Convolution reverb

V

vegenerstero

New Member
Hello everone.

FM3T newb here.
Is any of the fractal products able to run convolution reverb like poly effects verbs pedal do ?
If not, would there even be a point in asking for it to be added with future updates ?
 
Of course none of us outside Fractal really know what may come in the future, and you're free to wish, but I hear many more compliments about the Fractal reverbs than criticisms.

What is it that you're missing with the existing algorithmic reverbs?
 
The existing Fractal reverbs are extremely good. I think they do what the Poly pedal does and more. Just in a different way.
 
Not saying fractal reverbs are bad.
Same as i am not saying pitch and delay blocks are bad but i like to run H90 in the loop anyway.
 
I just got the Tasty Chips Integral last month and it is absolutely exquisite. The signal quality, features, flexibility are all great. BTW, I did do a pretty deep dive, so if anyone has questions, hit me up on this thread.

Poly Effects Verbs is a single convolver, has 8 slots for user IRs, doesn't have a mono-in/stereo-out option, has MIDI in for patch change & CC, docs don't give much spec info.

Integral has dual, true-stereo convolvers, loads unlimited user IR's directly from USB stick, mono or stereo in/out, more parameters to control, no MIDI, it can store full-configs as presets, but doesn't have a particularly speedy way to switch between presets as of yet.

As much as I think reverb convolution would be great to have in the FM3/FM9/FX3, it is very processor intensive-- so it would not be very practical to implement. It makes more sense for Fractal to occasionally add more algorithms and improvements to their already excellent reverb.
 
vegenerstero said:
Hello everone.

FM3T newb here.
Is any of the fractal products able to run convolution reverb like poly effects verbs pedal do ?
If not, would there even be a point in asking for it to be added with future updates ?
Click to expand...

Convolution reverb would be nice, but, like so many things that would be nice features on the AxeFX/FM*, the limitation is memory on the device: Convolution reverbs would need more memory than is currently available.
 
I was leaning more towards Beebo or verbs but integral looks very interesting with similar pricing. I will consider buying it in a few weeks. Thanks.
 
IMO, convolution Reverb has nothing on Fractal’s own reverb algorithms. The algorithms let you manipulate things like timing, early reflections and EQ that can give you more clarity and more options than any room capture.
 
Cliff:
  • "Hardware convolution requires zero latency and, as such, IR length is limited by the processor throughput."
  • "Long IRs have several drawbacks: 1. They require lots of storage space. Not an issue on a computer but on a hardware product that means expensive non-volatile memory. 2. They require lots of processing power if you don't want any latency. On a computer it doesn't matter since latency is a non-factor if you are processing prerecorded tracks. On a hardware product we must have zero latency."
 
There are some applications for which convolution reverb is superior to algorithmic reverb, so there's a place for convolution. However, the popularity of convolution reverb has waned in the past 10 years or so as developers like Eventide and Strymon have popularized creative uses of reverb algorithms that do things that can't be done with convolution. There simply isn't as much demand for convolution reverb as there used to be.
 
Rex said:
IMO, convolution Reverb has nothing on Fractal’s own reverb algorithms. The algorithms let you manipulate things like timing, early reflections and EQ that can give you more clarity and more options than any room capture.
Click to expand...

The algorithmic vs convolution debate is pretty common, and people have strong (subjective) opinions. There's no hands down winner, each has its advantages.

Algorithmic is easily adjustable, very tweakable, and can be realistic enough. It allows for pitch modulation within the internal workings. Mileage varies with various algorithmic reverbs. I think Fractal's reverb algorithms are excellent. Best-in-class.

Convolution reverb is only as good as the impulse responses, and with great IR's, you can have truly great reverb. You can have near-perfect space recreation. Springs & Plates are pretty spot on, but might lack some dynamic response of their real counterparts. But in place of some adjustability you have the ability to load from a more expansive range of sources.

After I tried some of my favorite IR's in Integral, for my tastes, I enjoyed the sound immensely. I also am jazzed about all the other things it can do.
 
