Quantcast
PCM96 surround or Bricasti - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
PCM96 surround or Bricasti
Old 2nd February 2009
  #1
Gear Addict
 
Rickard's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
PCM96 surround or Bricasti

I am torn. I have enough money for one or the other. They are around the same price but I get essentially 2 reverbs with the PCM96 surround. I will be using the digital I/O not firewire so surround looks like the deal if I choose Lexicon.
So is the Bricasti a better sounding unit?

Dean
Old 2nd February 2009
  #2
Gear Addict
 
toasteh's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Bricasti by far kicks the ass of any other reverb market today. The PCM96 is very nice to, and you got to love the Plug-in mode. However, I heard this is still very buggy and lots of people have issues with both software and computers crashing when its in use. Not funny when you havent saved your project for a while.

Hope that helped
Old 2nd February 2009
  #3
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
i have both. the 96 is cool, but the m7 is one of those units that you'll kick yourself later for not getting. i'm talkin' serious sluttiness. i've owned (or used) every major reverb of the last 20 years and i can safely say there's never been anything like the bricasti before. it's one of those pieces of gear that'll be talked about forever, 'cause it rules. btw- the v2 update is supposedly coming along this spring and it focuses on lush verbs, delays - y'know... effect-y effects. so basically they're gonna beat lexicon at their own game. how do i know, you ask? because the sound of the m7 is sick and the dudes who designed this machine are brilliant. i have the utmost confidence in this unit.... as you can tell.
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #4
Registered User
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Gloves ➡️
so basically they're gonna beat lexicon at their own game.
So they are coming out with a plug-in to control it Protools too?
FWIW that last 2 revs of the Lexicon plug-in have worked great for me, they had a shaky start but I have no issues with it so far.
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #5
Lives for gear
 
kittonian's Avatar
I personally don't use the Lex in FW mode but have mine hooked up via Ethernet. The plug-ins work just fine for me with the latest software revision and I have complete remote control and automation over the PCM96 and I run an AES snake to/from my Aurora to get it in/out of PT.
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #6
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipass ➡️
So they are coming out with a plug-in to control it Protools too?
FWIW that last 2 revs of the Lexicon plug-in have worked great for me, they had a shaky start but I have no issues with it so far.
i have no idea; i record onto 2-inch analog tape. incidentally, i heard the 96 was pretty buggy with pro tools anyway. btw- i'm not trying to bash the 96 or anything, i think it's a very nice unit (after all, i did buy one), but i really believe the bricasti to be the future of reverb. that's all.
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #7
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by kittonian ➡️
I personally don't use the Lex in FW mode but have mine hooked up via Ethernet. The plug-ins work just fine for me with the latest software revision and I have complete remote control and automation over the PCM96 and I run an AES snake to/from my Aurora to get it in/out of PT.
Does this mean you can run the 96 in plugin mode (2 stereo verbs) over Ethernet instead of firewire?

I'm waiting for delivery of mine, and I'm hoping to figure out the least glitchy way to connect it to my MacPro.

(Yeah, I'd love a Bricasti too... but you don't see many of those on eBay... at least not yet.)
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #8
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by toasteh ➡️
Bricasti by far kicks the ass of any other reverb market today. The PCM96 is very nice to, and you got to love the Plug-in mode. However, I heard this is still very buggy and lots of people have issues with both software and computers crashing when its in use. Not funny when you havent saved your project for a while.

Hope that helped
And you have none of these problems with the Bricasti because they don't have any software plug-in functionality in the first place. I really wonder sometimes about the logic in posts like above. How do you save your Bricasti presets in your project?

To the OP: Don't listen to the hype and throwing around of catch phrases here. Go get you those units for testing and test them within your environment. Everyone has different ideas when it comes to which reverb kicks ass for what.

The Bricasti has more raw DSP power. As how this power makes a difference and is audible in your application only you must decide since the truth of the pudding is in the listening.

The 96 surround has two stereo engines with I/O and the Bricasti only one.
But if you don't like the 96 you wouldn't want it twice, would you?

