# tube driven spring reverb is the best....or is it?



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

If I have said it once I have said it a thousand times...
" there is nothing like a tube driven spring reverb"..

until today...

So I have my "used" new blues junior and it does sound great.
I also have a HOF mini reverb pedal that I was not using at the moment.
So I decided to do a "reverb off" just to hear the difference.

I think this is a very fair comparison...
Both systems only have one knob..."more reverb/ less reverb"

After a half hour of going back and forth...
I can honestly say that the HOF mini pedal has a much better reverb.
More lush in tone, much better sweep of usable reverb settings as you turn the knob up.
And the pedal had a shorter decay then the spring reverb which I liked a lot...

Im sure that not all tube driven reverb systems are the same. I know the BLues Junior has a short tank
but it still amazed me that the pedal has a better reverb sound then the Junior.

So there it is...
and here is a pic of my mini board after I decided to tuck the HOF pedal in there.

thats all I have to day about that.
G.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

To my way of thinking, there is really not that much added value in using a tube-based reverb. The springs provide far more coloration than any given driver/recovery technology ever could, such that the contribution of tubes to the tone is negligible.

So why are old Fender reverb units so highly prized? I figure there are a few reasons. First, they have 3 controls, and not just a "More reverb" knob. How hard one pushes the springs (via the Dwell control) partly governs the character of the reverb tone produced. Having a Tone control for the resulting spring sound is also quite helpful and something generally not found on many amps. But both the drive and treble cut could be implemented in a solid-state unit as well, as could the headroom available.

The other aspect that comes with the traditional Fender outboard reverb is that it is its own unit _ahead _of the amplifier proper. In essence, it is situated exactly where a reverb pedal would be.

So what's the advantage of a *tube *spring reverb unit over simply a *decent* reverb unit of any kind? I can't see it.

What's the advantage of a *spring* reverb unit over a digital one? Sometimes, plenty. You won't be able to mimic certain _kinds_ of physical spaces (e.g., cathedral halls), but you'll have plenty of creative options available since, as noted above, the character of the reverb produced will change when you drive the springs differently.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

How significant is the length of the tank and/or the number of springs involved? 

The Fender outboard unit seems quite short (given the size of the cab) but is held in very high regard.

Interesting thread.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

mhammer said:


> To my way of thinking, there is really not that much added value in using a tube-based reverb. The springs provide far more coloration than any given driver/recovery technology ever could, such that the contribution of tubes to the tone is negligible.
> 
> So why are old Fender reverb units so highly prized? I figure there are a few reasons. First, they have 3 controls, and not just a "More reverb" knob. How hard one pushes the springs (via the Dwell control) partly governs the character of the reverb tone produced. Having a Tone control for the resulting spring sound is also quite helpful and something generally not found on many amps. But both the drive and treble cut could be implemented in a solid-state unit as well, as could the headroom available.
> 
> ...


My digiral reverb does an ok spring sound, but I couldn't believe how good it did big Hall sounds. I was floored.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

I have 4 available reverbs on my board. None are tube driven. I never think about it .


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

greco said:


> How significant is the length of the tank and/or the number of springs involved?
> 
> The Fender outboard unit seems quite short (given the size of the cab) but is held in very high regard.
> 
> Interesting thread.


More springs generally leads to a richer, less boing-ey sound, since the mechanical properties of each spring are slightly different. It's akin to having a more powerful processor in a digital unit, calculating more diverse reflections.

Longer springs yield longer decay times. Consider that the wobblier the spring, the longer until it stops wiggling, once you shake it. My hunch would be that longer spring pans are also more responsive to different amounts of "push/shake" with the Dwell control set differently.

