How does the Fractal reverb algorithms stack up to dedicated rack mount reverb processors?

Tritium3H

Tritium3H

Member
I have been slowly reconstituting my rack effects gear...having foolishly sold some of the great effect processors over the years.

I now have back in my stable, the following:
Lexicon MPX1
Roland SRV-330
Kurzweil Rumour
Rocktron Xpression
Digitech GSP1101.

The first three; the MPX1, the SRV-330, and the Rumour have absolutely amazing, stellar reverbs. Simply sublime.

I am curious as to opinion of Axe-FX III / FM9 / FM3 owners, who also have experience with dedicated reverb effects processors of high quality and prestige, as to how the latest Fractal reverb algorithms (particularly the Plate and Hall algorithms) compare with the great eighties and nineties and oughts Lexicons, Rolands, TC Electronic, Kurzweil, etc., reverb processors.

Even better, it would be great if Mr. Chase happens to see this, and would care to share some of his insight and experience on the development and programming of his reverb algorithms, and their implementation in the hardware.
 
The reverbs sound excellent. I notice that the early reflections are quite a bit louder than what you find on other reverb units. I'd experiment with taking that down.

As far as I understand, they are algorithmic and sound good compared to my Bricasti and Eventide units.
 
fractalz said:
The reverbs sound excellent. I notice that the early reflections are quite a bit louder than what you find on other reverb units. I'd experiment with taking that down.

As far as I understand, they are algorithmic and sound good compared to my Bricasti and Eventide units.
Click to expand...

Well, that is high praise, indeed.
 
Fractal’s reverbs are world-class. You’ll find that out firsthand when you get your hands on one.

As for the “great eighties” reverbs, I think they sound grainy — like a handful of ball bearings thrown at a tin shed. o_O:)
 
I found out that I don't use my other reverb units so much (included some TC) except my Bricasti M7 (but I don't know if this is related to my love for this unit): having the Axe-Fx (but this can be done also with the FM9) connected to a patch-bay I can do so many "artistic" Routing with amazing result with guitars, of course, but I use the FAS reverb and delay also on vocals and synth (as the master Dave Pensado does himself).
 
@fractalz

Hello.

One quick question. I am considering the FM9, and will be using it in two ways. First, as a turn-key amp/effects/cab system, going into a powered FRFR. No question in that scenario. However, I do plan also in using it as an Effects Only processor, in conjunction with my Friedman WW-20, installed in its FX Loop. I will be using a Suhr MiniMix II, to convert the FX Loop to "parallel". So, here is the question. I am looking at page 35 of FM9 Owner's Manual. Looks like I will be using Input and Outputs 3 (both mono). Is there a global or system level parameter to affect a "kill dry", i.e., 100% Wet effects output...or does this have to be done on a preset by preset basis, using the mix controls in the dleay and reverb blocks?

Thanks in advance, and cheers.
 
Rex said:
Fractal’s reverbs are world-class. You’ll find that out firsthand when you get your hands on one.

As for the “great eighties” reverbs, I think they sound grainy — like a handful of ball bearings thrown at a tin shed. o_O:)
Click to expand...

Hmmm, that might be the case with the early 80s low bit rate, low resolution digital reverbs. However, my MPX1 and SRV-330 do not sound grainy at all. Very lush, with smooth tails.
 
Unless you want to use them to save CPU and program more complex presets on your FM9, I would sell them all.

Tritium3H said:
Even better, it would be great if Mr. Chase happens to see this, and would care to share some of his insight and experience on the development and programming of his reverb algorithms, and their implementation in the hardware.
Click to expand...
Reply from Mr. Chase: "Ancient Chinese Secret" 🧙‍♀️:D
FractalAudio said:
1. Yes.
2. The types are based on parametric data that is available in the literature, i.e. RT60, absorption coefficients for various materials, etc.
3. See #2.]
4. Ancient Chinese Secret.
5. Yes, soon.
6. Because that's the way I did it. Spread only controls the tail.
7. The algorithm is not intended to be a binaural simulator.
8. Probably.
9. Not me.
10. No. No. Yes. Only you can answer that as it's a perception thing. Simulated reverb is often considered superior to real reverb for musical purposes.
Click to expand...
https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/10-questions-about-reverb.173557/post-2101296
 
Last edited:
Tritium3H said:
@fractalz

Hello.

One quick question. I am considering the FM9, and will be using it in two ways. First, as a turn-key amp/effects/cab system, going into a powered FRFR. No question in that scenario. However, I do plan also in using it as an Effects Only processor, in conjunction with my Friedman WW-20, installed in its FX Loop. I will be using a Suhr MiniMix II, to convert the FX Loop to "parallel". So, here is the question. I am looking at page 35 of FM9 Owner's Manual. Looks like I will be using Input and Outputs 3 (both mono). Is there a global or system level parameter to affect a "kill dry", i.e., 100% Wet effects output...or does this have to be done on a preset by preset basis, using the mix controls in the dleay and reverb blocks?

Thanks in advance, and cheers.
Click to expand...
I think you'll have to create your presets 100% wet. If you get in the habit of having your time delay effects in parallel, you can use the same settings in your FX only patches.
 
Piing said:
Unless you want to use them to save CPU and program more complex presets on your FM9, I would sell them all.


Reply from Mr. Chase: "Ancient Chinese Secret" 🧙‍♀️:D

https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/10-questions-about-reverb.173557/post-2101296
Click to expand...

The FM9 has a dedicated processor for reverb. Replacing the reverb block with a shunt in an FM9 preset gains you approximately an additional 1% CPU to program more complex presets. The only reason to use a separate reverb unit in the loop of the FM9 is because that unit does something that you cannot replicate with the FM9.
 
