## 8 BUSS DSP Hardware Effects Unit

Scope and XITE Development

Original topic on PlanetZ: https://forums.scopeusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=24267

#### 8 BUSS DSP Hardware Effects Unit

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:35 pm
by dawman
Could the SDK guys break off and make DSP designs in hardware?
I was wondering if this learning process of designing w/ SDK is beneficial in learning how to develope and design a hardware based DSP effects unit?
I have a very wealthy friend who is an X-FOH. I showed him some of the SDK stuff, and of course 3rd party stuff and he knows quality. He has used 480L's for years, as well as AMS, and Gamble consoles.
He can't quite leave the business.
But we both were commenting on how nice it would be to have an 8 BUSS design as in the 480L. 8 different reverbs at once.
I would pay dear money for a hardware unit like that. But have every kind of effect w/ the usual Scope type routings, not just a reverb.
The Kurzweil KSP8 was a step in this direction, but way underpowered. It could barely use 4 of it's 8 busses.
Imagine if Warp69, SpaceF, Celmo, MCCY, Shroomz, and others could all contribute. And even have a USB interface to use a monitor like the old Roland S700 samplers had.
Ah, forgetabouwdit. It was just a nice dream.
I see hardware DSP based units being the future in the studio and live. This one or the other approach to designing stuff is so dated IMHO.

####

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:44 pm
by garyb
yes, well dsps are what make your lexicons work.......

####

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:58 pm
by Warp69
I have been thinking about a cheap hardware platform for reverbs - there you could load 4 instance of reverb (ex. 2x480L, 1xAMS RMX16, 1xEMT250) and probably a smaller unit for guitar where you could load 1 instance.

####

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:52 pm
by garyb
interesting...

####

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:43 am
by Warp69

> stardust wrote: and hall 100 ? maybe ?

Ehm, no. Much better quality.

####

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:45 am
by hifiboom
The Sonic Timeworks Bricasti

####

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:46 am
by Casey
I thought Martin said cheap.
-Casey

####

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:51 pm
by dawman
Since hardware can be routed into Scope, I would buy it no problem.
It could work inside and outside of Scope.
Warp69, Let me know if you decide to build one.
I might have someone interested. He has experience in the marketing, and manufacturing sector.
And Money !!
Strength And Honor,

####

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:19 pm
by Warp69

> Casey wrote:I thought Martin said cheap.
> -Casey

Well well well - welcome Casey - the developer of the extremely nice Bricasti M7 reverb - the one to beat.

####

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:27 pm
by Warp69
The EMT 250 could easily be done - but the its far from a product. You was just dreaming, remember?? Its not the actual algorithms thats missing, but someone to build the DSP board.
Jimmy - you should really consider the M7 from Bricasti if you're looking for hardware - as you know I own one and its clearly one of the best reverbs created.

####

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:30 pm
by Warp69

> stardust wrote:are you serious ?

Yes - absolutely.
www.bricasti.com

####

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:36 pm
by Casey
Barry (EMT 250 alg developer) has told me that he considers the algorithm to be public domain.
Martin is right, it is a very simple algorithm. I would say most of the work is in recreating the analog and digital artifacts.
-Casey

####

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 2:05 pm
by Warp69
Yes - thats correct. But I still think very few people actually have the originals diagrams - otherwise we would have seen alot of plugins, no?
Its not the same as the one he patented - I might add.

####

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:09 pm
by dawman
I have loved the sound of reverb since I was a child playing in the sewers.
Your opinion is held in high regards here, so you think the Bricasti is the best?
Then I must demo one.
Sweetwater has them for 3600 USD.
If I was to drown, let it be in reverb.
So It Shall Be Written, So It Shall Be Done.

####

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 3:12 pm
by hifiboom
its nice to have a M7 developer over here. So welcome Casey.
I guess you are not a scope user at all and just registered for a talk.

