Old 12-02-2021, 10:05 AM   #1
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default ReaVerb for True Stereo Request

I would sure love it if ReaVerb only fed one set of dry left and rights down the pipe, which would fix multiple things for doing True Stereo.

First, setting the pins correctly for a True Stereo quad impulse makes the dry side 100% mono. Just passing the incoming signal to the dry level controls would be much preferred and would correct for the mono dry when pin selected for True Stereo.

Secondly, I don't like that the dry signal is multiplied for each impulse. The incoming level should dictate the initial level at the dry side level controls. Again, just passing the incoming dry signal to the dry level controls would fix this as well.

I still use the LSP Impulse Reverb for True Stereo only because it kinda does what I just described.

https://lsp-plug.in/?page=manuals&se..._reverb_stereo

I suppose another way to possibly fix the problem of the pins selected correctly for True Stereo causing mono on the dry side would be to have separate pins for dry and wet, so that the incoming stereo signal retains its original state.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2021, 01:18 PM   #2
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Here's the problem. With the pins set so the the Left input feeds the Left impulse for the Left out, then the next pin set Left to feed the Right impulse with the Left input for right output.

With the pins set like this, the left and right signals are correct for the Quad impulse going to the wet side, but cause the dry side to be duplicated, and mixed with reverse panning, which makes the dry output mono.

In my mind, the fader labeled "Dry", should NOT be having stuff done to it by the impulses loaded, whether it's a mono impulse or 100 channels. Dry implies "not messed with", and if ReaVerb simply routed signal from its input directly to the Dry output faders, it would make using quad impulses for True Stereo possible, all within ReaVerb.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--

Last edited by Glennbo; 12-29-2021 at 11:12 AM.
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-02-2021, 02:50 PM   #3
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 11,326
Default

I frequently use dual instances of ReaVerb to do true stereo functionality. Possible, but clumsy.

I tried to use the new "Channel tool" in ReaVerb to do this internally. But that does not seem to be possible, even though that configuration is intuitive (if you know how pin routing works) and straight forward,.

-Michel
mschnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2021, 03:07 PM   #4
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschnell View Post
I frequently use dual instances of ReaVerb to do true stereo functionality. Possible, but clumsy.
Patched with the pin settings from my screenshot, the four impulses in a quad file get the proper channel inputs, and outputs them to the proper left and right channels, but it makes the dry signal become mono.

You could put an instance of ReaVerb on its own track 100% wet and then feed it from your final submaster, but that's a kludge.

In the LSP Impulse Reverb, you specify whether the input to an impulse is coming from the left or right, which is like the pin selecting in ReaVerb, but in the LSP Impulse Reverb you also select the output left or right for each impulse, no matter whether you are using a single quad impulse file, stereo, or individual impulses. You can see that a quad file is being used here, and the left or right for input, the track of the impulse file, and the output left or right are available for each of the four channels of the impulse.

Quote:
I tried to use the new "Channel tool" in ReaVerb to do this internally. But that does not seem to be possible, even though that configuration is intuitive (if you know how pin routing works) and straight forward,.

-Michel
The Channel Tool might help with stereo or mono impulses, but it can't fix what setting the the pins correctly for a quad impulse does to the dry side.

I really wish the dry side was what it implies. A signal that identically matches both in volume and in channel assignments to what is coming in on the input. Dry should not be affected. It should be dry.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--

Last edited by Glennbo; 12-29-2021 at 11:13 AM.
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2021, 03:20 PM   #5
FeedTheCat
Human being with feelings
 
FeedTheCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 809
Default

Hmmm, interesting... what about setting ReaVerb to 100% wet and using the built-in FX dry/wet knob?

That should work, right?
FeedTheCat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2021, 03:40 PM   #6
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FeedTheCat View Post
Hmmm, interesting... what about setting ReaVerb to 100% wet and using the built-in FX dry/wet knob?

That should work, right?
Interesting . . .

