Wanted: Freeverb 2.0 source code

"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2j8u18Fuutp6U1@uni-berlin.de>...
> The algorithm coding is relatively simple, but tuning all the various delay
> lengths for a relatively smooth sound is the part where having the Freeverb
> source is nice.  One could spend hours tweaking those parameters to come up with
> something decent, so if someone has already done this, it's nice to take
> advantage of that.
> 
> BTW, I had the source and e-mailed directly to Jesper.
> 

Hi Jon.

Would you mind to send it to me as well?

TIA.

JaaC

Assuming your e-mail is valid, you should have it be now.

"Jaime Andres Aranguren Cardona" <jaime.aranguren@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:14a86f87.0406151518.457647ed@posting.google.com...
> "Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<2j8u18Fuutp6U1@uni-berlin.de>...
> > The algorithm coding is relatively simple, but tuning all the various delay
> > lengths for a relatively smooth sound is the part where having the Freeverb
> > source is nice.  One could spend hours tweaking those parameters to come up
with
> > something decent, so if someone has already done this, it's nice to take
> > advantage of that.
> >
> > BTW, I had the source and e-mailed directly to Jesper.
> >
>
> Hi Jon.
>
> Would you mind to send it to me as well?
>
> TIA.
>
> JaaC

Any chance you could post the source, or email it to me too (remove
the underscore) - I haven't much coding experience, but those initial
settings would make the task a lot less daunting. I presume there's a
lot of prime numbers involved in the delays?

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:45:42 -0700, "Jon Harris"
<goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The algorithm coding is relatively simple, but tuning all the various delay
>lengths for a relatively smooth sound is the part where having the Freeverb
>source is nice.  One could spend hours tweaking those parameters to come up with
>something decent, so if someone has already done this, it's nice to take
>advantage of that.
>
>BTW, I had the source and e-mailed directly to Jesper.

Tony (remove the "_" to reply by email)

I agree that re-inventing the wheel doesn't make much sense.

As a rule of thumb, for reverbs based on comb and allpass filters it's
important that the spacing is mutually relatively prime - this will
minimize all resonances that might occur due to repeating patterns in
the delay configuration.

In most musical applications, good ears are crucial to developing and
tuning a particular algorithm. It's a bit like building an instrument:
90% of it come from knowledge and skill, the rest depends on good (and
trained) ears. But it's these 10% that really make the difference
between good and excellent.

--smb


"Jon Harris" wrote:
> The algorithm coding is relatively simple, but tuning all the various delay
> lengths for a relatively smooth sound is the part where having the Freeverb
> source is nice.  One could spend hours tweaking those parameters to come up with
> something decent, so if someone has already done this, it's nice to take
> advantage of that.

Martin Eisenberg wrote:
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur

Qui tacet consentit. :-)

--smb

"Jesper Kristensen" <jbk@NOSPAMsnaps.dk> wrote in message
news:40cf78f9$0$22829$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> Unfortunately I still haven't been able to find the source that is used in
> the Freeverb VST plugin I found at
> http://www.sonicspot.com/freeverb/freeverb.html. That version has additional
> parameters such as high/low frequency damping and others that are not in the
> sources I have found so far, but maybe the source was never made publicly
> available for this particular version.

I haven't seen that myself.  I just put single-pole LP filters in the feedback
loops, adjusting the cut-off frequency to change HF damping.

> Anyway, I think I have found a bug in the Freeverb implementation - or maybe
> this bug is what makes it sound good. In any case, it looks like the allpass
> filters are not implemented correctly, as they don't have a flat magnitude
> response but have comb-filter behaviour instead.

Interesting.  I never used the code itself.  I just used the tuning values and
implemented by own all-pass and comb filters, testing each individually to
verify correct response.  But I thought that I compared my version to the
plug-in and that it sounded the same, which would indicate that the binary
really does use a correct all-pass.  But I could be wrong about that as I didn't
do any detailed analysis and it was a while ago.  Try it both ways and see which
one is better!

"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2j9l9hFv6hs0U1@uni-berlin.de>...
> Assuming your e-mail is valid, you should have it be now.
> 

I got it. Thanks, Jon.

JaaC