Altiverb

PaulBrewer

Does anyone use Altiverb ?

Any observations or tips ?

PMI

Have version 5 find it quite hungry.... other than 9 outta 10 cats prefer it

Robin Ball

Use altiverb day in day out. It's only as good as the IR's you put in! Acousticas.net have some fantastic IR's as does signaltonoize.

If you don't have an outboard unit it's a great choice.

madtheory

The last update changed a lot of things, to suit post for film, more than music mixing. I prefer Trillium Lane. For me IRs loose their flavour quickly. Apparently this is because standard IRs can only represent a single tiny point in space. In real life you would be perceiving a larger point, and a different one from moment to moment. As I understand it anyway. Maybe studiorat could chime in here? So I'm still a Lexicon fan. But it's very cool technology.

DamagedTrax

liquidsonics reverberate with true stereo impulses is a lot more useable and has inbuilt modulation, stereo delay and eq at various differant in the chain, but altiverb 7 looks like its gonna blow all other IR verbs out of the water with its feature set.

MilanPan!c

more impulses:


Really cool and cheap/free stuff:
http://www.rhythminmind.net/presetblog/category/samples/impulse-sets/

Cool for free:
http://www.rhythminmind.net/presetblog/2009/05/spx990-impulse-pack/

Other free stuff (including some GREAT stuff):
http://www.echochamber.ch/responses/index.html

madtheory

If you don't have it already, get the EMT250 impulse from here:
http://www.audioease.com/IR/VenuePages/reverbgear.html
It's gorgeous.

iquinn

SIR is great value for money I think-

http://www.knufinke.de/sir/sir2.html


other impulses:

http://www.acousticas.net/World/IRs/AcousticasM7.zip

MilanPan!c

Look, free Roland Space Echo IRs

http://www.dubbhism.com/search/label/impulse%20responses

Companero

Apparently this is because standard IRs can only represent a single tiny point in space. In real life you would be perceiving a larger point, and a different one from moment to moment.

This sentence doesnt really mean anything.

IRs represent the sound of the microphone in the room they are recorded in. They are thus actually more realistic than an algorythmic reverb such as a Lexicon - however realistic is not necessarily what you want in a reverb you are using for music.

You may actually prefer the sound of a non-algorhythmic reverb, its up to you. But dont trust anyone who tells you that they are 'static'

PaulBrewer

iquinn wrote: »

SIR is great value for money I think-

http://www.knufinke.de/sir/sir2.html


other impulses:

http://www.acousticas.net/World/IRs/AcousticasM7.zip

As well as may be - however, not as good as my free Altiverb

PaulBrewer

madtheory wrote: »

If you don't have it already, get the EMT250 impulse from here:
http://www.audioease.com/IR/VenuePages/reverbgear.html
It's gorgeous.

They have a working original in BBC Maida Vale.

Anima

Apparently this is because standard IRs can only represent a single tiny point in space

It represents the sound of the room from the point of which the microphone recorded it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution_reverb -> Explains the different ways of getting IRs.

madtheory

PaulBrewer wrote: »

They have a working original in BBC Maida Vale.

Coooooooooooooooool.

Companero wrote: »

But dont trust anyone who tells you that they are 'static'

Don't make the mistake of thinking that a microphone is the same as your ear. I am not advocating one over the other, as always, use whatever works. Both have caveats. "Don't trust" anyone who tells you IRs are more realistic.

You might find these interesting:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/high-end/362930-lexicon-reverbs-brief-bestiary.html
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/geekslutz-forum/380233-reverb-subculture.html

MilanPan!c

madtheory wrote: »

Don't make the mistake of thinking that a microphone is the same as your ear. I am not advocating one over the other, as always, use whatever works. Both have caveats. Don't trust anyone who tells you IRs are more "realistic".

I think the thing with IR based verb, IMO of course, is that, whether it be through tricky or science or however they do it, it tends to sound more like a sound in a place, not just a sound sitting in verb.

Like the sound has a focal point and we're hearing the sound move through a place to reach us.