####

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:12 pm
by dawman
We are blessed by the best here today !!
I really want to demo an M7 Brotha' Man Casey.
I assume you would know where a local retailer might have one within a 400 mile radius?
I will be gigging in the Bay Area in Februrary, would Leo's have one?
They have Crane Song and Manley, surely they would have a Bricasti 'eh?
BTW. I still love Lexicon.
I own, and have owned many, prior to the HK buyout. Nothing since the 81 and 91 though. Lexicon as a VST ?,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
That Dog Won't Hunt.

####

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 9:43 pm
by Casey
S4L - Let me check with our US distributor tomorrow. I will PM you.
So, anyway yes, came here to hang. I've had some back and forth with Martin, and subseqently checked out this forum.
Very nice to shoot it out with fellow developers.
For the new year I promised myself I would get out more. This does count as getting out, right?
-Casey

####

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 11:29 pm
by Warp69
Jimmy - I also just love reverbs - I simply cant get enough - and I also love the Lexicon sound.
I would say that the M7 is probably the best reverb in creating realistic hall emulation, but not that far from the Lexicon sound (Lexicon is no near realistic, but more washy and lush). You can infact get something similar to the Lexicon sound.
The M7 has one algorithm for all the presets, but different kinds of early reflections - just like the VSS4 algorithm from TC Electronic.
Casey - size does matter

####

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:00 am
by chriskorff
Casey -
Your location, is that Cambridge UK? That's where I'm based! Funny that, I think I just sent the SOS review model back to SCV London (your UK distributors, I believe?)
Not sure if you've seen it yet, but the review is in the February 2008 issue. Needless to say, Paul White was quite taken with it!
Give me a shout if you haven't got a copy yet, I can pop one in the post for you.
Cheers!
Chris

####

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 3:19 pm
by dawman
As suspected your description of Lexicon was spot on again.
I always realised it was the " Lexicon sound ", and not really the perfect emulation of rooms and halls.
But it worked perfectly on sampled content, and vocals that used a quality mic and mic pre.
Thanks for stepping in and chatting to us.
It's quite a priveledge IMHO.
I AM NOT WORTHY

####

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:33 pm
by Casey
Chris -
I'm in the other Cambridge, (I should clarify that in my profile) but I did see the SOS review. Paul was far too kind.
So how did you get along with the M7?
I'm asuming since it went back that it wasn't what you were looking for? Or was this just on loan for a demo?
-Casey

####

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:23 am
by chriskorff
Hi Casey,
It was just a loan model for the review - unfortunately we don't ge to keep the review models! I think SCV were quite keen to get it back as well, so I didn't get to hear it myself
Cheers!
Chris

####

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:16 pm
by dawman
I have read many reviews from SOS over the years.
I bought my Oberheim MC3000 from reading that review. It was a very accurate and enjoyable review.
I pay little attention to the soft synth reviews, or anything from Yamaha, Roland etc.
But a review on the Model 7 from Bricasti?
That's a mag I shall go and buy tonight.

####

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:00 pm
by Music Manic
Hey Warp is still around?
i thought you gave up for Scope?
I think Jimmy is keeping this board more alive that Sonicore

####

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:03 pm
by Warp69
Gave up Scope? Never. And besides that - Im using the Scope platform for all of my development.

> Music Manic wrote:Hey Warp is still around?
> i thought you gave up for Scope?
> I think Jimmy is keeping this board more alive that Sonicore

####

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:56 pm
by wayne

> Warp69 wrote:Gave up Scope? Never. And besides that - Im using the Scope platform for all of my development.

Happy to hear it, in every way
Can i re-plug your plugs? - Gang, if you ain't got P100, A100, CD100, I100, get 'em. Flagship stuff

####

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:23 am
by dawman
Since I got the P35 chipset I am gonna make the jump w/ the A100 / P100 combo.
Warp says it's the PCM91 that was used as the model, cool.
I will never get rid of the PCM91, but have already started to unload other hardware reverbs.
I only need 2 instances of DSP reverb to my live rig for the mix I desire, the PCM91 will use it's lush halls, and the A100 / P100 will add the other flavors of space required.
It will be like having 3 x Lexicon PCM91's running live. ......YES !!
Sadly most listeners other than a few will notice the beautiful additions, but I will, and that's what makes me want to keep gigging. My rig must sound awesome to me on stage or I become stale.
What happens when I finally reach Nirvana and cannot possibly get it to sound any better...? Well I will go woodshed and compose even more songs, so the sick cycle of my addictions will continue.
Or I will get a Model 7 from Bricasti and further retreat into my cocoon /. self-made heaven.