I had done some experiments with an entirely home-made spring set-up, but never formalized it and built it into a serviceable unit. It actually didn't sound too bad. I used some very soft springs I got at Home Depot or Canadian Tire, in a Y configuration. The end of the primary spring was epoxied to the apex of a small driver speaker. The two secondary springs were joined to the other end of the primary spring to form the Y, and their other ends were connected to individual piezo discs. Having two separate secondary springs allows for each one to be set for different tension/compliance (i.e., one could be stretched out a little more than the other) and also affixed to piezo discs of different sizes. With piezo discs, having a different diameter results in different frequency response. If each disc has its own recovery-amp stage, with a mixer to combine them in varying proportions, the possibilities are near-endless.

Another perk of the Y configuration is that angling the springs yields a shorter overall length. My original intent for the experiment was to see if it was possible to have spring reverb within a small practice amp. Things like the digital effects chips from Spin Semiconductor ( http://www.spinsemi.com/Products/datasheets/spn1001/FV-1.pdf ) or Wavefront ( Wavefront Semiconductor | Products | AL3101/2 DSP-1K ) are what many of the big name budget amplifiers use for their multi-FX. They provide a powerful cost-effective solution, but sometimes you just want something primitive that allows for weird one-off tones. And that's what I was aiming for. I'll put a full-fledged version of what I described on the agenda for post-retirement.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

I wouldn't write off tube reverb based on one of Fender's cheaper amps. Try the standard bearer Deluxe or Twin Reverbs or the better custom models.

Personally, I think spring reverbs are a bit of a one trick pony, harken back to the good old days. My DRRI reverb is useful in a very small range (like from 2.4 to 2.7) but sound good in that limited range. But a digital verb will give me that and a hundred other things. Kind of a no brainer.


----------



## Cups (Jan 5, 2010)

That reverb in the blues Jr is solid state and not tube driven. 

...... so there's that.


----------



## Tone Chaser (Mar 2, 2014)

Reverb quality is different in every amp that I own.

I also have a Topanga and a HOF. The reverb on the HOF is OK, not my first choice. Almost any other effect choice on that pedal is more pleasing to my ears. The Topanga can compete with the best of them as well as with the original Fender bulky and historic reverb unit.

The reverb in my 1976 Traynor YGM3 is one of the most awesome I have heard, but that amp was totally gone through by Dean Zink. It may be one of the finest examples of an amp of that genre.

My Princeton is lush and pleasing, Blues Jr. is OK, Dr. Z Maz 18R is pitiful if you treat the knob setting like a Fender, but OK when pushed over the halfway mark. To me, OK means that it adds something to the mix. I have a lot of pedals that are OK, but perhaps not the best example of an effect.


----------



## GWN! (Nov 2, 2014)

Never liked the reverb in my Blues Jr. The range wasn't very useful. It would go from almost no reveb to cavernous way too quickly. Fender deluxe The reverb in the Princeton or Deluxe are a lot better in every regard.


----------



## GTmaker (Apr 24, 2006)

Cups said:


> That reverb in the blues Jr is solid state and not tube driven.
> 
> ...... so there's that.


That is very interesting and I certainly did not know it.
thanks
G.


----------



## Cups (Jan 5, 2010)

Without knowing how to read schematics there's no way you'd know. 
The weird thing is that there is an unused gain stage so they could have used it to drive the verb. Although that would take quite a bit of redesigning and layout. 
It's still a true spring reverb though. Small pan, and Mark explained the differences better than I ever could.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Just to clarify, the Blues Jr. has a *spring* reverb pan (short spring). The _driver and recovery_ circuitry around the pan IS solid-state, while the remainder of the amp is tube-based. I just wanted to say that because there are entirely solid-state reverb units, both digital and analog.

Here is an old article from POLYPHONY (which eventually turned into ELECTRONIC MUSICIAN in 1985) about springs.


