What is the BEST Reverb Software?
- Thread starter barefoot
- Start date
sjoko2 - the unit's main chip is a powerPC - I don't think these were specificly designed for audio (The card as a whole of course is). It is pretty clear that the included pci card is basicly just extra dsp. It has a different instruction set than the standard intel chipset (probably just a variation on the powerpc instruction set), but that's where it ends. It is not running it's own operating system. It comunicates with your PC's operating system through a driver - just like a printer, CD ROM, soundcard or whatever.
That the algorithms are in software is idicated by the fact that TCWorks are allowing third parties to write their own plugins that would also run on the card.
I also question the assertion that the card has DSP capabilities 3 to 4 X a top of the line Pentium PC. I'd have to see comparison stats to prove this.
All this aside - it still looks like a good buy. It is priced about the same as the Waves bundle - which does not come with xtra dsp. Also, the fact that the algorithms run in software means that they can easily be upgraded.
Software is a set of instructions. Hardware is a circuit which executes instructions. As sonixx pointed out, even some external hardware effects boxes have a software component. This why you can easily upgrade and add new algorithms. The extent of the algorithm that exists in software varies from unit to unit.
That the algorithms are in software is idicated by the fact that TCWorks are allowing third parties to write their own plugins that would also run on the card.
I also question the assertion that the card has DSP capabilities 3 to 4 X a top of the line Pentium PC. I'd have to see comparison stats to prove this.
All this aside - it still looks like a good buy. It is priced about the same as the Waves bundle - which does not come with xtra dsp. Also, the fact that the algorithms run in software means that they can easily be upgraded.
Software is a set of instructions. Hardware is a circuit which executes instructions. As sonixx pointed out, even some external hardware effects boxes have a software component. This why you can easily upgrade and add new algorithms. The extent of the algorithm that exists in software varies from unit to unit.
Sonixx
New member
yep, your computer is really SW. you can have all of the HW you want but without the SW, it's of no use. you can run the same SW on any number of different HW platforms. what we care about here is the SW algorithm. from this viewpoint a TC Powercore and native plugin are equals but what makes them sound different is the algorithm not the HW.sjoko2 said:
when you stated TC Powercore = HW, well yea, but the HW could be any number of DSP chips or GP CPU's. the SW design (i.e. algorithms) is what's going to determine the sound and quality, not the HW. now algorithms are scaled to run in realtime based on HW, and the TC Powercore probably takes advantage of dedicated DSPs, but it's still a SW reverb or effects processor.
also, when some speak of HW reverb units (digital ones), this is a misnomer. they're really refering to a SW based reverb unit that's normally running a DSP of some kind in a box. it's still SW, just like a Native reverb plugin. one more point, SW that's embedded in a HW reverb is really called firmware. firmware is SW that's been loaded on non-volitale memory or memory with battery backup, as is the case for ALL HW reverb units without disc drive access.
sjoko2
New member
*grin* guys guys, why are you so desperately trying to disprove things I say 
The powercore has a PC chip - yup, definately. That runs the cards own, dedicated operating system.
The PC chip does NOT process the audio, that is done by four Motorola DSP56K chips. Each one of these chips has four 24 bit busses, in wich certain instructions make it possible to link 2 of the chips internal busses to create a 48 bit buss. These chips have been designed specifically for audio.
Oh well, why bother explaining details? Just listen to the thing, and believe whatever you wish.
The powercore has a PC chip - yup, definately. That runs the cards own, dedicated operating system.
The PC chip does NOT process the audio, that is done by four Motorola DSP56K chips. Each one of these chips has four 24 bit busses, in wich certain instructions make it possible to link 2 of the chips internal busses to create a 48 bit buss. These chips have been designed specifically for audio.
Oh well, why bother explaining details? Just listen to the thing, and believe whatever you wish.
sjoko2, where are you getting this info about the dedicated OS?
Whatever the hardware this is running on, it could do exactly the same thing, with no degredation of quality (but perhaps not in real-time), using the PC's CPU. For example, some of the waves plugins process internally at 48bit even though they run on 32bit Hardware. What it all comes down to is that the hardware is just a tool to make the thing run faster.
I wish I could, but it seems I'd have to buy it first.
Dolemite
New member
A DSP is basically a highly specialized microprocessor designed to process certain mathematically intensive operations very quickly - usually with the goal of real time operation with respect to input and output.
Whereas a typical CPU is reasonably flexible, DSPs can only perform a limited set of operations, but they generally can perform these operations at a higher speed than CPUs. At the very least, dedicated DSPs in a computer free the CPU to do other operations. Often the CPU could perform these operations, but it is either not practical or simply advantageous to do them on a DSP.
