RV7000 is highly under rated
Stock DAW plugins tend to be criminally under rated generally speaking. But back when I got some 3rd party reverb plug-ins I tended to over use them. Over the past year I realised I can get very close to the sound of many of these other plugins just using an RV7000 and save CPU cycles at the same time. It’s a really outstanding reverb in its own right. Sounds just as good as the Lexicon 480L if you ask me.
Agree, RV7000 is a very nice reverb. Have the same exeperience. I use RV7000 almost to all reverbs.
- Marco Raaphorst
- Posts: 2504
- Joined: 22 Jan 2015
- Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
- Contact:
yes, and you can simply sample (using IR techniques) other reverbs and use them in the RV7000.
-
- Posts: 275
- Joined: 14 Mar 2017
I agree, still use it in literally every tune, go to send...I also use DR1 almost every time so the RV is never alone though...
-
- Posts: 728
- Joined: 05 Sep 2017
I think I mentioned this in a (troll?) thread in reply to someone who said Reason devices all sound bad. The RV7000 is not the best at everything but it is an excellent and versatile reverb. Pre-eq it a little to roll off top and bottom and take care of any unwanted mushiness.
If you need very specific sounds you can add a couple of "character" verb plugins to fill the gaps, and you are pretty much set.
If you need very specific sounds you can add a couple of "character" verb plugins to fill the gaps, and you are pretty much set.
-
- Posts: 275
- Joined: 14 Mar 2017
With the emphasis on excellent and versatile. I truly have no other reverb device that can do as much as the RV...chaosroyale wrote: ↑08 Jan 2018I think I mentioned this in a (troll?) thread in reply to someone who said Reason devices all sound bad. The RV7000 is not the best at everything but it is an excellent and versatile reverb.
No I don't have Blackhole.
- CaliforniaBurrito
- Posts: 574
- Joined: 11 Nov 2015
- Location: San Diego, CA
- Contact:
Blackhole is more of a special fx generator for me more than a traditional reverb.
I still love the RV7000 myself.
I sometimes need a clean and clear reverb such as TSR1, or a natural sounding convolution, but more often prefer the "lexicon" type of color/noise/weirdness. The 224 was the first digital reverb I learned, followed by the 480 and then my first personal purchase of the PCM 70. I mention these to show my obvious bias towards that more synthetic sound over natural "clean" reverbs, which should be no surprise as I like synthetic sounds as much (and sometimes more) than natural sounds - but still need BOTH for my work!
Selig Audio, LLC
- EnochLight
- Moderator
- Posts: 8407
- Joined: 17 Jan 2015
- Location: Imladris
I love the RV7000. It's based on hardware reverbs like the Lexicon 480L, TC Electronic Reverb 6000 and AMS RMX-16 and still sounds fuck'n fantastic, today, 15 years after it came out.miscend wrote: ↑08 Jan 2018Stock DAW plugins tend to be criminally under rated generally speaking. But back when I got some 3rd party reverb plug-ins I tended to over use them. Over the past year I realised I can get very close to the sound of many of these other plugins just using an RV7000 and save CPU cycles at the same time. It’s a really outstanding reverb in its own right. Sounds just as good as the Lexicon 480L if you ask me.
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite | Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD
I think you never tried 480L then. Did you really? Or you are used to hear 480 IR samples on internet?
I am very intimate with reverbs and i tried i think every plugin which ever existed on this planet (actually not kidding). I had one real 480 for 11 years (i also had 224) and i sold it because of financial problems back then. Closest thing i ever heard is Relab LX480 (http://relabdevelopment.com/product/lx480-complete/). Impulse responses are fine for quite some things but not there if you ask me (or anyone crazy about reverbs actually) if you want to get that euphonic Lexicon sound. To put it simply ER patterns and tail modulation is nowhere nearly as close on RV7000 as on LX480. I see over years some people tried to mimic that by loading 480 IR and adding chorus after reverb which is cheap trick and does not work because it is modulation everything (even ER patterns which are then smeared and sounds nothing like real LX480).
Try to build or design smaller rooms or ambiences with RV7000 and then try same with Relab LX480 and you will see what i mean. That is no context.
Do i think RV7000 is good. Yes amazing actually. But it is not 480 replacement i think it's not even based on it - it is likely aimed to get generally good reverb out of everything. Plus now when it sports IR it is so much more versatile and better then ever.
I think you should try other plugins and with enough of critical listening you will hear difference. Maybe then you will think difference is worth it maybe not.
I can recommend Relab reverbs and TC VSS3. Lexicon have plugins as well and they are good sounding but Relab and VSS3 are my favorites. I still use ArtsAcoustic Reverb these days.
Relab LX480 if you want that old school halls with dreamy modulation (read room filled with mysty fog while you are on LSD haha) or TC vss3 if you want that cold realistic rooms (amazing for postproduction)
- ilikestargazing
- Competition Winner
- Posts: 72
- Joined: 22 Jun 2016
- Location: Copenhagen
- Contact:
Not having tried a whole swath of reverbs, I'm probably a bit biased but I've been very happy with RV7000 over the years.
