im listening to the samples and must say i'm NOT impressed at all.

Meant to say exponential audio. Elemental was a typo from posting while tired. Thought I corrected it, but I see I missed one.

-Ben

Altiverb and the other convolution software reverbs I've tried have given the
impression of lowering the overall "audio quality" of the recording too much, even when the reverb succeeds in capturing the essence of a real acoustic. Bricasti on the other hand, may sound somewhat artificial in some situations but the "audio quality" of the recording does not suffer from the processing.

Thanks for clarification Ben.

The context made me believe it was a typo but I searched for Elemental and that's actually another company making (or use to make) plug in reverbs.

the real point in this discussion is this.

if you like most high end orchestral recordings between
mid nineties and 200x ( bricasti release date )
you will like the lexicon pcm plugin which has the 960 algorithms.

if you think some high end orchestral recordings
from 200x ( bricasti release date ) until now
sound dramatically better than everything before buy the bricasti.

Personally I dont think Alan Meyerson's mixes
sound so much better since he has the bricasti instead of the lexicon...
its still music.

For me the biggest difference between convolving reverb and the M7 remains twofold:

1. in some situations the Bricasti is just superior (with the right preset). It just sounds pretty amazing !
2. in other situations the convolving reverb (using my own samples) trumps the Bricasti, with one very big caveat. Although I have sold some of my samples to one firm (which does not exist anymore), I have to admit getting it to sound exactly right and natural asks -a lot- more from the end user then the basic presets/settings.

You HAVE to go in and tweak those early delays, offset and level to get something that really sounds better than the dry recording.

M7 = after 2 minutes you have an amazing reverb
convolving reverb can take up to 1h to get it right. If it still does not work, then M7

The software programs I've used (mainly Altiverb and Waves) take too much of a toll on the original audio quality of the recording, no matter how much tweaking, no matter how "natural" sounding the resulting reverb.

The Bricasti usually takes a fair amount of tweaking to get the right overall effect. For example, although the bass response is very high quality, it needs to be dealt with carefully for each individual recording.

It's a slower process which requires patience, taking into consideration that it works in real time, compared to a software program processing a file directly.

So in 2016, is It worth? Are any new contender? Or I'd must get one M7?

Unless, of course, you're able to afford more than one M7.

In which case, get at least two, definitely.

Hi everyone,

I'd be very interested to know if after 13 years when this discussion started, there is a huge difference in results for post-production between Bricasti M7 and latest version of Altiverb. Do we have a somewhat similar to EASE or RaySpace in Bricasti meaning - we define whether we would like to record a-la Grand Opera Paris or a-la Vienna State Opera and know exactly where we are going to place a soloist? In Rayspace/EASE we can define the geometry of the space and have audio responses thoroughly calculated, but what similar options do we have in Bricasti M7? I am talking only about post-production having a dry sound as input. Please try to be more technical than intuitive in reply since I am a DSP (TMS320 in general and nowadays mostly development for TMS320C66XX) developer myself. Is there any hardware solution similar to EASE at all for professional audio processing?

I used altiverb for about a year before I discovered Inspirata, which I found to be much better to my ears. For example, the Berliner Hall is represented in both altiverb and inspirata - but while the IR from altiverb is maybe a couple hundred MB, the IR in inspirata is over 9GB - yes GB - and allows for almost infinite placement of both source and listener. Acustica Silver also seems better than altiverb to me. So, if convo is your thing, try inspirata or silver.
If Bricasti is more your style, the hardware cannot be beat. However, liquidsonics Seventh Heaven, based on IR-fusion responses, comes very close to the hardware, and is one of my current favorites. Reverb plugin technology has improved immensely in the past few years, and there are many excellent verbs to choose from these days, from 2CAudio, liquidsonics, exponential, the new quantec emulation from savant (quantum 2772), the pcm native bundle from lexicon, and many others.

Dear James,

thank you a million for guiding me in this area. I found the liquidsonics Seventh Heaven and was really curious to know how close it comes to the real hardware.
Speaking of whether hardware cannot be beat - it is hard to judge for me since I am more post-prod opera oriented atm.
Anyway I am just about to get through the list of software you mentioned. We shall see with what software product I'd end up.