1. Realism: real spaces are lush & smooth, no fakery, no "noise", no delay taps (smeared or otherwise)
2. Versatility: Every high-quality IR, is akin to its own full algorithm, so you not only get real spaces, but any hardware that has been "captured". In addition to reverbs, you can load longer-form IR's of resonators (like an upright bass body, or acoustic guitar body, etc., banjo head). Any unmodulated delay can be loaded, any cab IR, thunder, crinkling cellophane, massive windtunnel, on and on.

Re: "noise" some reverbs (like Lexicon) seem to involve a large number of delay lines that form a kind of static-type noise burst that decays.

I've learned quite a bit about reverb, just from listening to impulse responses.
 
GlennO said:
However, the popularity of convolution reverb has waned in the past 10 years or so as developers like Eventide and Strymon have popularized creative uses of reverb algorithms that do things that can't be done with convolution. There simply isn't as much demand for convolution reverb as there used to be.
Click to expand...

I'm curious about that last statement. The first pedal-based convolution reverb I had heard of in the past 10 years or so, was the Logidy EPSi. Which was discontinued at some point. Leaving aside Poly Effects Beebo/Digit (both of which were pretty much on constant backorder), the only other hardware reverb convolvers I've seen are Verbs & Integral, both of which are on near-constant backorder as well. Are there other convolution reverbs I'm missing?

It is possible that the smaller market presence of long-IR convolution is due to both high computation demands (requiring heftier CPU) and also a lack of understanding of the capabilities of convolution by the general pedal buying public. Just spit-balling.
 
Altiverb was the first prominent convolution reverb, around 2005. That was followed by a wave of many other similar reverbs and every major DAW included a convolution reverb shortly thereafter. They are still widely used, but the popularity has dwindled as people have come to prefer the controls and effects you can get with algorithmic reverbs. I don't think convolution reverb was ever popular in a pedal form, probably due to the same constraints that make it impractical in the Axe-FX.
 
I used Altiverb around the time it came out, and was really impressed with the implementation and bundled IRs.

I don't know what the percentages of studio use between convolution vs algorithmic would be, but yea, algorithmic reverbs are favored for the reasons you stated. At the end of the day, for many engineers, it's less about the realism of spaces, and more about how it sits in the mix. Also, as with synthesizers, it hasn't been about the clarinet (or whatever) it was trying to emulate 75 years ago.

Also, with convolution, as long as they have good general audio specs, there isn't a specific "personality" of the convolver to sell, over another one-- it's all down to the IRs. Yes, better convolvers offer features like ability to change the pitch and envelope characteristics. IMHO, a good parametric EQ is kind of a bare minimum.

Logic & Mainstage have Space Designer (along with the bundled Impulse Response Utility); AudioThing's Fog Convolver is affordable (currently on sale), WaveArts's free Colvology XT is good, there are others.

Given the capabilities of long-IR convolution, I'm curious why Boss, Line6, Source Audio, Zoom, or some other fx companies didn't want to touch this tech. How well did the EPSi sell? Are Poly FX & Tasty Chips "boutique" enough that their selling-like-hotcakes stats aren't indicative of broader demand? I think if people heard what is possible, they'd lose their minds. I've lost mine.
 
Last edited:
stub said:
Re: "noise" some reverbs (like Lexicon) seem to involve a large number of delay lines that form a kind of static-type noise burst that decays.
Click to expand...
The Lexicon reverbs I’ve heard (admittedly some years ago) sounded grainy to me, like a handful of ball bearings thrown at the side of a tin shed. I’ve never heard that in any Fractal Reverb algorithm.
 
Agreed about the Lexicons. It works pretty well in a mix context, and the stereo image is pretty effective--especially with the way early reflections are spaced & panned, but with some sources the texture is noticeable. With my IR collection that I'm using with the Integral, I ended up just getting rid of the Lexicons, they didn't hold up well against most of the others, real or fake.

Fractal's reverb seems to me like a modern take on a lexicon. The tails can sound similar to a lexicon when Fractals diffusions are turned down. Seems like Fractal's diffusion is better at smoothing out the taps. With higher diffusion and EQ you get the texture to sound rich & nice. Fractal makes balancing the early reflections pretty easy. The springs can sound good, but there can be some odd ringing in the late tail sometimes.

The quality and diversity of sounds you can get with convolution/IR's cannot be overstated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom