Re: [Audacity-devel] Patch: reverb effect

[Steve t. F. <ste...@gm...>]

On 22 April 2013 23:11, Gale Andrews <ga...@au...> wrote:
>
> | From Rob Sykes <aq...@ya...>
> | Mon, 22 Apr 2013 06:37:25 +0100 (BST)
> | Subject: [Audacity-devel] Patch: reverb effect
>>
>> > From: Gale Andrews <ga...@au...>
>> > To: aud...@li...
>> > Cc:
>> > Sent: Monday, 22 April 2013, 1:32
>> > Subject: Re: [Audacity-devel] Patch: reverb effect
>
>> > * Parameters and features in Freeverb have high approval
>> >    rating. It's a benchmark of a "good" reverb, whether
>> >    we start developing a reverb from SoX, from Freeverb or
>> >    anything else.
>>
>>
>> Don't forget that the current patch *is* Freeverb plus (as in fact
>> the original author suggests) pre-delay & EQ.
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> I haven't forgotten.
>
> My aim was to get across the user feedback which seems to be
> highly supportive of Freeverb 3 (not just the perceived quality,
> but the choice of reverb types), and which often suggests that
> Freeverb 3 sounds "better" than earlier Freeverbs.
>
> So how much (if at all) has the Freeverb 3 algorithm changed (or
> improved upon) the original Jezar one? Or are there no changes
> that your patch does not already address, given the additions?

The full Freeverb3 code includes 6 different reverb algorithms plus
several other effects including Stereo Enhancer, Early reflection,
Limiter, Multi-band compressor, and more.

Rob's effect uses just one reverb algorithm, which is obviously a lot
more limited than the full Freeverb3, but still provides a useful
reverb effect that is much more user friendly, and imo "better
sounding" than the current GVerb effect. It would be misleading and
inaccurate to refer to this effect as "Freeverb3". Compared to the
full Freeverb3 capability it is massively cut down. There is a lot of
room for further development, but even as it stands now I think it
represents a big and long overdue step forward.

One issue that may be worth raising early on, is that for effects such
as this, there is no "right answer". The "quality" of a reverb is
subjective and not a precise formula. Future enhancements are likely
to change the results. It is not uncommon for hardware reverb
manufacturers to periodically release "ROM Upgrades" that change the
reverb algorithms and settings so as to provide "better" effects. It
is inevitable that sometimes these changes will not suit everyone, but
even so, replacing some of the old sounds with new "better" sounds
should not be seen as "regression" (unless the new sounds are broadly
considered "worse" by users). I would not want to be in a situation
where we offer certain presets now and then have to keep those sounds
forever, as that will kill future development. If necessary we could
issue a "disclaimer" that all presets are "subject to change without
notice".

Steve


>
> Subject to answering/bearing in mind the above, I'm more than
> OK with it, as GVerb is an obvious liability. I am delighted to see
> Rob's effect has presets.
>
> I also trust Steve and Rob in their judgements about what would
> be a good-sounding reverb.  :=)
>
>
>
> Gale