####

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:10 am
by Warp69
Hi Jimmy,
You should seriously consider the M7 - you cant compare the unit to the PCM91. After you have tried the M7 - you wont be using your Lexicon that much.
Lets make a test - do you have any wave files, so we could make a comparison? I'll supply the M7, 480L, QRS and the ADR68K sound - you supply the PCM91. Others could join.
What do you say?
Cheers

####

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 4:46 am
by astroman
the A100 is a great teamplayer
yesterday I had my Hoyer semi-acoustic through Ingo's little amp, Celmo's TapeSim into the A100 (at 6m). What a sound
cheers, Tom

####

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:13 am
by dawman
Tape Sim and A100. Cool.
I see I am not the only sick man.

####

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:33 am
by hifiboom

> Warp69 wrote:Hi Jimmy,
> You should seriously consider the M7 - you cant compare the unit to the PCM91. After you have tried the M7 - you wont be using your Lexicon that much.
> Lets make a test - do you have any wave files, so we could make a comparison? I'll supply the M7, 480L, QRS and the ADR68K sound - you supply the PCM91. Others could join.
> What do you say?
> Cheers

warp, this is a great idea.
Would be very nice to hear the units with different samples sounds.
Will you accept some wave files from me too?
(I can also offer hosting the samples for others easy listening)

####

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:50 am
by Warp69

> hifiboom wrote:Would be very nice to hear the units with different samples sounds.
> Will you accept some wave files from me too?

Ofcourse.
We should have some basic rules, like:
* Full spectrum mono file (or stereo file where the left channel is identical to the right) through both channels.
* Use of lossless format 44KHz - .wav
* Only Hall/Room presets
* Clearly defined parameter range, like: size=30m / rt60 = 3.2 sec / rolloff = 4.5KHz etc
Other suggestions?
Cheers

####

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:16 am
by hifiboom
jep, good points.
regarding the parameters for size and decay, I guess they all have slightly different results. So I would say, the parameters should be retweaked to get similar results to some sort of reference file.... (f.e. could be a 480L preset)
we could start with a very very short white noise burst to check the full spectrum response.
good for checking ER into LR blending, density and buildup. and then some real world stuff like some drum sounds, vocal, pad.
what do you think?

Attachments
  noise bursts.rar
    short and mid size noise snippets.
    (4.26 KiB) Downloaded 127 times

#### Small test

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 10:57 am
by Warp69
Hi,
@Hifiboom - I modified your files slightly for this test.
Right now - only 2 of the mentioned reverbs.
Hall preset - rt60 = 3.2 sec, Size = Medium to large, Rolloff = 3.5KHz.
Short noise burst :
www.relab.dk/reverb/1%20-%20short.wav
www.relab.dk/reverb/2%20-%20short.wav
Long noise burst:
www.relab.dk/reverb/1%20-%20long.wav
www.relab.dk/reverb/2%20-%20long.wav
I'll add more reverbs later.
Cheers

####

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:08 am
by Casey
Anybody else ever notice how hard white noise is on the ears?
For me, one week of white noise testing = two weeks of recovery before my hearing is back to normal!
-Casey

#### Re: Small test

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:52 am
by hifiboom

> Warp69 wrote:Hi,
> @Hifiboom - I modified your files slightly for this test.
> Cheers

sounds good so far...
maybe you can post the modified dry signals also. Just as reference
@casey, depends on how long you do these tests I mean 1 or 2 hours are okay, longer stuff may result in serious brain damage.
But you may get into bigger trouble when you have a grilfriend and you explain her, that you have no time because you need to do noise burst tests the next 2 days. haha

####

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:11 pm
by Warp69
Short noise burst:
www.relab.dk/reverb/3%20-%20short.wav
www.relab.dk/reverb/4%20-%20short.wav
Long noise burst:
www.relab.dk/reverb/3%20-%20long.wav
www.relab.dk/reverb/4%20-%20long.wav
I dont believe in "which reverb is .........", so here goes:
1) Bricasti M7
2) Lexicon 480L HD
3) Quantec QRS
4) AKG ADR68K
Cheers

####

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:33 pm
by Shroomz~>
Warp, this is really good of you to post these, so thanks a lot. Any chance of posting the dry modified noise files?