Have you read all the thousands of threads about this subject here already?
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #9
Lives for gear
 
kittonian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeBasement ➡️
Does this mean you can run the 96 in plugin mode (2 stereo verbs) over Ethernet instead of firewire?

I'm waiting for delivery of mine, and I'm hoping to figure out the least glitchy way to connect it to my MacPro.

(Yeah, I'd love a Bricasti too... but you don't see many of those on eBay... at least not yet.)
Over FW you get both plug-in control and audio over the single FW cable. When you use Ethernet, you get the control but you must use either analog or digital i/o to send/receive the audio. You're basically remote controlling the PCM96 over Ethernet and nothing more (which is exactly how I like it).

Only with the Surround will you get the two independent stereo engines controllable from the front panel. On the regular PCM96 you can obtain this over FW only.
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #10
Lives for gear
 
Adebar's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
If you are looking for reverbs like the Bricasti or Lexicon you also should consider the Yardstick. With the new ones like 2492 and 2496 (also 2498) it is possible to have several plug ins on the same units. I tested the last version in complex mode and have to say I´m overwelmed. It is not only very natural sounding, it is also very dense and you can hear realisitc interfernces which happen also in real big rooms like.

Before that new version I tended to use the Yardstick as main reverb for my mix (acoustic music mostly) and often took a TC Reverb 4000 or Yamaha SPX2000 for vocals and sometimes solo instruments. On my last mix with the newest version ther was no need for these 2. The sound of the Yardstick was dense and lifely and worked great on vocals too.
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #11
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adebar ➡️
If you are looking for reverbs like the Bricasti or Lexicon you also should consider the Yardstick. With the new ones like 2492 and 2496 (also 2498) it is possible to have several plug ins on the same units. I tested the last version in complex mode and have to say I´m overwelmed. It is not only very natural sounding, it is also very dense and you can hear realisitc interfernces which happen also in real big rooms like.

...
I never understood, why anyone would like to model "real rooms" in a parametric reverb except for foley and dialogue in movies.

For music "real rooms" are compromises, not ideal spaces. Artificial reverb should be better than real rooms, like rooms that are ideal acoustically but could never be built because of physical and economical limits.
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #12
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum ➡️
I never understood, why anyone would like to model "real rooms" in a parametric reverb except for foley and dialog in movies.

For music "real rooms" are compromises, not ideal spaces. Artificial reverb should be better than real rooms, like rooms that are ideal acoustically but could never be built because of physical and economical limits.
dude, they're not modeling ratty apartment bedrooms and low-rent studios and your parents' basement; these are important, high-quality spaces being modeled - ones that would be otherwise unavailable - like concert halls, top studio spaces, authentic echo chambers, empty rooms of tile and wood, etc. basically, you can travel all over the world to the finest spaces in existence with the push of a button. that's why people like realistic reverb.

and just a bit of info for you to think about: all reverbs were originally intended to emulate "real" spaces. due to technological limitations, though, we ended up with something altogether new: super lush reverbs with gooey tails and surreal presence. they became fashionable, due to their unique sound. and don't get me wrong; i LOVE that type of verb too, but it's pretty great to finally have true-to-life spaces that enhance your sound tremendously.
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #13
Gear Guru
 
elambo's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum ➡️
For music "real rooms" are compromises, not ideal spaces.
Compromises only because the vast majority of reverb users don't have the luxury of recording drums, or whatever, in a beautiful REAL room, so the "emulation" goes a long way towards getting that same end result. That's the point. Much of engineering is making the best out of the compromises we're able to use.
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #14
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I just did rough mixes of 4 tunes, using the Bricasti on one set and the pcm 96 on the other. I only had the Bricasti for a day, so it's hard to draw definite conclusions, and in fact at this moment I'm on the fence. My general sense is that the Bricasti is amazing at blending everything into the same acoustic environment. It's easier to image, to slide tracks behind each other, etc. Some people recommend using the short reverbs to add girth to the tracks, but I just mixed using one sort of medium room setting for everything. Everything falls into place beautifully.

With the pcm 96 I also mixed everything using one overall program. I'm more familiar with Lex verbs and am used to using them to create an artificial space, a sort of bigger than life illusion, and the pcm delivers that in spades. Things don't fall into place quite so automatically, and sometimes requires some fiddling with eq on the tracks or riding levels differently to get things to poke out or sit back properly.