In an audio processing application, I'm not aware of any DSP effects that could not be duplicated on any modern CPU. However, because the DSP might be able to do in N^2 time what the CPU does in N^4 (or worse) with respect to input size N, CPUs would not be able to run as many plugins as a DSP, or in extreme cases, might not be able to run a plugin in real time.
I not aware of the performance requirements of the TC Works plugins, but rest assured that if the same code was compiled to run on a CPU, they would sound the same.
Digital is absolute.
Whereas a typical CPU is reasonably flexible, DSPs can only perform a limited set of operations, but they generally can perform these operations at a higher speed than CPUs. At the very least, dedicated DSPs in a computer free the CPU to do other operations. Often the CPU could perform these operations, but it is either not practical or simply advantageous to do them on a DSP.
In an audio processing application, I'm not aware of any DSP effects that could not be duplicated on any modern CPU. However, because the DSP might be able to do in N^2 time what the CPU does in N^4 (or worse) with respect to input size N, CPUs would not be able to run as many plugins as a DSP, or in extreme cases, might not be able to run a plugin in real time.
I not aware of the performance requirements of the TC Works plugins, but rest assured that if the same code was compiled to run on a CPU, they would sound the same.
Digital is absolute.
knownuttin
New member
Sonitus Ultrafunk Reverb gets my bang for buck vote. I don't hold it up as "better than" anything in particular. It is very tweakable, sounds surprisingly good for software, is not the resource hog that some are, and is reasonably priced.
-kent
-kent
CyanJaguar
New member
"In an audio processing application, I'm not aware of any DSP effects that could not be duplicated on any modern CPU. However, because the DSP might be able to do in N^2 time what the CPU does in N^4 (or worse) with respect to input size N, CPUs would not be able to run as many plugins as a DSP, or in extreme cases, might not be able to run a plugin in real time. "
------------------------------
So if it's a more complex algorythm, your native cpu can still do it, it will only take much longer. I was under the impression that the reason dedicated dsp-oriented cards like the TC Works were invented was because it could do much more complex computations. You can tell I'm not much of a "digital guy."
------------------------------
So if it's a more complex algorythm, your native cpu can still do it, it will only take much longer. I was under the impression that the reason dedicated dsp-oriented cards like the TC Works were invented was because it could do much more complex computations. You can tell I'm not much of a "digital guy."
What software are you comparing it to? The only software verbs I've heard that sound usable are RVerb and ReverbX - there's a big distinction between those and other well thought of reverbs like TC Native.
I Have a lex mpx-200 (which I think is better than lxp-1). I think RVerb and ReverbX sound better. I have to admit though that I haven't tried mixing through it - so it isn't a serious comparison.
It's only in the last year or so that Reverb plugins started sounding good enough to challenge the low end hardware stuff. I think in the next two years we can expect them to challange the higher end - like the PCM91. I hope so anyway - plugins are much more convenient.
With PC CPU performance increasing so rapidly, more specialized hardware is going to have a hard time keeping up. Can't wait till we all switch to 64bit.
CyanJaguar
New member
I have used a lot of plugin reverbs.
tc native reverb
rverb
sonic foundry reverb
freeverb
trueverb
The lxp leaves them all in the water.
tc native reverb
rverb
sonic foundry reverb
freeverb
trueverb
The lxp leaves them all in the water.
Dolemite
New member
chessrock said:
Yep, either it would monopolize the CPU, or if its too intensive to run in real time, it would have to be "applied" and then processed in non-real time.
I was under the impression that the reason dedicated dsp-oriented cards like the TC Works were invented was because it could do much more complex computations. You can tell I'm not much of a "digital guy."
Well, to a CPU these computations might be called "complex" but more accurately, "floating-point intensive." The instructions themselves are relatively simple, but because they're repeated at least for each sample, and may require several instructions per sample in a steady stream of audio (especially on a CPU) it can become a big job depending on the complexity of the processing. The CPU is undoubtedly a more flexible/complex processor...but again the specialization of DSPs is the main advantage.
Personally, I don't much like the lexicon mpx-200. It processes internally at 24bit. The lxp-1 processes internally at only 16 bit. I think they both work at 44.1K sample rate. A good reverb plugin processes internally at 32bit and can work at up to 96K sample rate I realize there's alot more to the equation, but this would give the plugins an advantage. About the verbs on your list, freeverb and trueverb are nothing to write home about. TC Native is only good in that it isn't very CPU itensive. Sonic Foundry I know nothing about. But you didn't like RVerb either?