Author: Eric Oehler

Senior Engineer

Founder and owner of Submersible Studios, Eric enjoys talking about microphones and buying audio software he doesn't especially need. He also spends an awful lot of time with a RTA and a reference mic trying to get the acoustics of the studio juuuust right.

Categories
Articles and Opinions Software, Plugins and Gear

Cheap Reverbs

About 5 years ago, Logic released “Space Designer” as a default plugin with Logic. While it wasn’t the first convolution reverb, it was the one that launched a reverb arms race – suddenly, convolution reverbs were all the rage, and everyone had to have one.  Not only did reverb plugins appear, but samplers and synths started coming with their own convolution reverbs built-in.

And you know what? Convolution reverbs are great. They’re awesome for creating realistic room sounds (and for doing other things, too. They’re remarkable flexible).

Of course, there’s one problem – realistic room sounds aren’t always good room sounds.  People still pined for the oft-grainy,  sizzly, but often lush sounds of an old-fashioned algorithmic reverb, because quite often, they just sounded nicely musical.  Certainly, hardware units by Bricasti and Lexicon weren’t exactly losing tons of sales.  Plus, finding an impulse-response recording for just the exact room you wanted wasn’t always easy.   And convolution can get processor intensive – not a problem if you’re recording a 5-track band, but for those with high track counts and differing spatial needs for each one, it could add up quick.

So the algo-verb started making a comeback.  Lexicon, unspurpsingly had a few entries in the market, as did Eventide.  Then players like Native Instruments got in on the game with their Softube partnership.  Many of these were emulations of classic hardware units. Most clocked in around $200.

Then a strange thing started happening, or at least, strange for the world of audio plugins.  A few vendors cropped up offering high-quality algorithmic reverbs, not modelled on any specific units, for startlingly low prices.

Two in particular have caught my eye – ValhallaDSP and AudioDamage.  AudioDamage has been around for a while, and are known for making a wide variety of unusual, interesting effects and synths that you didn’t know you needed until you bought them.  ValhallaDSP is just a guy who likes doing DSP.  The interesting crossover here is that AudioDamage’s algorithmic reverb plugin was in fact partially written by Sean Costello, who went off to found Valhalla.  So there’s some DNA shared here.

I did a quick shootout of several of these plugins, all grouped by the fact that they each cost $50.

ValhallaDSP ValhallaRoom: a more traditional room-simulation reverb.  It comes with a startlingly large variety of spatial algorithms, including some cheekily-named spaces called “Sulaco”, “Nostromo” and “LV-426.”  The user interface is large, colorful and friendly, and looks like something from a Star Trek control panel (that may not sound like a big deal, but a straightforward UI  makes a big difference in the time it takes to dial in a sound.

ValhallaDSP ValhallaVintageVerb: VVV is probably closer to the “classic gear” emulator.    In addition to its array of emulation algortihms, it has three separate “colors” – “now”, “1980s” and “1970s”, which simulate the reverbs of the respective eras by truncating the bandwidth of the reverberations and changing the modulation.  1970 is more band-limited than 1980 or now, and has a grainy quality; 1980 is darker with a slightly more digital edge to it, and “now” is smoother and fuller  but with less character.  This was clearly designed less as a “space simulator” and more as a “character” addition to a track.

AudioDamage Eos: the first of the low-cost algorithmic verbs to really it the virtual shelves, It combines a simple, straightforward UI with some novel approaches to reverberation.  It sports only three modes – P1 (mono plate), P2 (stereo plate) and “SH” (Super Hall).  I’ve used Eos a lot on the latest record,  and while superhall is the big selling point of the plugin, the Plate sounds remarkably good and has that lovely whooshy graininess that’s perfect for echoey trance stabs.

To my ears, ValhallaRoom comes out on top as the most useful “swiss army knife” reverb processor.  It’s clean, smooth and lush without being overwhelming or artificial sounding. VintageVerb is excellent, but inhabits a strange space of cool-sounding effects that won’t work for everyone, but work extraordinarily well when they do.  Eos is a ittle more bread-and-butter but also a bit harder to control and a slight bit more artificial-sounding; perhaps a better comparison would’ve been the superhall with the valhallaDSP “ValhallaShimmer” plugin, which is a more, well, shimmery Brian-Eno-ish large-space simulator.    Frankly, though, any one of these plugins are kind of ludicrously well-valued at $50.  They hold their own against  more expensive products and even sampled reverbs.  This does raise the question of just what you’re getting when you spend $200 for an algorithmic reverb plugin.  The cynic in me thinks the name on the badge is an extra $100 right there.

I recorded a brief snippet, a piano loop through each reverb with roughly the same settings – it’s impossible to match them 1:1 but I tried to come pretty close – large room, 10s decay, 30ms predelay, 50% mix, approximately the same cutoff and boost values.  First is ValhallaRoom, followed by VVV in each of “now”, “1980” and “1970” modes, followed by Eos, then Logic’s stock “PlatinumVerb” and Space Designer (using a 10s synthesized IR).