In combination with some channel/band splits, compression, eq, other fx, sends and trickery, it's served me wonderfully, to the point I haven't felt the need for anything else. Maybe I'm just lazy
In combination with some channel/band splits, compression, eq, other fx, sends and trickery, it's served me wonderfully, to the point I haven't felt the need for anything else. Maybe I'm just lazy
- Marco Raaphorst
- Posts: 2504
- Joined: 22 Jan 2015
- Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
- Contact:
The old RV7000 made no secret of the fact that the RV7000 is based on hardware reverbs like the Lexicon 480L, TC Electronic Reverb 6000 and AMS RMX-16:seqoi wrote: ↑09 Jan 2018I think you never tried 480L then. Did you really? Or you are used to hear 480 IR samples on internet?
I am very intimate with reverbs and i tried i think every plugin which ever existed on this planet (actually not kidding). I had one real 480 for 11 years (i also had 224) and i sold it because of financial problems back then. Closest thing i ever heard is Relab LX480 (http://relabdevelopment.com/product/lx480-complete/). Impulse responses are fine for quite some things but not there if you ask me (or anyone crazy about reverbs actually) if you want to get that euphonic Lexicon sound. To put it simply ER patterns and tail modulation is nowhere nearly as close on RV7000 as on LX480. I see over years some people tried to mimic that by loading 480 IR and adding chorus after reverb which is cheap trick and does not work because it is modulation everything (even ER patterns which are then smeared and sounds nothing like real LX480).
Try to build or design smaller rooms or ambiences with RV7000 and then try same with Relab LX480 and you will see what i mean. That is no context.
Do i think RV7000 is good. Yes amazing actually. But it is not 480 replacement i think it's not even based on it - it is likely aimed to get generally good reverb out of everything. Plus now when it sports IR it is so much more versatile and better then ever.
I think you should try other plugins and with enough of critical listening you will hear difference. Maybe then you will think difference is worth it maybe not.
I can recommend Relab reverbs and TC VSS3. Lexicon have plugins as well and they are good sounding but Relab and VSS3 are my favorites. I still use ArtsAcoustic Reverb these days.
Relab LX480 if you want that old school halls with dreamy modulation (read room filled with mysty fog while you are on LSD haha) or TC vss3 if you want that cold realistic rooms (amazing for postproduction)
"Long, low, ambient Hall reverb in the TC school of reverbs. Great for lush synth and pad ID sounds."
"Inspired by Lexicon 480L, a classic 480 preset. Add HF Damp for darker sound."
"Inspired by AMS and Lexicon. Use on anything."
The RV7000 came with many presets which were designed by well known engineers. For example the VOX KB BrtLngHall patch which sounds like the Hall Reverb which was used by Kate Bush (hint: KB = Kate Bush).
Years ago Propellerhead software CEO Ernst Nathorst-Böös held a seminar to people distributing Propellerhead Software products, people from all over the world. As part of that seminar he did a blind test comparing the RV7000 with a Lexicon 480 and TC Electronic Reverb 6000. The examples were prepared by mix engineer Niklas Flyckt, who recently won a Grammy for his work with Britney Spears. Niklas uses TC and Lexicon reverbs in his daily work and also created some of the presets for the RV7000. This guy knew what he was doing when he was given the task to create fair examples to compare the quality of the three units.
Ernst used to have a blog and one day he put this online about the test:
"In the test we asked around 30 people to single out the reverb with the “best quality”, in each example, but left the definition of that term to them. As it turned out, the RV7000 won. That’s insane, after all, this is a software reverb that is only a small part of a USD449 product and it goes up against the reverb hardware giants of this world, costing more than ten times as much. Plus you can use a dozen or more RV7000s on the computer you already have. We knew we were good, but even we were surprised about the results.
The main point is that it was a blind test. The people listening to the examples were not influenced by preconceptions, what they saw, the aura surrounding a brand, or the price. The only thing that counted was what they heard.
I read a lot of music and audio magazines. I read tests of sound cards, mixers, mic preamps, EQs, etc. And I have this nagging feeling that 95% of what I read about what is supposed to be objective information about sound quality is in fact 100% glorified bullshit. Think about it. Have you ever seen an article where the writer wrote “we took this fantastic new AD/DA box and ran a proper double blind test against a shitty old USB audio interface that we had lying around. And boy was there a difference! Everyone in the room could spot the expensive unit every time”?
Doesn’t ring a bell? Not with me either, I don’t even think that text has ever been written. But have you ever thought of why you haven’t read that article? I have.
A friend of mine told me that a well known American musician/producer, a guy that is really, really anal about his studio and his sound, once confessed to him that he had been EQing a snare for a long time, to find the perfect timbre, only to find out that the EQ hadn’t been patched in the first place. I’m not the least surprised.
Sound is difficult and hearing is a very complex phenomenon, influenced by sight, preconceptions and thousands of other things. But most of all, by level. Cheat with level matching and you can fool practically anyone.