----------



## Crimson Queen (Oct 24, 2016)

I have one of those Furman rack spring reverb. It's as good as it gets. I prefer plate reverb these days, and love the Catalinbread Talisman.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

I've got on-board reverb on 3 Fender tube amps...and I wish I knew why one of them sounds SO much better, with a much wider range of usable reverb than the other two.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I came to the conclusion years ago that pedal reverb was at least as good, and in many cases better, than most amp based or tube based systems. The Dr S. Radical Red Reverberator was the one that put the icing on the cake. Sounded better, was much more versatile, and only took up the space of one pedal on my board. Right now I'd put the reverbs in my Zoom MS70 CDR up against anything out there. In my early years I wouldn't buy an amp without reverb, now I could care less and probably would prefer it without.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

JBFairthorne said:


> I've got on-board reverb on 3 Fender tube amps...and I wish I knew why one of them sounds SO much better, with a much wider range of usable reverb than the other two.


Which amps? I'm curious to look up the schematics.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

mhammer said:


> Which amps? I'm curious to look up the schematics.


'93 Fencer Concert 1x12 (not to be confused with what most people are familiar with when they see "Fender Concert"). Decent reverb up to about 4 or 5, then it just gets too metallic sounding and thin. Certain frequencies can cause rattles at loud-ish volumes.

2000's Fender Hot Rod Deluxe 1x12. More or less the same as the previous, maybe a hair more useful along the sweep. Still get the rattle when it's turned up.

'83 Deluxe Reverb II (not to be confused with a Deluxe Reverb). Most useful, through almost the entire sweep, reverb I've ever used extensively. The difference can be heard immediately. Never any offending rattles or noises.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks. I have my homework assignment.

Incidentally, the Accutronics company - makers of most reverb pans - was bought out by the folks who make the Belton Brick. If you check their site ( ::::::::: Accu Bell Sound Inc ::::::::: ), you'll see that digital is encroaching on traditional spring territory.

That is not, by definition, a terrible thing (and I imagine they will continue to make spring pans for repairing the many tens of thousands of amps out there that already use them). But those digital plug-in modules may end up being less amenable to mods and finer tweaking than some may like, and have less of the analog surprises that can give a given amp its special charm.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

davetcan said:


> I came to the conclusion years ago that pedal reverb was at least as good, and in many cases better, than most amp based or tube based systems. The Dr S. Radical Red Reverberator was the one that put the icing on the cake. Sounded better, was much more versatile, and only took up the space of one pedal on my board. Right now I'd put the reverbs in my Zoom MS70 CDR up against anything out there. In my early years I wouldn't buy an amp without reverb, now I could care less and probably would prefer it without.


I jammed with a guy the other day. He said he always uses his pedal reverb (strymon) and never uses the on board reverb in his Mesa MkV


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

It is worth noting that digital reverb pedals are generally capable of providing different "spaces". In contrast, spring reverb on amps generally capture one rather specific space. There is generally nothing on a spring-based circuit that lets one transform the resulting ambience from a small tiled bathroom to a cathedral. So comparing an amp's spring system to a digital pedal is a bit like comparing a single fuzz pedal to a multi-fx.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

I'm simply comparing the resulting tone available, I could care less about the science behind it. Not that i don't care about the science in general, I just don't care how it gets me there if it sounds good 



mhammer said:


> It is worth noting that digital reverb pedals are generally capable of providing different "spaces". In contrast, spring reverb on amps generally capture one rather specific space. There is generally nothing on a spring-based circuit that lets one transform the resulting ambience from a small tiled bathroom to a cathedral. So comparing an amp's spring system to a digital pedal is a bit like comparing a single fuzz pedal to a multi-fx.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

I'm embarrassed to say that I've never owned a reverb pedal (other than in a crappy multi-effect board I had 20+ years ago).


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

JBFairthorne said:


> I'm embarrassed to say that I've never owned a reverb pedal (other than in a crappy multi-effect board I had 20+ years ago).


I can't go without one. I have a bit of spring reverb or delay on at all times.


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

JBFairthorne said:


> I'm embarrassed to say that I've never owned a reverb pedal (other than in a crappy multi-effect board I had 20+ years ago).


I was exactly the same until i bought my first amp without on board reverb


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

cboutilier said:


> I can't go without one. I have a bit of spring reverb or delay on at all times.