Yeah, I totally believe it's not, "real" sounding, in so far as speakers will never, at least in most of our budgets, come close to approximating the experience of being in a room with a sound. That being said, the effect IR based verb creates can be VERY useful.

I recently have also started using speaker cabinet IRs with Guitar Rig. And again, they make things sound good... not sure they sound "real," but they do sound more natural, to my ears.

madtheory

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I think the thing with IR based verb, IMO of course, is that, whether it be through tricky or science or however they do it, it tends to sound more like a sound in a place, not just a sound sitting in verb.

So I take it you haven't ever used a high end synthetic reverb box? The Lexicon 480L and the old Eventide H3000 (it's actually amazing for reverb) sound stunning, still.

Anima

The thing with reverb is that just because it might sound realistic, it doesn't mean it will sound good.

Technically, IRs will produce the most realistic type of reverb because it is as if the sound is being played in the room. But what if that room has some horrible resonances? Like if you got the IR of some ****ty flats kitchen. So obviously you'll have to have some quality IRs for it to sound good.

There are lots of algorithmic reverbs that sound great because they're designed with psychoacoustics in mind so its like they're creating a perfect room for reverberation in a box. I can imagine these sounding a lot better than some IRs, much more lush and rich.

MilanPan!c

madtheory wrote: »

So I take it you haven't ever used a high end synthetic reverb box? The Lexicon 480L and the old Eventide H3000 (it's actually amazing for reverb) sound stunning, still.

I guess I didn't explain myself properly.

I like both types of verb and use the both.

I DO find that IR based verb seem to create a unique space for sound to sit in, that sounds very different than synthetic verb.

I like them both though!

madtheory

Agreed, horses for courses.

Anima wrote: »

T
Technically, IRs will produce the most realistic type of reverb because it is as if the sound is being played in the room.

So how do you explain that an IR of any Lexicon, or even any Yamaha, does not sound quite like the original box? Answer- an IR from one point source and one instant in time is not sufficiently accurate, and therefore not realistic. There is an audible difference. Using a synthetic box to demonstrate this flaw is interesting, because it is possible to do a blind A/B test quite easily. It's possible to interpolate between several samples but currently this requires a fair bit of DSP horsepower and a lot of careful design work. They do this in the Pod for example, but for a reverb there are greater challenges, which is why no one's done it yet, AFAIK.

Paul, how does that Bricasti sound compared to Altiverb? Would you use both?

Anima

So how do you explain that an IR of any Lexicon, or even any Yamaha, does not sound quite like the original box?

Do you mean taking an IR of an algorithmic reverb? It should at the very least sound similar. It would be far too easy if it sounded identical to the original box wouldn't it?

an IR from one point source and one instant in time is not sufficiently accurate

If its a Lexicon/Yahama box, there is an input and an output. What other point sources are there? I think you are right for larger spaces, you need to take an average of a few different points to generate the IR. For a small room you only need one point.

As for only one instant in time... How often does the shape of a room change anyway? An IR can be made by sweeping a sine wave and recording how the room reacts to each frequency. The sound bounces around the room and returns to the microphone, this is the information we're looking for and so you see it isn't one instant in time.

DamagedTrax

wow. this thread is madness. nerdsville usa!!!

IRs or hardware revs or rooms can all have their uses.

you just need to know the limitations of IRs and work around them. its very easy to add a little touch of movement to and IR and make the room sound alive.

dav nagle

Altiverb is not 80's enough for me it's cold. I never used it on anything :mad:

DamagedTrax

thats cause you didnt buy the transistor emulation add-on. its only 4000 euro and runs on 12 iloks.

Rockshamrover

DamagedTrax wrote: »

thats cause you didnt buy the transistor emulation add-on. its only 4000 euro and runs on 12 iloks.

Exactly

MilanPan!c

DamagedTrax wrote: »

thats cause you didnt buy the transistor emulation add-on. its only 4000 euro and runs on 12 iloks.

And me with only 11...

madtheory

Anima wrote: »

It should at the very least sound similar. It would be far too easy if it sounded identical to the original box wouldn't it?