####

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:55 pm
by Warp69

> <~Shroomz~> wrote:Warp, this is really good of you to post these, so thanks a lot. Any chance of posting the dry modified noise files?

@Shroomz & Hifiboom: here you go:
http://www.relab.dk/reverb/Short%20burst.wav
http://www.relab.dk/reverb/Long%20burst.wav
I would also appreciate real sound files

####

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:13 pm
by hifiboom
warp, very much thanks for these demos...
Honestly, I think it was a great idea to do such a test,
not to find something like a "winner", but just have an objective reference of what these units can do.
no surprise, I have to say all units sound very good!
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)
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.
very nice.
btw is this 100% wet? I guess yes, but my ear may fool me... as its just a white noise snippet.
yes lets put in some real world sounds...

####

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:52 am
by Warp69
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

####

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 1:04 am
by Warp69

> 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

####

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 3:42 am
by chriskorff
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

####

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 7:46 am
by Warp69
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

####

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 9:06 am
by hifiboom

> 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.

Attachments
  808.rar
    (55.62 KiB) Downloaded 147 times

####

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:13 am
by Warp69

> 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

####

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:35 am
by Shroomz~>

> 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?

####

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 10:39 am
by dawman
Please keep this thread going.
These are such a value to me right now.

####

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:06 am
by Warp69

> <~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......

####

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:28 pm
by hifiboom

> 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.

####

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 12:45 pm
by Warp69

> 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

####

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 2:21 pm
by Shroomz~>
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

####

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:30 pm
by hifiboom

> <~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.

####

Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 1:35 pm
by hifiboom

> <~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.

####

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:09 am
by Shroomz~>
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.

####

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:14 am
by Warp69
Its the AKG ADR68K.

####

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:20 am
by Shroomz~>
Ah, ok. Tanks a lot Warp.

####

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:24 am
by Warp69
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.

####

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:27 am
by Shroomz~>
Which dry sample was it?

####

Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2008 10:36 am
by Warp69

> <~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

####

Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:59 pm
by Shroomz~>

> Warp69 wrote:3 allpass filters (in serie) in front of the algorithm and BAM......

Boy oh boy, does that sound good.
I made a mistake the first time I built an allpass filter & wasn't so sure, but when I got the allpass working right... WOW!!

####

Posted: Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:56 pm
by darkrezin
OK I'm coming into this thread rather late, and I know it's obviously developed quite far from what the original post was about.
But in reference to the original post - Jimmy, surely an Eventide H8000 is exactly what you describe. If anyone has a KSP-8, they probably settled for it because they couldn't afford the H8000. The Eventide verbs are pretty damn good but tend to get overlooked because it does so many other things really well, especially pitchshifting/harmonizing. As far as I know the H8000 has enough DSP power to actually use all 8 ins and outs fully. I don't have one myself but I will some day
Obviously the XITE-1 would be great for this sort of thing too, especially if SC sort out the DSP memory situation.
8 Bricastis wouldn't be bad either

####

Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 12:03 am
by Warp69

> <~Shroomz~> wrote: Boy oh boy, does that sound good.
> I made a mistake the first time I built an allpass filter & wasn't so sure, but when I got the allpass working right... WOW!!

In front of your own reverb?
As you can imagine - its quite easy to get density (more delay lines), but the problem is - it should still sound awesome

> drakrezin wrote: 8 Bricastis wouldn't be bad either

It would - but XITE would not be able to emulate 8 Bricasti's - maybe one if we're lucky.
The H8000FW doesn't have alot of DSP power - far from it infact. Lets wait for the H12000.
Cheers

####

Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:31 am
by Shroomz~>

> Warp69 wrote:In front of your own reverb?
> As you can imagine - its quite easy to get density (more delay lines), but the problem is - it should still sound awesome

Yes, it's ok though... only 35 people could have suffered any pain.