So it was hard to do an objective comparison, because I had to mix differently for each verb, and in evaluating the tracks it's hard to tell if one is just a better mix than the other or if the verb makes a difference. But I do have some impressions that have been reinforced. Whereas the M7 can easily create an all-in-one-room convincingness, it isn't necessarily a bigger than life room. Perhaps I needed more than a day to explore further. It works especially well on acoustic instruments, leaving them situated nicely in space with little additional color. That's the good news and the bad news. It's nice to be able to float an erhu behind a clawhammer banjo and hear each instrument distinctly, but the resulting overall track or impression, to my ears, seems small and perhaps too polite. Today I might try adding some tape saturation plugins to my printed reverb returns to see if I can pump it up a bit.

As for the PCM 96, to me it's just a better version of the technology I've worked with for years. I got totally hosed by the firewire implementation (or lack thereof), and still can't make it work after a week of updates. But acoustically, the Lex is great for creating a bigger than life sound and plays into the illusion of how music should sound that we've all known for years. That too is a double edged sword, and you have to consider what you're trying to accomplish and choose your tool accordingly.

The biggest problem I have in mixing in Protools is making things pop, grow, project forward, achieve distinction. The Lex certainly helps this whereas the Bricasti, to me, does nothing to make things sound less in-the-box. However, the latter's clarity and razor sharp command of space is still very attractive.

BTW, I have nothing but thumbs up for the guys at Bricasti, and for Joshua Aaron, my pcm 96 dealer, for their support. Smart guys all around and wanting to do the best for you.

(I should just admit to my sluttiness and get both.)

-R
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #15
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Gloves ➡️
dude, they're not modeling ratty apartment bedrooms and low-rent studios and your parents' basement; these are important, high-quality spaces being modeled - ones that would be otherwise unavailable - like concert halls, top studio spaces, authentic echo chambers, empty rooms of tile and wood, etc. basically, you can travel all over the world to the finest spaces in existence with the push of a button. that's why people like realistic reverb.
.
Perhaps they need to model the lighting as well. To my ears, some of the rooms. even the famous ones, sound a bit fluorescent.

-R
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #16
Lives for gear
 
Tube World's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
To me, it's almost like saying just I get a Neve or API pre? Their both great and they both have a different character. So which ever character you like better is the one to go for. Of course with the reverbs, there are more features and things to look at as well. Me, I would go with the Lex, but that's just me. Thousands of records have been made with the Lex sound that I love
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #17
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Gloves ➡️
dude, they're not modeling ratty apartment bedrooms and low-rent studios and your parents' basement; these are important, high-quality spaces being modeled - ones that would be otherwise unavailable - like concert halls, top studio spaces, authentic echo chambers, empty rooms of tile and wood, etc. basically, you can travel all over the world to the finest spaces in existence with the push of a button. that's why people like realistic reverb.

...
dude, I recorded in some of the greatest halls in the world and have been listening to music in even more of them. They all are compromises. They are built to accommodate a certain amount of people and a certain number of musicians. Architects and Acoustic experts have done their best to make these rooms sound as good within the constraints of real world physics and real world budgets.

In virtual reverb you can go beyond that...
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #18
Gear Guru
 
thethrillfactor's Avatar
 
4 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Gloves ➡️
dude, they're not modeling ratty apartment bedrooms and low-rent studios and your parents' basement;.
Actually you want or need this kind of reverb sound sound times. Its actually what i love about the Ursa Space Station. It can give you the sound or feel of a band rehearsing in their parents garage.
Old 2nd February 2009 | Show parent
  #19
Lives for gear
 
Adebar's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman ➡️

So it was hard to do an objective comparison, because I had to mix differently for each verb, and in evaluating the tracks it's hard to tell if one is just a better mix than the other or if the verb makes a difference.
Great post RKrizman - all of what you have written! I just quoted the sentence above which makes one point very clear:

You can´t compare reverbs just by processing a sound through different units like Bricasti, Lex or Yardstick and uploading the files here in gearslutz. Hearing these files may be intersting, but with every of these boxes you have to work in a real mix to realize its real quality.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #20
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum ➡️
dude, I recorded in some of the greatest halls in the world and have been listening to music in even more of them. They all are compromises. They are built to accommodate a certain amount of people and a certain number of musicians. Architects and Acoustic experts have done their best to make these rooms sound as good within the constraints of real world physics and real world budgets.