I recorded a duo in a good studio with grand piano and violin. The studio made their mixing with their bricasti and i made mine with Fab Filter Pro-R, and i didnt find that i needed to spend 4 grand to reach their level. Maybe i am wrong but the professional musicians to who the mix was made for found no significative differences also between both mixes.
That being said i find no reason why an OTB dsp hardware can't be match or surpassed by an ITB software. If we were talking about tape or valve emulation it could be possible, but for DSP? After all it only depends on the software, no transformers, valves or real tape involved.
But, i repeat, i am not saying that plugins are better than Bricasti, i just didnt found the difference.

Bydlo - I also have pro-r, and it is a fairly nice verb, but suffers, IMO, from a common affliction of many reverb plugins in that it seems to apply the reverb behind the instruments, whereas the bricasti and inspirata, to my ears anyway, seem to push the instruments back into the space. For any relatively close mixed situation like sonatas, small chamber groups, or spot mics, this can be critically important. For more distant micing, such as orchestras, where the group is already enveloped in a space, this becomes less of an issue and I have used pro-r for such applications with good results.

Thanks for your kind answer. I always learn in this forum. Whats your opinion about Lexicon 480? I seen videos of Deustche Grammaphone where they show that they used this old reverb in 80s digital recordings. I consider myself that i still can hear such an subtle differences. But will try looking for them to understand the differences.

The random hall algorithm in the lex 480 is still one of the finest digital reverbs available. It has a fairly recognizable sound which can either be an asset or a detriment depending on the application. I have tried several of the current iterations of 480 emulations and so far, the lexicon PCM native bundle is the best one I’ve heard, but there are some new contenders in that space, so I would recommend doing some research and trying out some demo downloads.

Have you tried the Random emulation in the Relab lx480 plug yet? If so, how does it compare?

I use the Bricasti M7 hardware along side the Seventh Heaven vst, Altiverb, and Inspirata. For some types of music the Valhalla stuff or Transatlantic Plate is also very good.

The Bricasti M7 is often the clear winner for realism. I use the hardware and take the time to dial it in just right when the material requires the feeling of really being in the space. Mostly the M7 is augmenting the acoustic of a real space where the recording took place. Depending upon the hall or room I will process a few 100% wet passes of a hall or also an ambiance and then blend them into the raw recording. I use sends out of a DAW to feed various amounts of the main stereo pickup and also spot mics. I write down or commit to memory the decay time, mix amount, and other algorithmic parameters which work well for the various spaces I record. Then the 4 preset banks on the front have my favorite starting points.

Inspirata is interesting because it allows for so much manipulation. Coupled with careful level automation I sometimes feel it is the best for spot mics. You can pull the spot mic back into the ensemble without overdoing the bloom/decay.

Altiverb and Seventh Heaven give me quick way to dial something in. But I don't use either very often on the main program material. I used to also use the HOFA-IR Reverb, and I can get useful sounds quickly from it as well.

Bricasti remains my go to because it can work on inserts when producing live content in real time. For ensembles I work with regularly in rooms I know well and where I have developed a good starting point for main stereo pick-up I bring along the hardware and print it live. Saves time.

Brhoward - exactly!

King - the lx480 random hall is quite good, but I still prefer the lex pcm version a bit better. It can be nice for some types of material, though is sometimes not quite right for chamber music. Btw, even Valhalla vintage verb does a pretty good lex imitation for a very affordable price.

So in 2025:

Bricasti V2 vs Altiverb 8?

Vs?

I’m personally most interested in subtle and realistic reverb to be used on vocals recorded in a booth.

The M7 sells the room better than anything else.

There are two types of studios in this world. Those that have the M7 and those that do not.

I think in 2025, Cinematic Rooms Pro should be a part of this discussion. That's my go-to for realistic reverbs.

I am an Altiverb 7 user, on Windows 10 with Samplitude Pro X8.
When I finally upgraded to Altiverb 8, the installer uninstalled the version 7... and this means that when I load an old project, there is no more Altiverb with it.
I contacted Audioease and they gave me a one year license for altiverb 7, which means that in one year, I'll have to ask again to be able to listen to my old propjets.
Too bad.
Found Vienna MIR, and I bought it. It sounds really much better for my job (classical music only).

Actually, there is a third type of studio: those that have two (or more) M7s.

Some might argue, however, that your statement (as written) is nevertheless correct --- contending that studios in the third category are 'out of this world'. ; }