####

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:35 am
by dawman
The XITE-1 news came out after I wrote this thread.
I have changed my whole idea about hardware since then.
I remember the whole dual CPU, and multi-core hype from way back when AMD's and the Tyan Tiger were the talk of the town. The idea that apps would have twice the power was inaccurate, but the hype continued.
Scope having 14 times the power of a 15 DSP Pro card just seems like the same old hype to me, but if it is actually just 3 times the power in the real world results, that is worth it IMO.
Once I judge the investment myself, I will decide if hardware effects are even worth buying in the future. I still have my doubts until I actually have an XITE-1 installed and see it running in XP64 alongside of Gigastudio 4.
I have learned to become cynical in regards to marketing hype.
My bassist up in Tahoe has an Eventide H7600 for his live rig and it does have some incredible PS algo's. The reverbs are quite good also. He is sicker than I when gear is involved. His hand built 5 string Tobias w/ the Crest amp H7600, and cabinets is the sickest rig I have encountered for a bassist in a while.
The best effect other than the ET though is his Mutron pedal. That box is decades old and sounds so good.
How powerful is the M7 and the H12000 in terms of raw DSP's compared to XITE-1?

####

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:47 am
by hifiboom
when it comes to reverbs, i think the number of chips or power of the dsp used is by far not the most important thing...
You can built great stuff with small ressources also...
and you can also build bad sounding stuff using many dsps...
so the briscanti may be a top notch unit built around a cluster of high end chips and with its own top notch sound.
but I think its not a replacement of all other higer end reverb units, but just another great high end flavour, that makes a good living aside the other great high-class units.
its like with good friends: they are all different characters and you don`t like one more than the other.

####

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:22 am
by Warp69
I don't know what kind of power the H12000 will have, but the H8000 is not that powerful - it doesn't have the power of 14 DSPs (Scope board).
I agree - the algorithms from Eventide sound very nice.
The M7 is a beast, but I think XITE is more powerful - like around 1.5 times more powerful, but Im far from sure.
But no matter how powerful the XITE system is - you dont have the quality of the reverb from M7 or the pitchshifting (and delays) from the H8000.

####

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:08 am
by Shroomz~>
SC must be making new higher quality atoms for using in XITE, but I guess we might only get those if we buy XITE.

####

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:08 pm
by garyb
afaik, XCITE runs on the scope platform like any other scope card...

####

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 1:33 pm
by Shroomz~>
Hi Gary,
there isn't any clear info on this subject yet. At least, I haven't heard any either on or off list.

####

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:59 pm
by garyb
well, if XCITE runs on v5, and scope cards run on v5, then.......
you're right though, there are no guarantees until we see v5.

####

Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 11:21 pm
by dawman
I am curious why Eventide is such a more efficient modeller.
One would think that XITE-1 could do high quality PS'ing with all of that horsewpower.
I assume Brotha' Man Warp69 still frequents the shows and the forums because he might still have some tricks up his sleeve for us.
I cannot wait to see what we get this summer.
JV

####

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 6:23 am
by Warp69
Eventide is not more efficient at DSP coding than SC (Klaus) - far from it infact. H8000 doesn't support Synths, high quality EQ's (V5) and compressors. They do have EQ's and compressors, but nothing special.
They do however have awesome pitchshifters (the best) and some nice reverbs, which easily could be emulated.
Cheers

####

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:24 am
by dawman
Thanks Brotha' Man Warp69.
There Ya' Go.
The M7 seems to be the last piece of hardware to purchase.
It's so pricey I am taking a partner in it's purchasing
Casey must be proud, anyone who has ever heard it goes into elation.

####

Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:38 pm
by Warp69

> XITE-1/4LIVE wrote: The M7 seems to be the last piece of hardware to purchase.
> It's so pricey I am taking a partner in it's purchasing
> Casey must be proud, anyone who has ever heard it goes into elation.

He should be. He knows what he's doing - as mentioned before - he's a former Lexicon developer and worked on 480L etc.
The M7 is awesome - and he's working on an update for it - really looking forward to it.