Personally, I'd prefer if it sounded exactly the same, but it doesn't. By that standard, if an IR can't replicate an algorithm, then it can't replicate a room either. Think beyond the physical i/o of the box- the algorithm is trying to replicate a room, so it has built in variations. It's not simulating a single point. Movement of the head, huge numbers of reflections points, temperature changes etc. Sounds mad, but it's true. As damagedtrax said, with an IR sometimes work is needed to make it sound alive. Check those GS threads I linked to earlier, some info there and links onwards. Very interesting stuff about reverb algorithms, and why an IR is not as perfect as it's made out to be (and why reverb is very hard to do, and why those early guys were amazing). You want nerdsville USA, that's where it's at, literally!

Companero

By that standard, if an IR can't replicate an algorithm, then it can't replicate a room either

Not the case, actually the other way around. Algorythmic reverbs can be programmed that do not respond in a linear manner to an input: IRs can not reproduce non linear effects - compression, distortion and so on.

Rooms on the other hand , are linear, so IRs can recreate them very well. There may be aspects of a room that are not linear - head moving and so on, but why you would want to recreate that in a musical context I cant imagine - it would surely only be useful in post for movies or something, where you have a shot of somebody walking down a corridoor with a camera following them.

dabhoys

I absolutely love altiverb and i use it day in a day out as my main verb...

PaulBrewer

What sort of impulse responses do you use ?

dabhoys

I go with the stock ones to be honest, but favourites are 480L Fat Plate, the 140 Plate and the AMS RMX16 Non Lin settings...

DamagedTrax

try the free briscati ones. the "blue room" and "fat snare plate" are pretty special.

PaulBrewer

DamagedTrax wrote: »

try the free briscati ones. the "blue room" and "fat snare plate" are pretty special.

Do you have a link Damaged?

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Do you have a link Damaged?

There's one in this GS thread.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-product-alert/391486-free-bricasti-m7-impulses-acousticas.html&sa=X&ei=2opUTPOrC4H60wSq_4W4Cw&ved=0CCcQrAIoATAB&usg=AFQjCNG-OC0DhIInOJHUgPlxA9SjXImKfg

madtheory

LOL, the most popular IRs are not from real rooms or halls, but of synthesized reverb... I'd call that voting with your... mouse?

DamagedTrax

in fairness we use synthesised reverbs for a certain sound. not to simulate real rooms. so IRs of classic boxes (of which i definitly consider the briscati already) arent really a strange idea.

PaulBrewer

Rockshamrover wrote: »

There's one in this GS thread.

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.gearslutz.com/board/new-product-alert/391486-free-bricasti-m7-impulses-acousticas.html&sa=X&ei=2opUTPOrC4H60wSq_4W4Cw&ved=0CCcQrAIoATAB&usg=AFQjCNG-OC0DhIInOJHUgPlxA9SjXImKfg

Thanks -

That's he one iquinn posted.

Rockshamrover

DamagedTrax wrote: »

in fairness we use synthesised reverbs for a certain sound. not to simulate real rooms. so IRs of classic boxes (of which i definitly consider the briscati already) arent really a strange idea.

DT it's Bricasti, You must have got the ALDI version:D


No wonder Mr Brewer couldn't find a link:D

Rockshamrover

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Thanks -

That's he one iquinn posted.

Cheers Paul,

Is there another set of IRs out there?

DamagedTrax

Rockshamrover wrote: »

DT it's Bricasti, You must have got the ALDI version:D


No wonder Mr Brewer couldn't find a link:D

hahahah

woodsdenis

http://www.samplicity.com/bricasti-m7-impulse-responses/

Rockshamrover

woodsdenis wrote: »

http://www.samplicity.com/bricasti-m7-impulse-responses/

Damn, downloads are temporarily disabled.

Thanks anyway Denis.

Rockshamrover

Per Gearslutz, they should be downloadable again this weekend.

BTW: this weekend version 1.1 will be released, which fixes a silly channel swap problem in the True Stereo sets. I will announce it here on GS when the new downloads are available.

Cheers!