On first blush it looks like that might indeed be a workaround. I'll have to do some A/B testing between ReaVerb and the LSP Impulse Reverb to see if the results match.

It would still be nice if the the dry fader in ReaVerb was 100% dry unaffected signal that matches what's coming in on the input.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2021, 04:27 PM   #7
ashcat_lt
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,286
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
It would still be nice if the the dry fader in ReaVerb was 100% dry unaffected signal that matches what's coming in on the input.
Unfortunately this in impossible. There are no plugins that can disregard the I/O pin routings because that's how things get in and out of the plugin itself. The plugin can't see what was happening on the other side.

You might get some traction by setting it up for 6 channels with the first two being literally just dry pass through and then the four actual IR channels, but honestly I've never tried that.

I think most of us would consider putting the reverb right on the bus as the kludge, and having a dedicated 100% wet reverb track as more like the standard, normal, "correct" way to do it.
ashcat_lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2021, 04:56 PM   #8
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
Interesting . . .

On first blush it looks like that might indeed be a workaround. I'll have to do some A/B testing between ReaVerb and the LSP Impulse Reverb to see if the results match.

It would still be nice if the the dry fader in ReaVerb was 100% dry unaffected signal that matches what's coming in on the input.
Okay, after comparing both wet and dry signals between the LSP Impulse Reverb and ReaVerb, this is what I found.

Using the wet to dry knob at the top right of ReaVerb set to only 1% wet, with the dry fader set to -inf and the wet fader set to -16,

I am getting a pretty identical sound to the LSP Impulse Reverb using the same quad impulse set with its dry fader at 0db and its wet fader set to -58db, the stereo image is not being turned into mono.

One show stopper using that workaround is that the wet/dry knob is not saved with a ReaVerb preset, so after I saved what finally sounded like what I get with the LSP Impulse Reverb, when I loaded a project and did a replace of LSP verb with ReaVerb, the instance of ReaVerb reverted back to 100% wet on the wet/dry knob.

It did retain the -inf on the dry fader and -16 on the wet, but it was very LOUD and pure wet signal. Once I manually set the wet/dry knob back to 1% it sounded good again.

It would sure be simpler if the dry signal in ReaVerb was the stereo dry signal coming it, and you used it to blend unaffected signal with affected signal that is only on the wet fader.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--

Last edited by Glennbo; 12-03-2021 at 05:15 PM.
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2021, 05:12 PM   #9
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashcat_lt View Post
Unfortunately this in impossible. There are no plugins that can disregard the I/O pin routings because that's how things get in and out of the plugin itself. The plugin can't see what was happening on the other side.

You might get some traction by setting it up for 6 channels with the first two being literally just dry pass through and then the four actual IR channels, but honestly I've never tried that.

I think most of us would consider putting the reverb right on the bus as the kludge, and having a dedicated 100% wet reverb track as more like the standard, normal, "correct" way to do it.
I use impulse reverbs on my submaster to put the entire mix in the same room. I'm not sending different levels from individual tracks to it. My acoustic drums use a 100% wet reverb on its own track, but the amount of snare is different than the amount of rack toms or floor tom. In the capacity I use a final impulse reverb, I don't want it to be driven by a send and use another track, because it shouldn't require it for what I'm doing with it.

Every other impulse reverb I have that can do True Stereo, can ALL be used on the final submaster and not make the dry signal become monophonic due to pins needing to be set to make the impulse tracks receive the correct left and right signals.

