PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

People! We need real world sounds

Something like the following:

www.relab.dk/reverb/Cello%20dry.wav
www.relab.dk/reverb/Soprano%20dry.wav

Bricasti M7:

ER / Reverb Mix: 20 <> 20
ER type: 12 (0-19)
ER Filter: 11.4KHz
RT60: 3.6 sec
Size: 2 (0-30)
Diffusion: 2 (0-10)
Density: 8 (0-10)
Modulation: 5 (0-10)
HF RT Freq: 6.4KHz
HF RT Multiply: 0.85
LF RT Freq: 1.2KHz
LF RT Multiply: 0.70
Rolloff: 8.4KHz
Very LF cut: -3dB

www.relab.dk/reverb/Cello%20wet.wav
www.relab.dk/reverb/Soprano%20wet.wav
www.relab.dk/reverb/Long%20wet.wav
www.relab.dk/reverb/Short%20wet.wav

Cheers

hifiboom wrote: While the differences between the units may be desrcibed as "diffenrent flavour", I think the Quanteq falls a bit behind the rest sounding a bit more unpleasing, its fluttering a bit especially can be heard in the short impulse sample .... (now I really think the strength of the QRS is big halls with long tails, and regarding parameters its no "allrounder" like the others, so its a special unit anyways)

You're correct - the Quantec QRS dont have the same density/diffusion (and doesn't have those parameters) as the others, but this is changed in the newer versions (2496/98) - this algorithm is from 1982.

hifiboom wrote: Whereas the M7 sounds smoother and more subtile and the AKG and Lexicon more "opened" in the tail area.
IMO all units mark up a simlar or equal high quality level.

This is more of a question about parameter values. The algorithm of AKG (Ursa Major) and Lexicon is quite related - M7, 480L and ADR68K all uses allpass filters in series of some kind, but not the Quantec QRS. But I agree - the M7 is the most dense and smooth.

All files is 100% wet.

Cheers

Wotcha!

Since I'm quite bored and don't have a lot to do, I might do a test on my Klark Teknik DN780. Only thing is, I don't know if it's just the unit's age or if it's actually a bit buggered, but it is VERY noisy (acoustically, because of a fan, but also electrically). With nothing going into it, it outputs a swooshy, white noise-type sound at -40 dBFS...

The reverb itself sounds lovely, but the constant background noise might mask the end of the tails. Does anyone know enough about this unit to tell me if it's broken? or if it just has a shocking noise floor on account of its internal processing being at 16bit (I think most modern digital processors are at least 32, some 48 ). Bear in mind that this unit is OLD!

Cheers,

Chris

Hi,

I also have the Klark Teknik DN780 - just got it repaired.

It sounds like you have an noisy unit - this is a test with my unit.

http://www.relab.dk/reverb/5%20-%20short.wav
http://www.relab.dk/reverb/5%20-%20long.wav

Cheers

Warp69 wrote:Hi,

I also have the Klark Teknik DN780 - just got it repaired.

It sounds like you have an noisy unit - this is a test with my unit.

http://www.relab.dk/reverb/5%20-%20short.wav
http://www.relab.dk/reverb/5%20-%20long.wav

Cheers

wow!
very natural sounding. impressive.
whats the averange price for such a unit when buying used?


what about some 808 drum sounds as analytical drum tests ...

I especially would like to hear the rim with fully opened decay time..., some sort of infinity reverb.

hifiboom wrote: wow!
very natural sounding. impressive.
whats the averange price for such a unit when buying used?

I bought mine for 500 euro, I think.

It has a simple algorithm compared to ex. Lexicons and it has a constant echo density.

@Hifiboom - heheheh - you're mostly interested in analyze the behaviour of the algorithms (just like me).

Cheers

hifiboom wrote:I think the Quanteq falls a bit behind the rest sounding a bit more unpleasing, its fluttering a bit especially can be heard in the short impulse sample ....

I noticed that. Is it maybe decay diffusion/modulation or is it the constant echo density that Warp mentions?

Please keep this thread going.

These are such a value to me right now.

