I don't know about that -"They are simply the same algorithms. Same sound."

For me it is the same algorithms, different sound.

It shouldn't make any difference if it is FireWire or AES.

Have you tried doing randomized blind tests? For example, with Hofa's free randomized blind test plugin:

https://hofa-plugins.de/en/shop/free.../4u-blindtest/

Good plugin, and I have it.

But, the question is why would I do that?

First - I hear that they sound different. But read below, please.

Second - it was explained by designer as well as Sean Castello why plugin sounds so different from the hardware.

It is even more strange to talk about again as they were replying to Elambo's question

Per Michael it was a difference between parameters even if it was the same preset title:

‘But as I've said many times, the software matches the hardware. There may be some reference level differences on the DA/AD that cause apparent sonic differences, but once that's accounted for, they should really sound the same or very very close’.

Here's what Sean Costello wrote: "The PCM96 is a totally different story. It was programmed on a very high speed 32-bit floating point processor (TigerSHARC). Any differences between the hardware and the PCM96 plugins was either a difference in features/parameters, an error, or a bug fix when porting to the plugin. There is literally no magic mojo in a TigerSHARC - it's just a high speed floating point number cruncher."

In other words: if there is any difference, it's not from any analog mojo, though it *could* be an error, or differently set parameters.

And here's what Michael Carnes wrote: "There's apparently a video critique in which the video maker claims the plugins don't match the PCM96. I'm afraid he made the mistake of not checking to assure he was comparing the same algorithms. Parameters are not identical between the algorithms on either the box or the plugs, so it's easy for even an experienced person not to notice just where they are. But as I've said many times, the software matches the hardware. There may be some reference level differences on the DA/AD that cause apparent sonic differences, but once that's accounted for, they should really sound the same or very very close."

So if I'm understanding that correctly Carnes seems to be suggesting that the DA/AD doesn't add significant saturation or character, just a difference in level.

But there is a difference

Theoretically they should sound the same.

My top used reverbs:

Tai Chi
EA Symphony
EA Stratus
and lately Softube Dimensions

It can be shockingly easy to think there's a significant difference in the audio when there's not. Especially when you expect one to sound better.

A gain-matched, randomized blind test can help determine if the perceived difference really is from the audio and not from your expectations. And do the blind test at least a few times to rule out lucky guesses. The plugin is free and a brief audio example should suffice.

Oh yes I'm very familiar. Had them since they were new. I bought most of Exponential's products.

Sometimes you need hardware

While I've used the PCM Native bundle I'm glad I never bought it myself.

Riight..

GBP and I, we hear the difference, elambo doesn't, although as far as I remember he tried to match presets with Michael Carnes himself and it didn't work.

I guess the best way is you try it on your own with your PCM 96 and PCM Native.

I spend a lot of time working with different reverb units, both hardware and software. So, of course I do have a strong opinion. And I'll keep in mind your suggestion, thank you.

Supermassive anyone?

The presets Michael and I tried to match were between the 960L and the PCM. Not surprisingly, the results did not match in most cases. Sometimes the result of the 960 was better, sometimes it was the PCM. We knew going in that they wouldn't match -- he was being kind to help me migrate, as closely as possible, a handful of custom presets I'd made for the 960.

There are reasons why the sound coming through the monitors may sound different between the 96 hardware and PCM software but again, and this time to quote Sean: "Any differences between the hardware and the PCM96 plugins was either a difference in features/parameters, an error, or a bug fix when porting to the plugin."

And as Michael has now been quoted above, and as I'd attempted to reiterate earlier, presets don't always match between the two platforms. This alone could explain any perceived differences. Though I suspect that something else is at play, digitally or psychologically.

Whatever the case, that topic wasn't resolved for some people way back in that original thread but it was resolved for me, so, as with then, I'm moving on.

The takeaway point being that anyone buying the hardware should not expect it to magically sound better than the plugins. In either case you'd be getting a great reverb.

I freaking love it

I fully understand that sentiment, but it's a shame that anyone would need to feel that way. A shame because they're great products, lost by corporate neglect, as happens far too often in audio. And now it's a package people want nothing to do with, because it's slowly becoming a ghost.

Thank you for reminding that it was 960L, I had a wrong impression it was PCM96.