All it would take for ReaVerb to function like other True Stereo reverbs would be for the dry signal to be unaffected by the pin settings and only the wet side to do something with them. That way you have a dry fader that just controls the output level of what is coming into the plugin and a wet fader that controls all the stuff that was done to that dry signal.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2021, 11:28 PM   #10
ashcat_lt
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,286
Default

Iím sorry I may not have articulated clearly. I think we can get what you want, but I agree itís maybe a little more convoluted (pun intended) than it kind of needs to be. All I actually meant to say is that plugin pins are mostly outside of the plugin so we need a solution that doesnít involve fuckkng with them at all.
ashcat_lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2021, 08:43 AM   #11
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashcat_lt View Post
Iím sorry I may not have articulated clearly. I think we can get what you want, but I agree itís maybe a little more convoluted (pun intended) than it kind of needs to be. All I actually meant to say is that plugin pins are mostly outside of the plugin so we need a solution that doesnít involve fuckkng with them at all.
Thanks, I'm going to experiment with trying 6 channels like you mentioned earlier, and also see if the channel tool can accomplish anything.

If we could just designate which side, left or right is hitting each track of a multitrack impulse, and then designate which side left or right will be the output for each track of the impulse, then True Stereo would be possible all within ReaVerb.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2021, 09:41 AM   #12
vitalker
Human being with feelings
 
vitalker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 8,090
Default

I believe it is already possible:
https://forum.cockos.com/showpost.ph...38&postcount=6
https://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=107409
vitalker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2021, 10:19 AM   #13
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vitalker View Post
Try it with a quad impulse file though, where they use the track format of,

LL left source left microphone
LR left source right microphone
RL right source left microphone
RR right source right microphone

so the first two tracks of the impulse both need to be fed by the left channel, and the 3rd and 4th tracks both need to be fed by the right.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2021, 12:16 PM   #14
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

So I experimented with the channel tool, setting four instances of it before a quad format True Stereo impulse, and routed like this.


Source Channel 1 Destination Channel 1
Source Channel 1 Destination Channel 2
Source Channel 2 Destination Channel 3
Source Channel 2 Destination Channel 4

But, as it turns out using a stick click with pure reverb set like that, nulls with a second version with no channel tools and just the impulse, so it appears that the channel tool doesn't do anything with a quad impulse file.

I was surprised that the two rendered waves nulled out so deep, but it did expose for me that the channel tool has no effect before a quad impulse.

Also, I tried setting 6 channels for the plugin, pin selecting for normal stereo on the first two, followed by the next two left and the next two after that right, so the impulse would get LLRR, but that still makes the dry side mono.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--

Last edited by Glennbo; 12-29-2021 at 11:13 AM.
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2021, 01:38 PM   #15
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 11,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
The Channel Tool might help with stereo or mono impulses, but it can't fix what setting the the pins correctly for a quad impulse does to the dry side.
I did try it for using two stereo pulses. Bot possible (confirmed by Justin).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
I really wish the dry side was what it implies. A signal that identically matches both in volume and in channel assignments to what is coming in on the input. Dry should not be affected. It should be dry.
IMHO it simply should work like pin routing in a tack (i.e. independent of any other elements loaded, and with the ability to have more channels internally than externally). With that no separate documentation would be necessary and all this would be possible. No idea if that would be hard to implement.

-Michael
mschnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2021, 06:45 PM   #16
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschnell View Post
I did try it for using two stereo pulses. Bot possible (confirmed by Justin).
Putting four instances of the channel tool before the quad impulse seemed to have no effect, as evidenced with a null test.

Putting instances after the impulse seemed to be dicking with the impulse file itself, making it unavailable at one point in the other impulse reverb. I still don't think the channel tool will help with quad format True Stereo impulses.

Quote:
IMHO it simply should work like pin routing in a tack (i.e. independent of any other elements loaded, and with the ability to have more channels internally than externally). With that no separate documentation would be necessary and all this would be possible. No idea if that would be hard to implement.
Either the pin routing needs to be independent for the wet and dry sides, or there needs to be another way than pin assignments to feed the four tracks of a True Stereo impulse so it doesn't create a mono signal on the dry side.

It's obvious in my image earlier, that quad format True Stereo impulses need LLRR on the input side and LRLR on the output side, and that's the problem. That routing only needs to happen for the impulse and not for the dry audio.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2021, 11:19 PM   #17
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 11,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
That routing only needs to happen for the impulse and not for the dry audio.
In this case: yes.

