The Sound Board

East West Spaces-II Released !

http://www.soundsonline.com/spaces-II

I’m sure it’s a fine ‘verb, but for 300 bucks I’d be looking at Lexicon products.

Lawrence wrote: ↑Jul 25, 2018 9:42 pm I’m sure it’s a fine ‘verb, but for 300 bucks I’d be looking at Lexicon products.

If you have Spaces (the original), you can upgrade to the new Spaces II for $149.00

Lexicon Reverbs are mostly Algorithmic, that's what they are known for, not sure if they offer a convolution/IR based Reverb like Spaces.

Ya, don’t have the original, and yes, different animals.

More IRs and pretty pictures?

The thing I'm disappointed about is that, as with Spaces I, there's no ER provision. They've really missed a trick to make Spaces your one stop orchestral spatial shop.

Needless to say, anyone who thinks the asking price a bit high, it'll be 50% off within 12 months.

I have Altiverb 7. If spaces was available for Altiverb, I would be interested. The control possibilities still seem kind of non-existent in Spaces 2. in Altiverb you can do a lot more in terms of customisation of the each IR.

Guy Rowland wrote: ↑Jul 26, 2018 3:49 am The thing I'm disappointed about is that, as with Spaces I, there's no ER provision. They've really missed a trick to make Spaces your one stop orchestral spatial shop.

If I am not mistaken the idea is to use one of the short warehouse impulses for the ER's (the ACME Storage in Spaces I. Now apparently there is another option in Spaces II).

FriFlo wrote: ↑Jul 26, 2018 4:03 am The control possibilities still seem kind of non-existent in Spaces 2.

Doug explained his thinking on this recently. He said that people are used to having a lot of controls from algorithmic reverbs, and now they are expecting the same of convolution reverbs. In his opinion, however, changing parameters of Impulse Responses does not sound good. That's why there are no controls other than changing the reverb time. And that's why there are no ER's, which is basically chopping off a part of an IR.

I don't know if it's true that changing aspects of IR's does not sound good usually. In any case it seems that Altiverb does not agree with this assessment.

Linos wrote: ↑Jul 26, 2018 5:08 amAnd that's why there are no ER's, which is basically chopping off a part of an IR.

The process of getting an ER should be irrelevant really. The fact is that it is needed, it seems a very bizarre argument to hide behind. That said, FriFlo says there are a couple in there, but it seems at best a bit of an afterthought.

There's still so much confusion over this whole area, I think what was needed is 2 sections in Spaces, the ER and the Tail, one place where you can set both parameters. In actual fact I think I'd always use 2 separate reverbs as its the best workflow for me with resource use, but reading around the forums its still pretty clear that there's very little understanding about how you need different amounts of both depending on what libraries you're working with.

One day I'll do a video just on this very subject having 4 or 5 totally different libraries and showing how relatively easily they can sit together just using pan, ER and Tail. While it may lack the precision of the likes of SPAT, it really can do an extraordinarily good job.

Long tangent below

*****************************************************************************************
Such a video would be interesting indeed. I have a setup I am happy with, but the more I think about it the less clear it becomes. Any impulse response captured in a hall will have captured the early reflections as well, wouldn't it? Why is it important, then, to separately add early reflections?

What I think a lot of people are doing is adding ER's from a smaller space, like a studio, and after that adding a tail from a larger space like a concert hall or a church. At least theoretically that is a mistake, it's either one or the other. The reason being that in a larger space the ERs are much less pronounced and diffused with the tail. In small spaces early reflections are more pronounced because the walls are closer. I think many people are using pronounced early reflections, and then add a pronounced tail (concert hall or church), simply because you can clearly hear the effect of each step that way. Theoretically that is dubious, because the ERs hint at a smaller space when the tail is that of a large space.

If the above is true, that means that samples recorded in a small space have actually more ERs baked in than samples recorded in a large hall. To get them to blend with the large hall samples you'd actually have to reduce the ER's on these samples (which is not possible, of course) before adding a tail. When everyobody is doing the exact opposite, and the results sound good. Confusing.

At least in theory when trying to simulate a larger space early reflections become less relevant, or even detrimental if too much of them is added. But maybe this standpoint is too theoretical, and it sounds just more spacious if done in an 'unnatural' way. If the results are good there is no need for a scientific approach. On the other hand there are so many theories and opinions floating around that it is slightly difficult to stay on top of things.