<~Shroomz~> wrote: I noticed that. Is it maybe decay diffusion/modulation or is it the constant echo density that Warp mentions?

The problem is low density of the algorithm - all the orther (except M7) would more or less sound the same if diffusion was set to the lowest value. 3 allpass filters (in serie) in front of the algorithm and BAM......

Warp69 wrote:

hifiboom wrote: wow!
very natural sounding. impressive.
whats the averange price for such a unit when buying used?

I bought mine for 500 euro, I think.

wow thats what I call a good deal.

Warp69 wrote: @Hifiboom - heheheh - you're mostly interested in analyze the behaviour of the algorithms (just like me).

Cheers

jep, thats what really interests me.

Warp69 wrote:The problem is low density of the algorithm - all the orther (except M7) would more or less sound the same if diffusion was set to the lowest value. 3 allpass filters (in serie) in front of the algorithm and BAM......

Part II:

Large Hall - 0% Diffusion / 0% Density

www.relab.dk/reverb/Algorithm.wav
www.relab.dk/reverb/Bricasti.wav

Large Hall - 0% Diffusion / 100% Density

www.relab.dk/reverb/AlgorithmDensity.wav
www.relab.dk/reverb/BricastiDensity.wav

Large Hall - 100% Diffusion / 100% Density

www.relab.dk/reverb/AlgorithmDiffusion.wav
www.relab.dk/reverb/BricastiDiffusion.wav

Warp what's the comparison there? Is that your own reverb up against the Bricasti setup with the same values as before other than the diffusion & density parameters?

Warp69 wrote:Bricasti M7:

ER / Reverb Mix: 20 <> 20
ER type: 12 (0-19)
ER Filter: 11.4KHz
RT60: 3.6 sec
Size: 2 (0-30)
Diffusion: 2 (0-10)
Density: 8 (0-10)
Modulation: 5 (0-10)
HF RT Freq: 6.4KHz
HF RT Multiply: 0.85
LF RT Freq: 1.2KHz
LF RT Multiply: 0.70
Rolloff: 8.4KHz
Very LF cut: -3dB

<~Shroomz~> wrote:Warp what's the comparison there? Is that your own reverb up against the Bricasti setup with the same values as before other than the diffusion & density parameters?

shroomz warp just demonstrates that the M7 still has a good density at low diffusion and low density setting whereas the other units (480L, Klark and other classic reverb units) show fewer reflections in their patterns at low diffusion and density setting...
I guess due to its sheer calculation power but also by specification of the parameter values and internal used algorithm.

personally I never was a fan of low diffusive/density reverb responses, so I like the M7s handling of these parameters, but you could counter and say, someone who wants such a low diffusion pattern as special fx for certain task may not be able to do it with the M7.
But at the end its about simulating "realistic" reverb, so its a no-brainer.

<~Shroomz~> wrote:Warp what's the comparison there? Is that your own reverb up against the Bricasti setup with the same values as before other than the diffusion & density parameters?

shroomz warp just demonstrates that the M7 still has a good density at low diffusion and low density setting whereas the other units (480L, Klark and other classic reverb units) show fewer reflections in their patterns at low diffusion and density setting...
I guess due to its sheer calculation power but also by specification of the parameter values and internal used algorithm.

personally I never was a fan of low diffusive/density reverb responses, so I like the M7s handling of these parameters, but you could counter and say, someone who wants such a low diffusion pattern as special fx for certain task may not be able to do it with the M7.
But at the end its about simulating "realistic" reverb, so its a no-brainer.

Hifiboom, that doesn't answer the question I was asking. I just wanted to know which reverb is the 'Algorithm' & more info about the other parameter values used in those last sets of samples. Anyway, it's cool. It doesn't particularly matter.

Its the AKG ADR68K.

Ah, ok. Tanks a lot Warp.

Oh and I cant remember the settings, but I would guess: Maximum value for size, diffusion, density and rt60 - the rest of the parameters are unknown, but was not important regarding my demonstration.

Which dry sample was it?

<~Shroomz~> wrote:Which dry sample was it?

Just a test sample (which btw I cant find right now) I got from http://www.effectprocessor.com