EDITED TO ADD: This has stunningly gotten picked up by a few places I didn’t expect to even notice it.  And, unfortunately has gotten a bit more, uh, hyperbolic language surrounding it than I expected either.  Just for the record, this is by no means a comprehensive shootout, nor am I comparing them directly with more expensive reverb units – just demonstrating that there are a bunch of good $50 reverbs out there that sound pretty damn good, and can hold their own against some of the more hyped ones. Nor is the audio file supposed to be comprehensive, just an example so you can hear the reverb tails.

[soundcloud url=”http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/96027636″ params=”” width=” 100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

Categories
news

Now, on Vinyl!

So. We’ve started mastering for vinyl. We don’t make our own lacquers or anything, but we now do all the wacky stuff one needs to do to make audio that doesn’t, you know, make the needle leap out of the groove of a 7″ or the cutting lathe melt down to a pile of slag because of bass phase problems.

It’s a surprisingly complex operation.

So yeah, if you’re thinking of having your release put on 12″, give us a shout. Our prices are reasonable.

Categories
About Mastering Articles and Opinions

Evaluating Your Mastering Job

Most mastering engineers I know give a client at the very least the opportunity to preview the kind of work they do – whether that’s a single track as an example of what they intend to do or the first pass of the whole job depends on the engineer, but nonetheless, it’s a pretty standard practice.

However, not everybody really knows what to listen for.  It can be like asking someone wearing dark sunglasses what they think about the color of the curtains – they’ve got a vague idea of what’s going on but aren’t really sure what they’re looking at.

Overall, it’s pretty subjective.  There are a few objective criteria but most mastering engineers worth their salt will get that right regardless.  Additionally, a mastering job can often be very subtle, so if you’re not really listening for something very specific, the masterer’s work might not sound terribly obvious.

Still, on a broader scope, there are things to listen for that any musician can grasp pretty intuitively:

  • Is it consistent?  Any good mastering engineer strives to make every song on an album sound like it belongs with every other song, whether that’s by loudness or EQ or overall feel.  Sometimes, though, consistency is in the eye of the beholder.  A compilation, for example, or even an artist that switches styles a lot, can provide a challenge – what the artist (or compiler) thinks is consistent might not be the same as what the engineer (who may not have any familiarity with the genres or styles) thinks is consistent
  • How are the dynamics? Despite the whole issue of the Loudness War and the pros and cons of compression and limiting, it’s still pretty much a given that anything handed to an engineer is going to get at least a little compression or limiting to level things out and change the overall perceived loudness of a track.  The overall extent of this, though, is generally left to the artists to decide, though.  I can easily take a track up to a mean RMS of +10db (K-14) – that’s very loud.  Most artists may not want that.  I can keep it at a mean RMS of +5db (K-14) with a very high crest factor – that’s quiet and very dynamic.  A lot of artists won’t want that either.  Some artists, particularly in dance, WILL want a high mean RMS at the expense of dynamic range.  Jazz artists might very well want a very low RMS and high dynamics, even at the cost of some pleasing “glue.”  A lot of it depends on the song too.  Do you want it to sound open and airy or dense and punchy, or something else entirely?  A mastering engineer will have opinions and generally a pretty good sense of where to go on this, just based on experience, but it can still be intensely personal (or even dependent on application).
  • Does it match your goal for the sound?  Since digital signal processing has made a lot more “sounds” possible than in the past, a lot of mastering engineers have a wider palette to work with – without being tied to just one hardwired signal chain, they can re-route and emulate as need be (although not all of them do.  Abbey Road, for example, has a killer mastering service and they use the same sort of bespoke gear they’ve been using for decades.  But they have a “sound” all their own too).   As such, the result may not actually be what you’re looking for.  I once had a mastering job that I found to be rather harsh and cold, so I gave it a very warm analog sound, as I thought fit the material – but the client came back to me and said “well, that’s really nice, but I was looking for this to sound abrasive and noisy.”  In short, my polishing of the material was exactly the opposite of what the client wanted, and their harsh, digital sound was intentional and not just the result of their gear.  This comes down to intuition and opinion – the engineer may do what he thinks is right for the material, but that may not be what the artist intended.  Some of this can be alleviated before the process even starts, with communication of the end goal, but as is often the case with art, these things aren’t always obvious.

For the most part, what you as a client will be evaluating from your mastering engineer will be simply be how much what you get back lines up with your eventual vision.  The engineer will have to make decisions based on how well the mix will translate across sound systems, how it will stack up on the eventual release with other tracks, and other such choices that could affect how you want the track to be perceived.  Usually, it’s a pretty transparent process of just putting the final shine on the whole album, but in the end, as the client, you have the final say.