You see I am confused about this topic. I'm simply doing what sounds about right and don't overcomplicate things for my own reverb setups. But I am curious to hear how you approach reverberation.
******************************************************************************************

[TANGENET CONTINUES]
Me too - I'm just doing what sounds right. I don't know the ins and out of the ER impulse responses, but for me in practice I use ER as "distance from the microphone", even though I realise that's going to be a con, an aural trick. Pre-Synchron VSL is all essentially totally dry, so the cornet player sounds like she's blasting in your ear. With just tail, she still sounds like she's blasting you in your ear, only now you're in a big hall. The ER makes her back off to a sensible distance, it makes the sound more diffuse. Like I say, I don't know the theory very well here, but just like you I go by my ears - that's the effect of a short IR to me.

East West's Hollywood series, or LASS, have that distance from the mic thing all baked in - the room itself sounds essentially dry, but its already at a pleasing balance so I don't use any ER on those typically, just tail. I'm not sure how VSL was recorded in the silent stage, even if their mics were rigged as a Decca Tree, they sound like they're right in front of the instruments.

So its purely pragmatic, not a real reflection of how the tools themselves were made but for me:

Pan - spatial orientation L to R
ER - distance from the listener
Tail - size and shape of the hall

And I adjust each library to compensate for the amount of each criteria that is baked into the samples.

But like I say, I think some people get so enamoured with Whatever Famous Hall but haven't grasped that's only part of the picture. Spaces would be all you need if you were just running the EW Hollywood series, but if you need to blend dry you need more tools, hence my mild haurrumphing

[TANGENT ON TANGENT]
What I think VSL should have done rather than the Synchron range is to get into more advanced spatial modelling. I don't have MIR, but I'm thinking of something far more sophisticated than that or even SPAT. Here's my thinking - if you take a microphone in front of a trumpet in Air Studios, then take a master mix, feed both in a computer and say "make A = B" 10,000 times, machine learning may be able to produce an algorithm that works - not just usual reverb parameters, but somehow making what was thin and reedy into a full fat lovely mix (as opposed to thin and reedy with space around it). I have a feeling each instrument would need a different algorithm.
[/TANGENT ON TANGENT]
[/TANGENT]

Tangent goes on

********************************************
Interesting thoughts Guy. Your concept for an algorithmic reverb sounds intriguing - kind of similar to Sample Modeling but for impulses. I don't know if it is valid, though I don't see why it should not. The Synchron-concept makes sense for VSL I guess, as it is not only about the libraries, but about having a recording venue for film music that integrates with the libraries.
What I really don't get is the Synchronizing of their VI libraries. That's such a step backwards. Less articulations, no spacial flexibility. And in my opinion it devalues MIR - if MIR and the Synchron roompack work, what would you need that Sychronizing for? It's a lot less flexibel than what MIR could to too.
********************************************

Has anybody already tried Spaces II? I would be interested to hear how the new impulses are, especially the ones with instrument specific profiles.

I did earlier this afternoon (CC subscriber) but not for long.
I just noodled with VSL's WW (the standard SE) and thought it sounded quite decent for no reverb tweaking at all.

I doubt it's of much interest but if you're curious: https://app.box.com/s/k9xs814d3q30um2k3fxy7dus2tk9vpnp
(just Leg EH, Flute & Alto flute ; no CC, no EQ, no ER… IR was Burbank Scoring Stage 2.1s)

edit: which iirc was in the 'instruments / solo' folder)

Thanks PhJ. Sounds nice indeed.

I said it before when I worked for EW and now that I don't I still will. The day I swapped out my Altiverb 7 instances for Spaces my mixes sounded less muddy.

Ashermusic wrote: ↑Jul 27, 2018 7:20 am I said it before when I worked for EW and now that I don't I still will. The day I swapped out my Altiverb 7 instances for Spaces my mixes sounded less muddy.

I presume that's due to the IRs? Sorta stretches credulity to be that the engine of one would be superior to the other.

FWIW, I've never thought the engine matters at all assuming its from a half decent developer, save for convenience or CPU use (and if you need any bells and whistles which personally I don't). To me the appeal of Spaces has always been a variety of good IRs that work in the context of orchestral music, something like Altiverb has a much broader range of spaces, but isn't focused on orchestral music in the same way.

Ashermusic wrote: ↑Jul 27, 2018 7:20 am I said it before when I worked for EW and now that I don't I still will. The day I swapped out my Altiverb 7 instances for Spaces my mixes sounded less muddy.

I’d have to agree. I sold my Altiverb years ago and never regretted it. Granted I tend to use my hi-end outboard hardware for most projects but SPACES is so clear I tend to use it, and the LEXI software if I’m using software solutions.

Guy Rowland wrote: ↑Jul 27, 2018 10:28 am

Ashermusic wrote: ↑Jul 27, 2018 7:20 am I said it before when I worked for EW and now that I don't I still will. The day I swapped out my Altiverb 7 instances for Spaces my mixes sounded less muddy.

I presume that's due to the IRs? Sorta stretches credulity to be that the engine of one would be superior to the other.