####

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:11 am
by Warp69
Small update.
I used the Random Hall Algorithm from the Lexicons :
rt60 = 3.2 sec, Size = Medium to large, Rolloff = 3.5KHz.
Short noise burst :
www.relab.dk/reverb/1%20-%20short.wav (M7)
www.relab.dk/reverb/6%20-%20short.wav (480L)
www.relab.dk/reverb/7%20-%20short.wav (PCM91)
Long noise burst:
www.relab.dk/reverb/1%20-%20long.wav (M7)
www.relab.dk/reverb/6%20-%20long.wav (480L)
www.relab.dk/reverb/7%20-%20long.wav (PCM91)
Cheers

####

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:22 am
by Shroomz~>
So what's the random element/s in those Warp? Is it randomization of the decay slopes or filters?

####

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:05 am
by Warp69
Arh sorry - I meant : I used the Random Hall Algorihm.
But you're right - there're some "random" elements inside the algorithms - probably the most impressive modulation technique I have ever come across.

####

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:47 am
by hifiboom
warp, seriously ,
I think all these three sound top notch (480L, PCM91, M7)
form the sound samples none sound really better, but just slightly different.
The Lexicons maybe a bit more "audible" and "defined" in the tail (cloudy), while the M7 is slightly more layed back and a bit more subtile.

####

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:42 am
by Warp69
Hi,
You should be able to hear the difference in density - quite clearly infact. Non of the other touch the density of the M7.
If you compare the 480L and the PCM91 - then you can hear a smoother tail from the 480L - listen to long burst. Both Lexicons have that bright synthetic hiss in the begining, which aint present in the M7.
Oh and no one have supplied with real world sound clips - you cant judge a reverb by just noise burst.
Both the 480L and M7 sound top notch, but the PCM91 aint in the same league (listen to the tail in the long burst test). After some time, you begin to really appreciate the density of the M7. This is a hall test and I do believe that the M7 sounds alot more like a hall than the Lexicons.
Cheers

####

Posted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:42 pm
by hifiboom
Hi warp,

> Warp69 wrote:Hi,
> You should be able to hear the difference in density - quite clearly infact. Non of the other touch the density of the M7.

I think they all end up with high density. The difference IMO between the 3 is that the briscanti has the full density almost right from the start.
I wouldn`t say more density is always better. The 480L has more a growup of density, which may be important for a big size illusion.( in the first milliseconds...)
Whereas on the briscanti samples there really is no growup of density, more or less just in amplitude. It seems to have one ultra dense soundfield through the complete tail.

> Warp69 wrote: If you compare the 480L and the PCM91 - then you can hear a smoother tail from the 480L - listen to long burst.

to me the density seems similar. but the 480L seems to have a different filter architecture or something that makes it sound "deeper" and "heavier. Could be also something regarding implementation of the Lexicon bass tail multiplier in the 480L.... ?
I think the algos are almost the same, but they have a little difference inside it that makes a huge difference at the end.
But I think there is no bigger difference reagrding the density of the 480L and PCM91. But my ears could possibly fool me.

> Both Lexicons have that bright synthetic hiss in the begining, which aint present in the M7.

yes, but that may be important to grab into the dry sound and make dry and wet become "one thing".
On the Lexicons you cannot hear the end of the dry sound and the beginning of the wet part. Whereas on the M7 you can hear it. IMO its a matter of taste.
But from the burst demos, its likely that the M7 does not do the "cloudy wash" reverb the lexicons are famous for.

> Both the 480L and M7 sound top notch, but the PCM91 aint in the same league (listen to the tail in the long burst test). After some time, you begin to really appreciate the density of the M7. This is a hall test and I do believe that the M7 sounds alot more like a hall than the Lexicons.

From the very few samples I have heard so far, it seems that the M7 and the Lexicon units are rather a complement instead of a substitute.
I think I need all soon or later.

####

Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:48 am
by Shroomz~>

Attachments
    The world's leading investigator of reverb ponders the 3 units intensely. The cigar is a must for concentration.
    cigars43.jpg (8.75 KiB) Viewed 744 times