Any pros out there compare the SIR convolution reverb to the original
sources?

Thoughts?

johnnyB wrote in message . ..
Any pros out there compare the SIR convolution reverb to the original
sources?

Thoughts?

It does exactly (and I mean literally sample for sample) what the
Sonic Foundry convolution reverb does, and probably exactly what the
other similar ones do.
It uses a fixed and rather large buffer of 16384 samples that makes it
a bit combersome, but also allows it to run more really long reverbs
in real-time compared to the Sonic Foundry plug-in.

The problem is, as always, the lack of high quality reverb signatures.
There are a ****load of free impulse files out there, but most have
been made with baloon pops or starter pistols, and all have been made
with low quality gear.
The lack of quality signatures have almost made me consider buying a
Mac just for Altiverb.

Magnus Jansén

I'm no pro but from what I've heard pro's say, if the impulses are
properly recorded, they will sound EXACTLY like the hardware units,
the only problems with SIR are its high latency and CPU usage.

johnnyB wrote in message . ..
Any pros out there compare the SIR convolution reverb to the original
sources?

Thoughts?

SIR is excellent at what it does. But its the lack of decent IR's from
natural spaces that is a big problem for convolution reverb at present.
Natural space IR's are the real intellectual property of convolution reverb
and there is almost no quality signals in the public domain. Properly
recorded IR's from the great concert halls passed through SIR will leave any
of the electronic black boxes in the dust, for realism, quality and sweet
misty natural reverb.

David

"philicorda" wrote in message
...

"Liquori" wrote in message
om...
I'm no pro but from what I've heard pro's say, if the impulses are
properly recorded, they will sound EXACTLY like the hardware units,
the only problems with SIR are its high latency and CPU usage.

They do sound like the hardware units, just more 'static' sounding.
As the sampled impulse is only a particular snapshot of a reverbs output,
so
randomising factors like spin, wander, early reflection wobbling etc can
not
be recreated.
On the really good hardware reverb boxes there is often subtle movement
going on, so you never get the same respose to an impulse twice. Sounds
more
natural.
Also, you can't alter decay times other than applying an envelope to the
impulse, which is not quite the same thing.

I am a fan of convolving reverbs, so don't think I am being negative, but
prefer to use them with impulses of real spaces.




johnnyB wrote in message
. ..
Any pros out there compare the SIR convolution reverb to the original
sources?

Thoughts?