For using two stereo polse files you need to route the dry audio pass the first to have it drive the other. Hence routing dry audio is essential (and perfectly logical / straight forward / compatible to track pin routing).
-Michael
mschnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2021, 09:12 AM   #18
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschnell View Post
In this case: yes.

For using two stereo polse files you need to route the dry audio pass the first to have it drive the other. Hence routing dry audio is essential (and perfectly logical / straight forward / compatible to track pin routing).
-Michael
We just need to be able to specify whether left or right feeds a given track of an impulse, and then be able to specify whether left or right is the output for that track of impulse.

And it needs to be independent of the dry signal routing.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2021, 12:15 PM   #19
ashcat_lt
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,286
Default

So pretty much everybody is confused about what Channel Tool does. It has basically nothing to do with the actual audio paths or I/O pins. The Source there refers to the channel in the IR file itself. It’s meant to swap the channels of a multichannel IR in cases where they are in the wrong order for what you’re trying to run through it. As a simplified but probably not practical example: if the track itself was three channel LCR, but the impulse for some reason was set up as LRC, you could use Channel Tool to swap channels 2 and 3 of the IR to match the track so you don’t have to mess around with the I/O pins.

Now I want to say that you should be able to use that to get what you want, but I haven’t tried to work through it, and don’t actually have any quad files to try with, so idk, but hopefully it helps?
ashcat_lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2021, 01:49 PM   #20
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashcat_lt View Post
So pretty much everybody is confused about what Channel Tool does. It has basically nothing to do with the actual audio paths or I/O pins. The Source there refers to the channel in the IR file itself. Itís meant to swap the channels of a multichannel IR in cases where they are in the wrong order for what youíre trying to run through it. As a simplified but probably not practical example: if the track itself was three channel LCR, but the impulse for some reason was set up as LRC, you could use Channel Tool to swap channels 2 and 3 of the IR to match the track so you donít have to mess around with the I/O pins.

Now I want to say that you should be able to use that to get what you want, but I havenít tried to work through it, and donít actually have any quad files to try with, so idk, but hopefully it helps?
Interesting, I just did back to back tests, first putting an instance of the Channel Tool after a quad impulse file, flipping tracks 2 and 3 within the impulse, and I could visibly see it swapping, but I rendered a copy of it set to 100% wet, then removed the Channel Tool, and rendered a second copy.

The two rendered files nulled completely when the phase of one was flipped. So I ran the test again, but put the instance of the Channel Tool *before* the impulse. There was no visible sign in the impulse with the channel tool first, and the two files nulled completely the same as having the Channel Tool after the impulse.

The closest thing I've seen ReaVerb do to what is dead simple with the LSP Impulse Reverb was to set the pins like my first example, set the dry fader to -inf since it will be turned into mono with the pins set for the impulse, and finally use the Wet/Dry knob on the plugin container in place of the wet/dry level controls in ReaVerb. Nowhere near as simple as the example screen shot of the LSP Impulse Reverb from my last project, where you can see at a glance that track 1 is getting left input and outputting left, track 2 is getting left input and outputting right, Etc. ReaVerb needs to support True Stereo files as easily IMO.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--

Last edited by Glennbo; 12-29-2021 at 11:14 AM.
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2021, 02:50 PM   #21
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 11,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glennbo View Post
We just need to be able to specify whether left or right feeds a given track of an impulse, and then be able to specify whether left or right is the output for that track of impulse.

And it needs to be independent of the dry signal routing.
Sorry you lost me here.

In fact I do full stereo ReaVerb using stereo "L" and "R" impulse files i.e. a file for the sound source located left and one for the sound source located right.

Hence I need to route the two input channels to both impulse file "entities" in an FX channel this is done by using pin routing to bypass the upper plugin on channel 3 and 4, and connect those to the lower plugin. Easy and straight forward but needs two ReaVerbs (each with their own controls).
I hoped that ChannelTool would allow this within a single ReaVerb instance.