Tritium3H said:
Hmmm, that might be the case with the early 80s low bit rate, low resolution digital reverbs. However, my MPX1 and SRV-330 do not sound grainy at all. Very lush, with smooth tails.
Click to expand...
The MPX was a budget unit, nowhere near the class and detail of their mid line units like the PCM 90 series, much less the 224 or 480 that made the Lexicon name in the studio.

I had an SRV myself, metallic and artificial IMO, not close to the PCM 90 series or TC M3000 for instance.

Fractal reverbs blow those both away.
 
Rex said:
Fractal’s reverbs are world-class. You’ll find that out firsthand when you get your hands on one.

As for the “great eighties” reverbs, I think they sound grainy — like a handful of ball bearings thrown at a tin shed. o_O:)
Click to expand...
Agree 100%
 
Dave Merrill said:
The MPX was a budget unit, nowhere near the class and detail of their mid line units like the PCM 90 series, much less the 224 or 480 that made the Lexicon name in the studio.

I had an SRV myself, metallic and artificial IMO, not close to the PCM 90 series or TC M3000 for instance.

Fractal reverbs blow those both away.
Click to expand...

In the Lexicon family, I would consider the MPX1 a mid-tier unit, as compared to the high-end PCM 70/80s, and the low-end/budget MX and LXP series.

Not sure if you had the earlier SRV-2000, which was awesome but a bit grainy/granular due to converter and processing constraints. I definitely do not hear this with the SRV-330.

Nevertheless, Glad to hear everyone’s very positive assessment of the Fractal reverb algos.
 
Last edited:
Tritium3H said:
In the Lexicon family, I would consider the MPX1 a mid-tier unit, as compared to the high-end PCM 70/80s, and the low-end/budget MX and LX series.

Not sure if you had the earlier SRV-2000, which was awesome but a bit grainy/granular due to converter and processing constraints. I definitely do not hear this with the SRV-330.

Nevertheless, Glad to hear everyone’s very positive assessment of the Fractal reverb algos.
Click to expand...
You're probably right that I had an SRV-2000, apologies. It's been a while.
 
Tritium3H said:
I have been slowly reconstituting my rack effects gear...having foolishly sold some of the great effect processors over the years.

I now have back in my stable, the following:
Lexicon MPX1
Roland SRV-330
Kurzweil Rumour
Rocktron Xpression
Digitech GSP1101.

The first three; the MPX1, the SRV-330, and the Rumour have absolutely amazing, stellar reverbs. Simply sublime.

I am curious as to opinion of Axe-FX III / FM9 / FM3 owners, who also have experience with dedicated reverb effects processors of high quality and prestige, as to how the latest Fractal reverb algorithms (particularly the Plate and Hall algorithms) compare with the great eighties and nineties and oughts Lexicons, Rolands, TC Electronic, Kurzweil, etc., reverb processors.

Even better, it would be great if Mr. Chase happens to see this, and would care to share some of his insight and experience on the development and programming of his reverb algorithms, and their implementation in the hardware.
Click to expand...
Reverbs are ecellente on fractal. i ´m somekind of a freak regarding to reverbs but i love fractal reverbs. (I use EMT 140 Plate, M7, EMT 245, Quantec, AKG 68k, Klark DN780 and a few more , all hardware devices )
 
Well, I just compared the London and Sun "Plates" on my new FM9 Turbo (on Ultra-High Reverb resolution) with my Lexicon MPX1 and Roland SRV-330.

I also fired up my Boss RV-500, in which I have programmed some special SRV-2000 Plate and Hall settings.

Damn, the FM9 reverbs are every bit as good, and lush, and dense, with absolutely gorgeous tail(s).

Now, the absolutely KILLER aspect of the FM9 is the FM9-Edit, and the ability to graphically place reverb in parallel with delay. That, and the ease of programming the deeper reverb parameters, particularly EQs and diffusions.

I can easily say that the FM9 beats out my Lexicon MPX1, if for no other reason due to the low noise and converter quality. My MPX1 is rather noisy. The Roland SRV-330 is rather quiet, comparatively, and I actually prefer the reverbs on the SRV-330. So, I would put the FM9 easily on par with the SRV-330 in terms of core reverb audio quality (Plates, Halls, and Rooms -- I can't stand Spring reverb). The FM9, however, blows away the SRV-330 in terms of user interface, ease of tweakability, and deep diving and fine-tuning of reverb parameters.

What perhaps is the most surprising, is that the Boss RV-500 truly holds its own against the SRV-330 as well as the FM-9. What a fantastic reverb pedal, and I have to imagine is way more powerful than people realize or give it credit for. I have my suspicions that a lot of guitarists who buy a reverb pedal, have absolutely no experience with programming a hardware reverb unit, and simply want to turn a couple of knobs. The extensive digital menu and deep diving that the BOSS RV-500 provides is, I suspect, an immediate turn-off.
For me, anyway, the RV-500 is the absolute best dedicated reverb pedal on the market. I prefer it to the much lauded UA Golden Reverberator (which I also own).

I haven't had opportunity to compare the FM-9 reverbs with the Kurzweil Rumour. That will be another very close race, I suspect.

P.S. -- The Digitech GSP1101 reverbs are in last place, compared to the FM-9, the Roland SRV-330, the Lexicon MPX1, the Boss RV-500, and the Kurzweil Rumour. The GSP1101 is fine device, in its own right, but there is nothing particularly special about its Reverbs, which have always been (over)promoted as being "Licensed" by Lexicon. Being "Licensed" is a far cry from being a one-to-one digital copy of the Lexi's reverb algorithms, which were coded to the metal, on their proprietary LexiChip 2 DSP chips.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom