• We would like to remind our members that this is a privately owned, run and supported forum. You are here at the invitation and discretion of the owners. As such, rules and standards of conduct will be applied that help keep this forum functioning as the owners desire. These include, but are not limited to, removing content and even access to the forum.

    Please give yourself a refresher on the forum rules you agreed to follow when you signed up.

FullRes IR vs. Reverb

Chris Hurley

Experienced
One of the samples below uses a FullRes IR and the other uses a Reverb block. The difference might seem obvious to some, but I think the Reverb block does a very passable job.

Sample A
Sample B

Incidentally, the FullRes IR I used is one of the two that's linked to in the latest Beta 3 firmware post(ie. V2-Viper-k-sE8-FFL.syx).

Awesome attempt.

For the record, the first thing that popped into my head was "Josie's on a vacation far away"...
 

Jason Scott

Fractal Fanatic
Reveal:

A: Reverb
B: FullRes IR

Reverb settings are below, though it's important to note I placed the Reverb block before the Cab block for mono because the FullRes IR is in mono. Setting the Stereo Spread to 0 didn't produce the same effect. EQ, Modulation, and Ducker are at stock settings. Reverb block is attached.

Reverb Settings 1.jpg
Reverb Settings 2.jpg
 

Attachments

  • FullRes IR Emulation_20210928_073349.blk
    713 bytes · Views: 155
Last edited:

bstaley

Inspired
I thought both sounded really good, but before the reveal, if I had to pick one, I would have picked A. I think we're splitting hairs at this point. It's good to know that on my Rev 1 I can achieve nearly the same thing with the Reverb block. Thanks for those settings!
 

luke

Fractal Fanatic
I thought both sounded really good, but before the reveal, if I had to pick one, I would have picked A. I think we're splitting hairs at this point. It's good to know that on my Rev 1 I can achieve nearly the same thing with the Reverb block. Thanks for those settings!

And on lesser units like the FM3 & FM9.
 

Smittefar

Axe-Master
I too preferred A - I picked up a lot of metallic sound in B, which I believe is some sort of phasing. Could it be that the FullRes IR needs a bit more delay to get the separation just right? It could also be that the FullRes IR was recorded in a less than ideal room?
 

iaresee

Administrator
Moderator
Before I look at the results...

I preferred A and I think that's the reverb block. I think my preference is just due to years of using a room reverb block when I play to add a little space to things. B seemed drier.

Both sounded very good and either would be excellent to play with, for me.

Edit: It was the reverb block! It was a total guess on my part. I have nothing to hang that guess on and probably couldn't repeat the guess if you change up the tones.

It's interesting you used Plate for the match and not a room algorithm. My usual "add some reverb all the time" has been Medium Room as of late. I like the balance of high and low frequency reflections in that algorithm. The plates always seemed too bright for my tastes.
 

vangrieg

Fractal Fanatic
I preferred A and I think that's the reverb block. I think my preference is just due to years of using a room reverb block when I play to add a little space to things. B seemed drier.

I almost never use reverb, at least for monitoring, but to me the FullRes sample sounded like reverb without "real" sample. Kind of washed out and lacking definition.
 

vangrieg

Fractal Fanatic
I'm always running a little Medium Room on my patches. Live, I'll dial it all back from the global settings to dry it out.
I had like 15 year pause in guitar playing, and after I got back, I very soon started using digital gear. So maybe I just forgot AITR sound years ago and don't miss it at all.
 
Top Bottom