In virtual reverb you can go beyond that...
of course you can go beyond the physical world in virtual reverb; that's why it exists and you have easy access to it if you'd like to employ it in your recordings. you are saying that you don't understand why realistic modeling reverb is done, which implies that it's somehow inferior and should not exist. that's like saying "milk, or milk substitute, should not exist because chocolate milk is a better, more evolved version of milk." it's just a matter of opinion, based on your own personal desire to achieve certain sounds.

now think about it more open-mindedly: you, personally, don't want to sound like you're in a real space, because you prefer a surreal space; well, other people might prefer a real space instead. it's just a matter of preference, you see. not everyone wants to sound like they're reverberating in space or an exaggerated, nonexistent place all the time. quite often, people want to create the illusion that they're recording someplace they aren't really located (a boston concert hall, for example). rather than travel to boston, this person might select "boston concert hall" on their machine, so everything they record will sound like it was recorded in this particular boston concert hall without any additional effects - because, you see, the real place is the effect itself!

so, as you can see, these "compromised" spaces, as you call them, are often desirable for exactly what they are. before digital reverb machines, people used to use real echo chambers and various rooms for their natural reverb qualities. this is what realistic reverb is all about. obviously this type of sound doesn't appeal to you, as you seem to prefer surreal reverb exclusively (i happen to prefer both), but it's a great triumph of technology to be able to emulate these natural spaces with such detail and clarity. now if you'll excuse me, i'm gonna go have some chocolate milk.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #21
Moderator
 
TonyBelmont's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by toasteh ➡️
Bricasti by far kicks the ass of any other reverb market today.


The Bricasti is an incredible sounding unit.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #22
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adebar ➡️
You can´t compare reverbs just by processing a sound through different units like Bricasti, Lex or Yardstick and uploading the files here in gearslutz. Hearing these files may be intersting, but with every of these boxes you have to work in a real mix to realize its real quality.
Exactly. That's why I didn't post my files.

-R
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #23
Gear Addict
 
Rickard's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Thanks for the input from everyone. I think the only thing I've decided is that I can't lose with either of these boxes.

Dean
Old 3rd February 2009
  #24
Lives for gear
 
audiomichael's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I don't really find them directly comparable, because it's not a subtle difference between the two. It's like what's better La2a or 1176.

That said; I think the Bricasti guys have pushed reverb technology to the next level. It does something I've never another verb do. The added depth and room realism is astonishing.

The Lex96 I think is right now the pinnacle of wide, lush, swirly verbs. When the Lexicon is at it's best, you hear it's lovely wide gooshy tails. When the Bricasti is at it's best, you wont notice it. It'll sound like a nicer recording.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Adebar's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audiomichael ➡️
The Bricasti guys have pushed reverb technology to the next level ...
When the Bricasti is at it's best, you wont notice it. It'll sound like a nicer recording.
That´s what the Yardstick does for years.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #26
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Gloves ➡️
of course you can go beyond the physical world in virtual reverb; that's why it exists and you have easy access to it if you'd like to employ it in your recordings. you are saying that you don't understand why realistic modeling reverb is done, which implies that it's somehow inferior and should not exist. that's like saying "milk, or milk substitute, should not exist because chocolate milk is a better, more evolved version of milk." it's just a matter of opinion, based on your own personal desire to achieve certain sounds.

now think about it more open-mindedly: you, personally, don't want to sound like you're in a real space, because you prefer a surreal space; well, other people might prefer a real space instead. it's just a matter of preference, you see. not everyone wants to sound like they're reverberating in space or an exaggerated, nonexistent place all the time. quite often, people want to create the illusion that they're recording someplace they aren't really located (a boston concert hall, for example). rather than travel to boston, this person might select "boston concert hall" on their machine, so everything they record will sound like it was recorded in this particular boston concert hall without any additional effects - because, you see, the real place is the effect itself!

