Reverb question for studio engineers [Archive] - Harmony Central Musician Community Forums

TonyCrazyMan

07-31-2005, 02:52 AM

Lately I've been thinking about all these digital reverb units in both the hardware and software formats. What I've found out is that the standard of digital software based reverb effects in the form of reverb plug ins generally seems to be rather low in terms of the sound quality. For instance the onboard reverbs on my Yamaha Tyros keyboard seems to be able to compete on this field and really beat a large number of plug-ins.

What I'm interested in knowing is that you guys that work in the studio and really know the difference between hardware and software reverbs, do you think that hardware based reverbs are actually much better sounding than the software based reverbs?

For instance what's the difference between these two units:

- Lexicon 480L (hardware)
- Waves IR-1 (with Lexicon 480L impulses)

greendoor

07-31-2005, 05:30 AM

It helps to understand the history of digital reverb, and i'm not a geeky expert but I have a rough idea. When the first digital delay lines were invented in the late '70's, digital reverb became possible. The early units were basically multi-tap delays, and sounded fairly crude, but back then they were a major advance and changed the sound of music. Previously, plates and springs and even coiled up hoses were used for delay effects - so digital, even low bit noisy digital - was a breath of fresh air.

Over the '80's, digital reverb rapidly developed, and you can hear the development over the range of Lexicon and other models. Some of the earlier models were grainy 12 bit sound, fairly hissy, and lacking top end, with gritty algorithmns. Some of these were excellent at creating exciting drum sounds. As the newer models came out, reverbs got smoother and brighter and better for different things. Some people missed the qualities of some of the older designs.

Many patents have been issued for reverb algorithmns, which might explain why certain sounds seem to alude the competion, whether hardware or software.

Convolution reverbs (using samples instead of algorithmns) appeared as hardware first.

At this point in software plugin history, the technology to make great reverbs is certainly available. In many ways it is far ahead of early 1980's technology. But still the established hardware companies tend to have the best reverbs. I'm sure the experience and patents have something to do with this.

Convolution samples don't do justice to the best hardware reverbs. This is because often modulation and randomisation is used in the good algorithmns. A static one-shot sample is just that, and doesn't capture the life of the good reverbs. It's a bit like trying to capture the life of a Hammond organ and Leslie speaker - sounds simple, but all those rotating parts have a life and purity that samples just don't capture.

They get close - and it's possible to add modulation to samples - but I still view it as missing the final 1 - 2% that makes the difference.

This is why I have a renewed interest in algorithm plugin reverbs, because in theory a good algorithm reverb can have the same life as the hardware ones - they are all digital algorithmns after all.

There are some very good plugin reverbs that blow away many hardware reverbs. ArtsAcoustic, SonicFlavours R66, Princeton - excellent sounds that should satisfy most people.

Convolution stuff is pretty cool too. But if you really want the ultimate Lexicon or TC sound, you still have to buy the hardware. Whether it's worth it, I'm not 100% sure, because the good stuff is hellishly expensive.