FWIW, I've never thought the engine matters at all assuming its from a half decent developer, save for convenience or CPU use (and if you need any bells and whistles which personally I don't). To me the appeal of Spaces has always been a variety of good IRs that work in the context of orchestral music, something like Altiverb has a much broader range of spaces, but isn't focused on orchestral music in the same way.

What Nick told me at the time was that:

1. He rented these massive speakers to pump huge amounts of air into the venue and recorded with the best gear in terms of mics, pres,etc.

2. That yes, the engine DOES make a difference and that all those controls Altiverb gave you took up power that came at a sonic degradation, and that was why he wanted it to be so simple.

He just wanted it to sound amazing and to my ears, it has and does.

For my budget and projects, I don’t know that I need Spaces having Space Designer in Logic.

Jay, do you feel Spaces is a huge improvement over Logic’s SD?

Ok, one little niggle with EW’s website. I was just visiting, getting some info and they have these damn little pop ups on the bottom corner; “Bob Smith just ordered Spaces for download” I have to x to get rid of it, only to have another one pop up. Not really a big deal, but I find it annoying. I don’t care whose buying Spaces and don’t need the pop ups. Also the Trailer doesn’t play on my iPad.

Either way, at $300, this is pretty low on my list.
Cheers!

PhJ wrote: ↑Jul 26, 2018 3:53 pm I did earlier this afternoon (CC subscriber) but not for long.
I just noodled with VSL's WW (the standard SE) and thought it sounded quite decent for no reverb tweaking at all.

I doubt it's of much interest but if you're curious: https://app.box.com/s/k9xs814d3q30um2k3fxy7dus2tk9vpnp
(just Leg EH, Flute & Alto flute ; no CC, no EQ, no ER… IR was Burbank Scoring Stage 2.1s)

edit: which iirc was in the 'instruments / solo' folder)

Thanks for the demo. Sounds very good.

For the upgrade price for old Space I users, I prefer to buy HDCart (around 199$) and wait if they (EW) lower the price in a year.

kpc wrote: ↑Jul 28, 2018 10:29 am For my budget and projects, I don’t know that I need Spaces having Space Designer in Logic.

Jay, do you feel Spaces is a huge improvement over Logic’s SD?

Huge? I dunno. Significant? Yes.

kpc wrote: ↑Jul 28, 2018 10:44 am Ok, one little niggle with EW’s website. I was just visiting, getting some info and they have these damn little pop ups on the bottom corner; “Bob Smith just ordered Spaces for download” I have to x to get rid of it, only to have another one pop up. Not really a big deal, but I find it annoying. I don’t care whose buying Spaces and don’t need the pop ups.

Agreed.

PhJ,That is a lovely little line you wrote for that demo.
I really liked this.
g.c.

Ashermusic wrote: ↑Jul 28, 2018 8:57 am(...) That yes, the engine DOES make a difference and that all those controls Altiverb gave you took up power that came at a sonic degradation, and that was why he wanted it to be so simple. (...)

.
By itself and if used wisely, Altiverb is *never* the reason for any increase in muddyness in a mix. What is true though is that the first generation of AudioEase's IR's wasn't uniformly top notch; some of those older IR's being indeed quite boomy and several of them having a poor stereo balance as well. In more recent times however, say, the last 5 years or so, nearly every single addition to Altiverb's IR-collection has been impeccable.

Another thing however that, in my opinion, doesn't show Altiverb in the best light, is its built-in positioner which, if you're not *very* careful, will quickly produce results that suffer from that one big problem which nearly all IR-based spatialization is prone to suffer from: bad phase alignment (giving you that ugly, hollow, thin, faintly whirly sound).
I might be wrong about this, but in my view, IRs don't lend themselves very well to complex spatialization and positioning processes because, for that to work, one needs to adjust the timing, balance and tone of the sides of the IR's stereo signal differently, and it only takes one wrong calculation or poor adjustment for that oh-so-fragile phase alignment to come unstuck and the sound to deteriorate instantly. The first two versions of VSS (Parallax Virtual Sound Stage), for example, struggle(d) very much with this — I'm curious to learn if they found a solution in the forthcoming v3 — and, judging by some of the mixes I've heard, even VSL's MIR isn't entirely risk-free in this respect.
I'm not suggesting that these tools will always produce bad sound, far from it, I'm just saying that the risk of getting bad sound is greater than with algorithmic spatializers.

All of which is also the reason why I completely agree with Doug and Nick when they say that an IR-based device is best kept as simple as possible, offering only an absolute minimum of options for the user to mess with the IR's integrity.
If you use Altiverb like that — simply load a good IR and don't fiddle too much with the on-board editing options — there is absolutely no reason to doubt the quality of its output.

_