so, as you can see, these "compromised" spaces, as you call them, are often desirable for exactly what they are. before digital reverb machines, people used to use real echo chambers and various rooms for their natural reverb qualities. this is what realistic reverb is all about. obviously this type of sound doesn't appeal to you, as you seem to prefer surreal reverb exclusively (i happen to prefer both), but it's a great triumph of technology to be able to emulate these natural spaces with such detail and clarity. now if you'll excuse me, i'm gonna go have some chocolate milk.
You are missing the point completely.
Neither do I say real room sound is inferior nor that it should not exist. It can be useful in audio. All I'm saying is that marketing lingo trying to sell "realism" as the peak of what is achievable in reverb simulation is misguiding the potential customer.
When you dial in "Boston Hall" you get a virtual reverb that is not the real thing but taking the best(hopefully) from real world plus adding improvements that make the sound of that hall translate better to an artificial two speaker reproduction.

When a real space sounds good for anyone being there, that does not mean it sounds good through two loudspeakers! Remember that in a real room the reflected sound reaches you from all directions. With loudspeakers all the sound reaches you from two points(plus their interaction with the usually much smaller listening room).
Creating the same effect of spaciousness, envelopment, frontal to lateral distribution of reflected energy etc. in a hall requires totally different measures than creating the same effect through two speakers in an average living room.

The only way of 1:1 transfer of room sound to speakers is through impulse responses and convolution and many find this approach lacking if it comes to envelopment and spaciousness.

If you want to bring a real space to your room the closest you can get with todays technology is with Wave field synthesis, which is far out of reach for the consumer.

For the consumer we have 5.x surround which is MUCH better, but still not "the real space".

So as a designer of reverb algorithms you are looking at two challenges:
1.) What does it need to translate the acoustic properties of a real space to two loudspeaker reproduction. What are the strengths that should be emphasized, what are the weaknesses that should be worked around.
2.) This is not the limit but we could try to find what is good for the music, building the ideal hall for certain applications virtually from scratch rather than imitating real world halls. That requires a lot of experience and knowledge about music, acoustics and psychoacoustics though...

Enjoy your milk.
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #27
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Great post, great analysis. Yes, we're in the business of creating illusions so it's rare that any piece of gear can achieve any "moral high ground" by being more "real". that's always just one of many factors, and always an approximation at best.

That said, I've decided that the only way to truly resolve this dilemma is to own both.

(My name is Rick, and I'm a gearslut....)

-R
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #28
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by RKrizman ➡️
I just did rough mixes of 4 tunes, using the Bricasti on one set and the pcm 96 on the other.

<SNIP>

So it was hard to do an objective comparison, because I had to mix differently for each verb, and in evaluating the tracks it's hard to tell if one is just a better mix than the other or if the verb makes a difference. But I do have some impressions that have been reinforced. Whereas the M7 can easily create an all-in-one-room convincingness, it isn't necessarily a bigger than life room.

<SNIP>

As for the PCM 96, to me it's just a better version of the technology I've worked with for years. I got totally hosed by the firewire implementation (or lack thereof), and still can't make it work after a week of updates. But acoustically, the Lex is great for creating a bigger than life sound and plays into the illusion of how music should sound that we've all known for years. That too is a double edged sword, and you have to consider what you're trying to accomplish and choose your tool accordingly.

The biggest problem I have in mixing in Protools is making things pop, grow, project forward, achieve distinction. The Lex certainly helps this whereas the Bricasti, to me, does nothing to make things sound less in-the-box. However, the latter's clarity and razor sharp command of space is still very attractive.

BTW, I have nothing but thumbs up for the guys at Bricasti, and for Joshua Aaron, my pcm 96 dealer, for their support. Smart guys all around and wanting to do the best for you.

(I should just admit to my sluttiness and get both.)

-R
Remember, we used the Bricasti as the main verb on the Angel City Project. With several of the things that we did there, it took a bit to get used to the new way of working, but in the end, it worked well.