But AFAIU, it does not.

-Michael
mschnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2021, 03:16 PM   #22
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschnell View Post
Sorry you lost me here.

In fact I do full stereo ReaVerb using stereo "L" and "R" impulse files i.e. a file for the sound source located left and one for the sound source located right.
I was referring to the somewhat standard arrangement for single multitrack True Stereo impules, where you have separate left and right impulses that were sampled with two microphones, so there are 4 impulses in the single file. The format is like the following,

LL left source left microphone
LR left source right microphone
RL right source left microphone
RR right source right microphone

and the problem lies in that it requires pin settings to get the proper left and right signals to the correct tracks of the multitrack impulse which result in a mono dry signal.

Quote:
Hence I need to route the two input channels to both impulse file "entities" in an FX channel this is done by using pin routing to bypass the upper plugin on channel 3 and 4, and connect those to the lower plugin. Easy and straight forward but needs two ReaVerbs (each with their own controls).
I hoped that ChannelTool would allow this within a single ReaVerb instance.

But AFAIU, it does not.

-Michael
So are you using True Stereo impulses that just happen to be broken up into two stereo impulses? I've been using the quad format impulses where they setup a left and right microphone, then sample for the left, but each mic is only for the left, resulting in two impulses. A left and a right impulse just for the left side, and the same thing for the right channel.

Every other impulse reverb I use can accommodate impulses like this one I frequently use. It needs the first two tracks of the impulse to be fed by left signal, and then outputs those to the left and right. The next two tracks of the impulse need to be fed by the right channel and output to both left and right.

You can do this with the pin settings, but you will make the dry signal mono in doing so. All my other impulse reverbs let me assign either the track order being used with fixed routing, or with input and output pan controls for each track of the impulse, like the LSP Impulse Reverb does it.

__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2021, 11:54 PM   #23
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 11,326
Default

Yep IMHO it's rather logical to have two stereo file, but of course they can be combined to a quad file.

A decent "ChannelTool" implementation should be able to handle both variants appropriately.

-Michael
mschnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2021, 08:09 AM   #24
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschnell View Post
Yep IMHO it's rather logical to have two stereo file, but of course they can be combined to a quad file.

A decent "ChannelTool" implementation should be able to handle both variants appropriately.

-Michael
To do it right, each track of an impulse, whether stereo, quad, or mono, needs to have input side control over left/right and output side control over left/right.

Instead of a "ChannelTool", I'd prefer to see ReaVerb get pan controls for each track of the impulse input and output like the way the LSP Impulse Reverb does it. You couldn't see at a glance what a bunch of channel tools are doing, but you could see a pan knob on the left and right sides on the image of the impulse ReaVerb displays.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--

Last edited by Glennbo; 12-29-2021 at 11:15 AM.
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2021, 11:43 PM   #25
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 11,326
Default

This by itself would not allow to explicitly place the pulses in parallel (as needed with the full stereo with two stereo files) or in a row (as needed for other applications).
A "working" ChannelTool would be more versatile on that behalf.
-Michael
mschnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2021, 11:57 PM   #26
ashcat_lt
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,286
Default

Yeah, it's kinda like the best way to do it is via multiple instances of ReaVerb as it always has been. Pretty sure Channel Tool can help you convert your quad impulses down to the appropriate channels for that, though.
ashcat_lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2021, 08:29 AM   #27
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschnell View Post
This by itself would not allow to explicitly place the pulses in parallel (as needed with the full stereo with two stereo files) or in a row (as needed for other applications).
A "working" ChannelTool would be more versatile on that behalf.
-Michael
I guess I don't know what "full stereo" is unless it's just another name for "True Stereo". Channel tool hides stuff where you can't look at it and see what it's doing unless you one by one open them to look at their panels.

In my testing the Channel Tool seems to not do anything but make my quad impulse *look* like something changed.