Peter
__________________
Peter Emanuel Roos
Music - FaceBook - Samplicity - impulse responses

Rockshamrover

woodsdenis wrote: »

http://www.samplicity.com/bricasti-m7-impulse-responses/

These are available to download now.

madtheory

Companero wrote: »

Rooms on the other hand , are linear, so IRs can recreate them very well. There may be aspects of a room that are not linear - head moving and so on, but why you would want to recreate that in a musical context I cant imagine - it would surely only be useful in post for movies or something, where you have a shot of somebody walking down a corridoor with a camera following them.

For a start, rooms are not linear. Secondly, try this: take an impulse response of a room. Don't move anything, and take another one. They will not null, because they are different.

Anima

For a start, rooms are not linear.

I might be wrong but I don't believe that to be true.

Impulse Response wrote:

Any system (the room) in a large class known as linear, time-invariant (LTI) is completely characterized by its impulse response. That is, for any input function (the sound you want to put reverb on), the output function can be calculated in terms of the input and the impulse response. (See LTI system theory.)

Companero

For a start, rooms are not linear. Secondly, try this: take an impulse response of a room. Don't move anything, and take another one. They will not null, because they are different.

You're misunderstanding what 'linear' means there. 'Linear' means that the response of the room changes with the amplitude of the signal being fed to it. In this sense rooms are linear. A compressor is not, nor is a guitar amp or any other device where the volume of the signal makes it respond differently.

This doesnt mean of course that the sound of a room doesnt change: The impulse response will of course depend on the position of the microphone, the tempurature of the air and the objects in the room, so of course any two impulse responses taken of a single room, even one straight after the other, will vary very, very slightly depending on those factors. It is very unlikely, however, that such infinitesemal differences would make any difference to your enjoyment of music though.

An algorithmic reverb, however, is not restricted by the rules of earthly physics, It can make a reverb that responds differently to different amplitudes, (unlike a real room) , but for the most part there is little reason why you would want such a thing. It is mainly something that is now being used by manufacturers of high-end reverbs as a selling point - i.e. "Our reverbs cant be captured by IRs" , it goes without saying that this doesnt necessarily mean they sound any better , or are more flattering for your music than an algorythm that is linear.

madtheory

I am offering the fact of those differences as a reason why some prefer a good algorithmic device over an impulse based device/ plugin. The audibility is questionable, I agree.

I am confused why the word linear is being used. After an impulse, it is clear that the amplitude in a room decays exponentially, not linearly. What am I missing?

Companero

I am confused why the word linear is being used. After an impulse, it is clear that the amplitude in a room decays exponentially, not linearly. What am I missing?

We're hung up on the word 'linear' , because convolution reverbs are only capable of reproducing linear impulses, that is , impulses that respond identically at different amplitudes.

Non linear things, such as compressors, guitar amps and distortion pedals, do not respond linearly, i.e. they will produce a different output if the signal sent in to them is louder or softer.

It is not about the way amplitude decays in a room as you mentioned above.

madtheory

OK, so linear WRT amplitude, but not time?

DamagedTrax

Companero wrote: »

We're hung up on the word 'linear' , because convolution reverbs are only capable of reproducing linear impulses, that is , impulses that respond identically at different amplitudes.

Non linear things, such as compressors, guitar amps and distortion pedals, do not respond linearly, i.e. they will produce a different output if the signal sent in to them is louder or softer.

It is not about the way amplitude decays in a room as you mentioned above.

unless you factor in dynamic impulses responses.

MilanPan!c

Companero wrote: »

We're hung up on the word 'linear' , because convolution reverbs are only capable of reproducing linear impulses, that is , impulses that respond identically at different amplitudes.

Non linear things, such as compressors, guitar amps and distortion pedals, do not respond linearly, i.e. they will produce a different output if the signal sent in to them is louder or softer.

It is not about the way amplitude decays in a room as you mentioned above.

I'm assuming at some point this will change.. I mean, if they can make samplers which play back different samples based on velocity, then why not reverb which can change IRs based on te volume of the input, in real time.

Right?