In a speaker test I read about, the biggest differentiating factor was what brand of speaker the listeners thought they were hearing, not what they actually heard. I could write for ever about this, but it’s time to come to a conclusion: If you read any, and I mean any statement, about the objective but perceived sound quality of this or that device, software or hardware, and the people haven’t done a comparative blind test (preferably a double blind), then, whatever you are reading is pointless, worthless, meaningless information. Now prove me wrong."
I put this all in a blogpost for historical reasons (!).
Ernst is know for saying a lot of things which are then ripped and turned upside down later. Sorry just sayin. I respect your opinion and everything with it but i never heard sound files of supposed test and how actually it was conducted.
I can only say try different reverb plugins and decide for yourself do not believe what other are saying (me included). Evaluate by yourself.
I can only say try different reverb plugins and decide for yourself do not believe what other are saying (me included). Evaluate by yourself.
- EnochLight
- Moderator
- Posts: 8407
- Joined: 17 Jan 2015
- Location: Imladris
He is? Can you give an example? Asking for a friend.
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite | Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD
- esselfortium
- Posts: 1456
- Joined: 15 Jan 2015
- Contact:
I like RV7000 a lot. It's simple to program and it gets me the sounds I want.
Sarah Mancuso
My music: Future Human
My music: Future Human
- Marco Raaphorst
- Posts: 2504
- Joined: 22 Jan 2015
- Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
- Contact:
I gave up hardware many years ago. Back in the day I fell in love with the TC M5000 which was a mind blower. And White Room preset on the old Yamaha REV (although artificial sounding, it worked in the mix) which was so commonly used.seqoi wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018Ernst is know for saying a lot of things which are then ripped and turned upside down later. Sorry just sayin. I respect your opinion and everything with it but i never heard sound files of supposed test and how actually it was conducted.
I can only say try different reverb plugins and decide for yourself do not believe what other are saying (me included). Evaluate by yourself.
But nowadays with IRs it's even better. Reverb never sounded better than today.
- Exowildebeest
- Posts: 1553
- Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Please stop overusing that expression. Asking for a friend who's holding my beer.
I only wish it took a bit more of a "hybrid" approach to IR - e.g. some sort of internal modulation of the IR to make it less static. Some algorithmic wizardry, pre-convolution EQ or anything exciting.Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018But nowadays with IRs it's even better. Reverb never sounded better than today.
- EnochLight
- Moderator
- Posts: 8407
- Joined: 17 Jan 2015
- Location: Imladris
Exowildebeest wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018Please stop overusing that expression. Asking for a friend who's holding my beer.
Win 10 | Ableton Live 11 Suite | Reason 12 | i7 3770k @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | RME Babyface Pro | Akai MPC Live 2 & Akai Force | Roland System 8, MX1, TB3 | Dreadbox Typhon | Korg Minilogue XD
- Marco Raaphorst
- Posts: 2504
- Joined: 22 Jan 2015
- Location: The Hague, The Netherlands
- Contact:
Wouldn't modulating the input slightly do the trick? Or modulating the wet Reverb?Exowildebeest wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018I only wish it took a bit more of a "hybrid" approach to IR - e.g. some sort of internal modulation of the IR to make it less static. Some algorithmic wizardry, pre-convolution EQ or anything exciting.
If this has never happened to someone in this line of work, they are either extremely new to the job, or lying.Marco Raaphorst wrote: ↑09 Jan 2018A friend of mine told me that a well known American musician/producer, a guy that is really, really anal about his studio and his sound, once confessed to him that he had been EQing a snare for a long time, to find the perfect timbre, only to find out that the EQ hadn’t been patched in the first place. I’m not the least surprised.
Every great engineer I know has had this happen to them, and fairly regularly in fact. It happens because they are trying to be very subtle and not over-do things. Sometimes you're adjusting the wrong channel on the mixer, sometimes the effect is bypassed, sometimes it's not even hooked up.
Also, none of the folks who talk about this have EVER sent out a mix with such a "problem", because they all catch themselves after a few seconds (or minutes) of slight confusion. When it happens, you are often scratching your head wondering why it's taking so much EQ or compression to get the results you seek, slowly turning up (or down) a knob little by little, finally realizing the error of your ways!
In these cases you see the knob (or feel it) turning, so you "expect" to hear a difference. But it can happen the other way around too, where you turn a knob and DON'T hear the difference and assume the device is bypassed or not hooked up - but you're just not turning it FAR enough to actually hear the difference.
I think the bigger point is that one way or another, we can ALL be fooled. Even after years of experience, it can still happen to the best of us. And the sooner we admit that, the less it seems to happen.
Selig Audio, LLC
In that case you should really check out the amazing Fusion IRs of Reverberate 2, my favorite convolution reverb out there (and Matt Hill is a super nice guy to boot!).Exowildebeest wrote: ↑10 Jan 2018
I only wish it took a bit more of a "hybrid" approach to IR - e.g. some sort of internal modulation of the IR to make it less static. Some algorithmic wizardry, pre-convolution EQ or anything exciting.
https://www.liquidsonics.com/fusion-ir/about/
https://www.liquidsonics.com/software/reverberate-2/
Selig Audio, LLC
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 57 guests