For me difference in sound was significant enough to notice. But again, I like both, plugin and hardware, and I have use for both, too.

And yes, I read all the above, and I had talks with Sean about different reverb, I don't have any doubts regarding his knowledge, he is incredible sharp and smart person.

PCM96 was a very nice discovery

A great reverb, even today, and that's all that matters.

I've been enjoying using the iamreverb plugin. Just done this video playing some guitar I'd recorded a while back through it. As mentioned in the vid, they seem to be using a method pretty much as described in an article in this month's (April '25) Soundonsound, which describes using 3 different reverbs to create a realistic sense of depth. It's certainly not cheap, but I personally think it sounds very good.

https://youtu.be/Dx-E22QV-zw

My favourites of my many reverbs are:
EWQL Spaces II
Exponential R4
UAD EMT 140
UAD Lexicon 480
Softube TSAR-1

I mostly use VSS4, but you're suggesting VSS3? Agree with these ratings?

Mostly mixing dialogue, effects and only just getting in to music mixing.

Favorites

• Valhalla Room
• Fabfilter Pro-R2
• Stratus
• Acon Digital Verberate Immersive v2
• Valhalla Vintage Verb
• Klanghelm Tens
• and many more but those are my most used

It's mostly about fast results.

Got a bunch of good plates too, which I really like from Soundtoys, Arturia and Blackrooster. I'll likely try those out more for music though. From time to time an impulse loader will show up, mostly for effects.

Acon Verberate 2 seems to be an underrated reverb. I have many others but I picked this up recently in a bundle with the Acoustica editor. It has a nice, simple interface.

For plates at the moment I am using the Iconic intrruments SP140 and GF240. I'd forgotton about these for a while but rediscovered them. Well worth checking out. I have UAD, Arturia and BR plates but these 2 stand out to me.

That SOS article was by me, I even mentioned that technique in this very thread some dozens of pages ago. Beautiful playing in your video as always, have to check out the plugin.

I have too many reverb plugins to bother listing them and yet still struggle to get excited about most of em.

But the other day I 'accidentally' picked up the TC 8210 verb on a sale and I am rather delighted. It's sort of unspectacular. And extremely useful. Seems all the algos are actually useful somewhere and the balance of functions and workflow is great. Fast. And once you dial down to send amount to where it feels like 'that's juuust enough' it sort of disappears. Until you mute the return and realise most of the sound was the verb. I don't get that many plug verbs doing this trick that well. Was a standard experience/expectation with decent verb, but with plugs I often get 'no, that's too much, about there...." and then if you mute it still not sure how effective it actually was at creating extra goodness, or whether it just plastic washed the source.

Recommended plug, this. Really surprisingly cool tool.

All Valhalla ones.

Pretty much any reverb out there, I can match or beat with Valhalla.

Ah fantastic, thanks JSchlomo - that was a great article in SOS on using the 3 reverbs. Bit off-topic from reverbs but other SOS articles I've enjoyed reading of yours in the past include 'The Value Of Hardware In The Studio' (https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-a...ardware-studio) and 'Musical Mixing' (https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/musical-mixing).

Back to reverbs - yes, iamReverb's approach seems similar, philosophically anyway, to the one you outlined in the article . I do wish it was a bit less expensive! - but it's very good imo. There's no doubt a few pennies could be saved though by adopting your approach instead!

I dont think u can match TC 3/4/nonlin2
Not saying TC is better, but different

I have to agree. I was pleasantly surprised the first time I heard the 8210. It's not the best in any category but for some reason it pleases the ears very much. I never used it in a mix but imagine it would play well with many genres.

That's the other thing, it seems very style agnostic. Just creates useful space around instruments.

Thanx so much for the kind words, much appreciated! iamreverb looks really interesting and I will for sure check it out, but the last thing I plan to spend money on is reverbs, tbh. I have so many already and in the end, combining the approach from the article with some character reverbs from Sunset Sound is what I use on 95% of my mixes, whatever the genre.

Match in the extremely literal sense, no. But create effective gated reverb sounds that in a mix effectively recreate the nonlin2 sound? VVV absolutely can. And at the end end of the day(mix) that's all that has ever really mattered to me, anyway.