Since the digital methods that approximate the acoustics of physical structures are recent compared to the acoustical impressions spaces have given over the course of human history, and since most folks don’t think in terms of reverb algorithms, we don’t call a plate a “spacially uncorrelated, extreme reflection density reverberator with distinct ringing and a multiorder high frequency loss”… We call it a plate. To the best of my knowledge, with the exception of some possible inside jokes that I have not been privy to, reverbs are named according to their sound. The whole thread at the Spin Semiconductor forum is worth reading, so here’s a few choice quotes from Keith (R.I.P.): Several years ago, I asked Keith Barr about naming conventions for digital reverbs, and whether there was any “standard” for how reverb algorithms were named. A physical plate has all sorts of weird characteristics that aren’t usually captured in the digital models. Even a small room would tax modern CPUs, if modeled accurately. A real hall will have a few orders of magnitude more modal density than can reasonably be achieved with an algorithmic reverb. However, when you are creating algorithmic reverbs, the name has very little to do with the corresponding physical structure. Hall, Room, Chamber, Plate, that sort of thing. The easiest names are to adopt the names of physical structures, that people are familiar with. Plus, the same structure can sound markedly different, depending on the delay lengths, how the coefficients are set, the filtering used, and so on. Things like “BigFDN32,” or “AllpassLoop8.” However, these names don’t mean anything to people that don’t design reverbs. It turns out that it is a little tricky to come up with names for all these algorithms.ĭuring the development stage, I tend to name the algorithms after the internal structure.

I’ve released several dozen in plugin form, and have written hundreds more. I’ve created a lot of reverb algorithms at this point in time.

Valhalla room tails