 > Orion32 DA > (analog matrix) SPL Neos (analog matrix) Dangerous Master (analog matrix) > AD> Prism Orpheus >DAW2
Monitor controlled via Dangerous Monitor ST.

Right, I understand your chain more or less, but where do the Bricastis plug into that chain, and how many channels are your sending to it/them? Like are you using the NEOS to sum and then adding reverb to the mixdown via Bricasti, or are you adding reverb to individual tracks before your sum them with the NEOS?

audiokid Mon, 03/31/2014 - 16:00

apstrong, post: 413133, member: 36444 wrote: Right, I understand your chain more or less, but where do the Bricastis plug into that chain, and how many channels are your sending to it/them? Like are you using the NEOS to sum and then adding reverb to the mixdown via Bricasti, or are you adding reverb to individual tracks before your sum them with the NEOS?

DAW aux > DA > Bricasti's .

I create aux's and bus's ITB and assign them to analog channels that are connected to SSL X-Patches. From there I can assign hardware to flow both ways > ADDA. I can use everything I have for tracking, mixing or mastering at a click of a mouse.

The Bricasti's sound great in their own channels. I control the feed to them just as you would ITB with any plug-in reverb or delay. One Bricasti serves everything ITB for a particular acoustic space. Its the same mind-set as assigning various tracks to a plugin verb on an aux channel. But, I don't use additional plug-ins on the Bricasti Aux (usually). The DAW channel aux goes to a master / group aux that AD to the Bricasti.
The difference here, instead of that aux going to my master bus ITB, I bypass the entire DAW master section and route everything OTB to the Neos via dedicated stems (bus and aux). Everything arrives OTB at the same time and I never sum back to the same DAW. Never. Its super simple this way and stellar sounding. Never clocking issues, never latency issues. I have tested the best super clocks on the planet and my system is dead locked without them.
I also avoid all unnecessary activation of plug-ins so my DAW is tight all the way to the finish line. I need less of everything. The mass of my cables are no more than 10ft.

DAW1 rarely see's the master section ( however) that too can have its own stem. . It all gets sent to the Neos or/ SSL X-Patches.
Once I'm ready to capture the analog mix, ( which is a combination of both ITB and OTB processing) I > AD that to a second DAW set at the destination SR.

A Bricasti is nice to have inserted into the Neos or as a master bus reverb on the way to DAW2. Depends on what I'm doing.
I rarely manually patch cable. Its all routed digitally via the DAW or SSL X-Patches.

audiokid Mon, 03/31/2014 - 16:08

A visual is helpful. It works like this:

The left side is tracking and mixing, right side it the destination. Everything ends up on the right . Both DAW's , which are ADDA uncoupled, still files share so its super easy to import to and from one another like a folder in a directory.

The second DAW is the online destination > soundcloud, itunes etc; or CD/DVD.

A Dangerous Monitor ST connects the entire workflow. I can monitor every step through the entire system via relay switching. Dead accurate.

Example: When tracking, I switch to the tracking monitor section, when mixing, OTB, I switch to the mixing monitor section, when mastering, I switch to the master monitor section. When listing to music online, comparing etc, I have an aux available in all area's.
I can mono and choose subs on 3 speaker systems. There is never delay issues.
I hear the Bricasti's and everything for that matter pretty accurate.
You don't need a system like this, there are many ways to benefit from these gems. A simple console and one M7 Aux is to die for.
But, I show this as an example of something rather special.

RemyRAD Mon, 04/21/2014 - 17:33

Great-looking room Chris! Wow!

Marry me. My transformers are hot and heavy. My heart beats all a flutter... wow. I think I'm getting saturated? What did you put in my tape guide? Everything keeps going round and round... and round.

I'm Scully... with the FBI. (Feeble Broadcasters International)
Remy

x

User login