Here's a million dollar question. Does the Channel Tool affect the input or output routing, or does it only flip a pair of tracks in an impulse?

If it really flipped the tracks like I see the graphical image change, I would expect that rendering a wave with them flipped would not null with another wave rendered with them NOT being flipped, but in my testing they seem to be identical, meaning that even though it looks like something changed, nothing really changed with the sound coming out of ReaVerb.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2021, 08:55 AM   #28
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashcat_lt View Post
Yeah, it's kinda like the best way to do it is via multiple instances of ReaVerb as it always has been. Pretty sure Channel Tool can help you convert your quad impulses down to the appropriate channels for that, though.
I've messed with the Channel Tool and from several experiments I've done, it appears to only change the graphical representation of the quad impulse on screen.

Edit:

I'm doing more testing with everything turned WAY UP, and I am hearing now that there is a very slight difference in the nulling with and without the channel tool.

It might turn out that a single instance of it flipping tracks 2 and 3 are all that is needed, but I will have to do more testing to see what is really happening with the end result.

Edit2:

Some even deeper testing with weird results. I decided to put identical waves of side stick clicks on two tracks in REAPER. Then I put the LSP reverb on the first track and ReaVerb on the second.

More Edit:

After extensive testing, using a 100% left click as the source, and comparing the LSP and ReaVerb, I found that no combination with or without the Channel Tool would generate any right verb signal from a 100% left source.



Only when the pins are set like this image does any right reverb get generated from a 100% left signal, but with the pins set like that the dry side becomes 100% mono, so setting it to -inf and using the plugin container's wet to dry set to 1% wet was the only way that ended with the same result I get with a single instance of the LSP Impulse Reverb on my final submaster.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--

Last edited by Glennbo; 12-29-2021 at 11:17 AM.
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2021, 01:32 PM   #29
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 11,326
Default

It would be so easy if ChannelTool would just be working like pin routing.
Either way wold be OK: provide additional internal channels, when routing to channels not connected via external pin routing / or just "silently" use the track channels as existing (but not used) outside of ReaVerb.
-Michael
mschnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2021, 02:19 PM   #30
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschnell View Post
It would be so easy if ChannelTool would just be working like pin routing.
Either way wold be OK: provide additional internal channels, when routing to channels not connected via external pin routing / or just "silently" use the track channels as existing (but not used) outside of ReaVerb.
-Michael
For the Channel Tool to work for me, it would need to be able to be put *before* the impulse and reverse the inputs to tracks 2 and 3.

Having the output set for LRLR needs to stay that way. It is the inputs to the impulse that need to be routable (without affecting the dry output) for a True Stereo quad impulse to function properly in ReaVerb.
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2021, 11:49 PM   #31
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 11,326
Default

Yep. Of course ChannelTool would need to be placeable in any position in the internal ReaVerb chain and work consistently.
-Michael
mschnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2021, 01:26 PM   #32
Glennbo
Human being with feelings
 
Glennbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 7,050
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mschnell View Post
Yep. Of course ChannelTool would need to be placeable in any position in the internal ReaVerb chain and work consistently.
-Michael
Just put pan controls that are always visible, both pre & post on each track of impulse and then call it a day!
__________________
Glennbo
Hear My Music - Click Me!!!
--
Glennbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2021, 01:43 PM   #33
ashcat_lt
Human being with feelings
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 6,286
Default

That works for you but nobody else. It does not really help the people who are trying to use this for actual multichannel work. Much better would be an (internal) I/O matrix per IR lane, but Iím not holding my breath on that.
ashcat_lt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-12-2021, 04:19 PM   #34
mschnell
Human being with feelings
 
mschnell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Krefeld, Germany
Posts: 11,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ashcat_lt View Post
ork. Much better would be an (internal) I/O matrix per IR lane, but Iím not holding my breath on that.
I.e. a decently working ChannelTool on steroids

-Michael
mschnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.