Yep, same here. Preferably a bit of both


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

davetcan said:


> Yep, same here. Preferably a bit of both


I find my two together get all washed out


----------



## davetcan (Feb 27, 2006)

cboutilier said:


> I find my two together get all washed out


I have a very light reverb on all the time (MS70 CDR) and then just step on the same pedal to bring in the delay, also set fairly low in the mix. MS70 also has a built in tuner so it's a really efficient little pedal from a board space standpoint. Also has a low current draw so powering with my volto's on the small board is no issue.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Although I have a bunch of reverb pans in the garage, and also bought that cool little Muza unit earlier this year, I'm putting the finishing touches on a delay/reverb unit I built. The whole thing is based off those ridiculously cheap Princeton Technology chips ( Digital Echo / Surround Processor PT2399 DIP - dipmicro electronics ). The Tonepad *Rebote 3* project uses three of them and gives me a little over a second delay time with modulation. The Valve Wizard *Equinox* reverb project uses two of them (the Belton Bricks use 3 but two will still yield something useful) and gives a reasonable variety of spaces. When I was in Halifax over Labour Day weekend, Aimish at Diamond Pedals was kind enough to spot me some pre-drilled powder-coated enclosures from discontinued products of the size they use for the Memory Lane pedals. None of the pre-drilled holes precluded what I planned to stick in there. I put what I hope was a last spray of clear-coat over the legending this morning before leaving for work, and after I come back from what I expect will be a shrill town hall meeting this evening regarding school closures, I hope to start installing the boards in the chassis and doing the final wiring.

So far, I like what I hear. It's not a Strymon, and does not permit wholesale changes, but the performance is quite decent. Having separate stompswitches for the delay and reverb sections is handy. I find the Equinox is not quite as lush as springs or either of the rackmount units I have, but it does add a nice "glow" around the repeats. I make a point of including a little bit of filtering control in delays to achieve different feels and spaces. I'll be sure to post pics once I'm done, and maybe a soundfile.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

I haven't crossed over to a tube driven PC so I'll have to make do with my "solid state" UAD AKG BX-20 plugin.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

mhammer said:


> . The springs provide far more coloration than any given driver/recovery technology ever could,


Have you done a comparison of all the newest gear or is this just an assumption based on your past experience?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Steadfastly said:


> Have you done a comparison of all the newest gear or is this just an assumption based on your past experience?


Past experience, and physical realities as well. Springs are_ mechanical transducers_, with a very limited bandwidth and different transduction qualities depending on how you push them. One could be pushing them harder with a 6K6 (as in fender reverb units), with 12AT7s (as in many Fender amps), with op-amps (as in MANY commercial amps), or with little power-amp chips (as in many projects and some amps). But regardless of *what* you push them with, jiggling a long 2-spring pan will sound different than a short 2-spring pan, and jiggling any pan with a harder signal, or a signal that has some mids boosted, will sound different. 

When I say "more coloration", that's simply a reflection of the fact that you can't get high end from springs, and are wise not to accept any low end from them, lest the rumble from your speakers be unacceptably amplified by the spring pan.


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

Interesting discussion. 

I have nothing to go on but my ears, but I've been generally very happy with the reverb from the Traynor YCV50. Live, I have a little pedal reverb from the Boss ME-80 on most the time, with a little more available from the delay section if I want it though I generally use the amp reverb beyond that. Like other modulation effects, one must be careful not to overdo it. They are different but quite compatible. 

The onboard reverb in my little Traynor DG30 is okay for a practice amp but I wouldn't record or perform with it.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Sometimes the different can be the little things. Thirty years back I bought a late 60's Gibson amp. I forget which model, but it had one of those sloped front control panels, and a single 12". The reverb was simply dreadful. Utterly unusable. I traced the path back from the reverb control, and reduced the value of the capacitor that limited low end in the reverb path, such that the reverb was brighter rather than bottom-heavy, and it sounded terrific. Kinda wish I hadn't sold the amp, but it illustrates that a simple component-value change in an existing circuit can make the difference between what you refuse to use, and what you enjoy using.


----------

