ilovefuzz.com

I currently own the two versions of this pedal. The #95 red laser wich still doesnt have the rotary, and the recent mini blue on the air version.
Why do they sound so different?
The older one sounds more mid-rangy and low fi... warmer, with a slight cut on the highs...
while the mini apparently has more resolution on the verbs and clarity on the boost circuit.

Best regards
And congrarulations on this amazing pedal ( my favorite stomp this days)

ryan will give you the answer!

pedroleonidas wrote:I currently own the two versions of this pedal. The #95 red laser wich still doesnt have the rotary, and the recent mini blue on the air version.
Why do they sound so different?
The older one sounds more mid-rangy and low fi... warmer, with a slight cut on the highs...
while the mini apparently has more resolution on the verbs and clarity on the boost circuit.

Best regards
And congrarulations on this amazing pedal ( my favorite stomp this days)

which do you prefer?

Hi,
Its hard to say...I think it really depends on what sound you want
I prefer the older one aestetics for sure, for being an unique handcrafted pice with a very special vibe, it looks more solid too. I also think reparing this one, if ever needed, would be simpler.
As for sound, tho older one has more of an "home brew" feel going, wich in some reverb modes is nice...i prefer the rooms on this one... The boost is fatter and all vebrs sound smooth and natural,.
The mini has more sparkle and tighter bass, i like its type of boost for some situations, and i think the differences between the modes are more explicit, and with great recording like fidelity.

pedroleonidas wrote:I currently own the two versions of this pedal. The #95 red laser wich still doesnt have the rotary, and the recent mini blue on the air version.
Why do they sound so different?
The older one sounds more mid-rangy and low fi... warmer, with a slight cut on the highs...
while the mini apparently has more resolution on the verbs and clarity on the boost circuit.

Best regards
And congrarulations on this amazing pedal ( my favorite stomp this days)

Welcome to ILF, Pedro, and thanks very much!

There's one cap difference between the oldest old models and all the rest of the Reverberators and it accounts for all the difference you hear. At the input of all my pedals I have a small series resistance with a small cap to ground, it's a mild low pass filter that's there to reject radio interference. Back in 2006/2007 I used a 102 for the cap to ground and it actually darkens the tone through the pedal quite noticeably. When you roll off the highs through a circuit the midrange frequencies become much more prominent. You could snip the cap right off your pcb and brighten your old model up. Otherwise the circuits are identical.

pedroleonidas wrote:it looks more solid too. I also think reparing this one, if ever needed, would be simpler.

They're made with all the exact same parts and components, the only difference is in the mini the pots and toggle switch are pcb shaft style. This allows a tighter, cleaner build with no off-board wiring which is always better. With the smd board notice how everything is on the top, visible surface of the pcb.. it's a breeze to repair, anything can be done while the pedal is still built.

Thanks for the insight, Ryan.
I like both versions. Each has its own vibe.
I decided to make a quick video shootout of the two models(on subtle reverb settings):
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9QGvPQfsps[/youtube]

Congratulations again, and thanks for this great pedals!

Cool video and great playing! I like your sounds and style!

You definitely can hear the warmth of the big box but I think I personally prefer the brighter/clearer sound... that's been my design goal of the last few years I guess, focusing on bright and clear.

Not sure if this has been asked before, but how hard would it be to add a dwell knob to the RRR?....any chance you'd be willing to add a knob now or in the future?

Ryan wrote:Cool video and great playing! I like your sounds and style!

You definitely can hear the warmth of the big box but I think I personally prefer the brighter/clearer sound... that's been my design goal of the last few years I guess, focusing on bright and clear.

Thanks a million!
Both versions are sweet, "perfect simple". IMO

cheers

hollowhero wrote:Not sure if this has been asked before, but how hard would it be to add a dwell knob to the RRR?....any chance you'd be willing to add a knob now or in the future?

I'd love a dwell knob too and I'm sure it's been proposed but I can't remember Ryan's verdict. It was def a planned feature on the Ultimate RRR but can it be retro-fitted on an old box? That's where my interest lies....

Another option I'd love to see on a future RRR is an Attack control. That feature is so great if you like to bring the heavies. Let's the initial note/chord hit hard before blooming into hugeness when that verb kicks in moments later. So good.

Is there any plans for an ultimate RRR?

I already have a cool reverb on my amp... and it's on all the time.
But when I want to add more, a pedal would be great.
The fact that the reverberator have a rotary function is plus.

There was but I think Ryan had issues and set it aside for now. Maybe an issue with the processor/chip manufacturer, can't remember the specifics. It's covered in that old "Ultimate RRR" wishlist thread.

An ultimate RRR would be mind-blowingly awesome, but I would also be happy with just a dwell knob thrown onto one of the mini-verberators.

You guys mean dwell as in a decay control? It's not something you can just 'throw on', if it was just as simple as hooking up a pot I'd have done it over 6 years ago. The Reverberator's clock system requires a 6MHz to 12MHz timing signal and that's what the two choices are on the toggle switch. And to go even a small bit outside of that timing range just shuts the reverb engine down. To make that into a knob you need a very precise and variable high speed oscillator.. I have one cooked up but it has quirks on a breadboard that make it kind of annoying to use but they might go away once built on a pcb.

Plus, since the reverb engine is stuck between the ranges of those timing signals, there's not really a ton of variation possible anyway. All the patches come in slightly different decay lengths so with the toggle you already cover it all anyway... you're not going to hear a huge difference between a half second or second here and there of decay time.

If you mean dwell as in a feedback control then maybe.. I've pondered that with the Reverberator but mixing wet signal back in with dry signal is generally best for making weird/exaggerated sounds like the resonance/regen knobs on phasers and flangers because it has dramatic filtering results.

If I can do the oscillator trick it wouldn't be retro-fit-able, it would be a system of several components and an IC that would need to be on a new pcb.

sylnau wrote:Is there any plans for an ultimate RRR?

Kinda... when I'm out of the current batch of minis, about another 100 builds, I'm going to prototype a stereo RRR.. already got the box laid out for it, 125B like the Trem and Elements. My plan is stereo in and out, decay control on a knob maybe, bass and treble knobs maybe (part of me thinks this is redundant since the patches are eq'd differently anyway, part of me thinks it would be powerful enough to be worth it), and stereo effects loop. Many months away though.

that sounds really cool
maybe just a tone knob instead of both?