On that album, if you remember, we used the Bricasti to make a room that the music would exist in. The Choir and the basic instrumental mix fit there. However, the Lex 300 was used on a plate to create more of the "effect" sound to make some of the music pop- this was especially true on the Bluegrass and Gospel tunes. Lastly, on some of the vocals, the UAD EMT 140 Plate emulation was used. Once again, using the effect for what is good at.

The Bricasti created a room that had a control that we couldn't get live. The Lex and UAD EMT helped create a bit more of the "vibe" that complete honesty doesn't give you.

In some other mixes, I played around with the Bricasti's plate. It was very impressive as well and had a completely different feel than the Rooms and Halls gave. Unforunately on the ACC project, we could only use one sound at a time and I felt that the hall gave us something that nothing else could come close to.

Also, keep in mind that Casey has told us of version 2.0 which will leave the realm of honesty and bring in some of the vibe that people used to the older Lexicon are used to.

Then again- you can never have too many quality reverb/effect sounds. Be a slut and get one of each. heh

--Ben
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
RKrizman's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifthcircle ➡️
Then again- you can never have too many quality reverb/effect sounds. Be a slut and get one of each. heh

--Ben
Well......I did

-R
Old 3rd February 2009 | Show parent
  #30
Gear Nut
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by audio ergo sum ➡️
You are missing the point completely.
Neither do I say real room sound is inferior nor that it should not exist. It can be useful in audio. All I'm saying is that marketing lingo trying to sell "realism" as the peak of what is achievable in reverb simulation is misguiding the potential customer.
When you dial in "Boston Hall" you get a virtual reverb that is not the real thing but taking the best(hopefully) from real world plus adding improvements that make the sound of that hall translate better to an artificial two speaker reproduction.

When a real space sounds good for anyone being there, that does not mean it sounds good through two loudspeakers! Remember that in a real room the reflected sound reaches you from all directions. With loudspeakers all the sound reaches you from two points(plus their interaction with the usually much smaller listening room).
Creating the same effect of spaciousness, envelopment, frontal to lateral distribution of reflected energy etc. in a hall requires totally different measures than creating the same effect through two speakers in an average living room.

The only way of 1:1 transfer of room sound to speakers is through impulse responses and convolution and many find this approach lacking if it comes to envelopment and spaciousness.

If you want to bring a real space to your room the closest you can get with todays technology is with Wave field synthesis, which is far out of reach for the consumer.

For the consumer we have 5.x surround which is MUCH better, but still not "the real space".

So as a designer of reverb algorithms you are looking at two challenges:
1.) What does it need to translate the acoustic properties of a real space to two loudspeaker reproduction. What are the strengths that should be emphasized, what are the weaknesses that should be worked around.
2.) This is not the limit but we could try to find what is good for the music, building the ideal hall for certain applications virtually from scratch rather than imitating real world halls. That requires a lot of experience and knowledge about music, acoustics and psychoacoustics though...

Enjoy your milk.
i understand what you're saying now. incidentally, the bricasti does manage to sound realistic even without surround sound capabilities. my PCM96 is the surround model and, while i think it sounds cool, i don't feel it's completely necessary for recording music. i view surround sound as an "extra"; a special feature, if you will. 2-channel stereo sound has been the standard for so long that we're trained to appreciate various aspects of sound in that light. if a vocal sounds like it was recorded in a tile room, it's going to sound like that whether any way you hear it - it's all about the effect's stamp on the sound itself. it may sound more three-dimensional with surround capabilities, but to be honest, i'm more a fan of traditional soundscapes. nevertheless, i like both the M7 and the PCM96, but IMO the bricasti is a more progressive, important reverb unit; one that will continue to be praised for its complexity and ingenuity. i'm also looking forward to the v2 upgrade, so i can have the best of both worlds with bricasti sound.
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 55 views: 5097
Avatar for synthetic
synthetic 4th October 2008
replies: 4175 views: 718307
Avatar for Firechild
Firechild 2 weeks ago
replies: 295 views: 73944
Avatar for anguswoodhead
anguswoodhead 26th March 2013
replies: 1296 views: 181234
Avatar for heraldo_jones
heraldo_jones 1st February 2016
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump