soft focus patch

[LuciousDach]

I'm conducting research on building a guitar pedal that incorporates the "soft focus" patch from the Yamaha FX500. I'm aware that Keeley has implemented it in the Loomer, but I'm not interested in the other features of the Loomer, and the Realizer is difficult to find.

Does anyone have knowledge about cloning this patch? Perhaps by combining a few different existing PCBs? The desired signal chain consists of a reverb followed by a delay and a symphonic effect (presumably a type of dimensional chorus).

---- I am a spammer, please ignore me. -----

[ElectricDruid]

Isn't there quite a bit of detail about how the original patch is done in the FX500 manual? It's got all the delay times and so on.

There's also a compressor on the front of the chain you mentioned, which slows the attack a little iirc. Oh, and an EQ too. Not sure how important that is. Depends exactly how close you want to get, I suppose.

I consulted for a boutique FX business who looked into cloning it, but I think they gave up after the the Catalinbread Soft Focus pedal came out, since the product never arrived. Beaten to the finish line. It happens sometimes.

[Andon]

Tom is correct. When I was first looking into this patch I initially disregarded the compression at the beginning, but now realize that it's actually an important part of the overall sound for that swell effect. Here's what you'd be looking at:



Signal chain goes like this: Compressor > EQ (cut around 1Khz) > Delay INTO Reverb > Symphonic (Chorus)

Elsewhere on the internet you'll see some claiming it's Reverb INTO Delay, but the program block says otherwise. According to the rest of the FX500 manual the "Symphonic" sound is just multiple choruses - the more you have the better it will sound. The speed/rate of the Symphonic chorus is 1.6Hz, so 1.6 cycles per second.

Also keep in mind that the two delays are in stereo but then apparently summed for the reverb block which then feeds into the Symphonic block. If you were looking to have absolute control over all of the parameters you'd probably be looking at about 10 controls (less if you use a couple of dual gang pots for the delay times, delay feedback, and delay mix).

[Geoff Hunter]

The Japanese manual gives different information on the Soft Focus patch

https://jp.yamaha.com/files/download/other_assets/9/323109/FX500J1.pdf

See pages 13 and 55 (of the document, not the pdf pages). It shows Reverb -> Delay!

[ElectricDruid]

I see where it says that on page 13, but I don't see it on page 55. Is that in the Japanese? There doesn't seem to be anything saying that in the parts I can read:



That seems to be mostly like this one from the English version of the manual:



So really, the only remaining question is whether the patch is actually Delay into Reverb or Reverb into Delay  - e.g. which of these versions of the manual is correct and which is mistaken?

Given the product's source, I'm inclined to believe you that the Japanese version should be regarded as "gospel" and that the English version is simply a translation error. Happens all the time. However, that's no guarantee.

[Geoff Hunter]

Yep thats it.

リバーブ　ー＞　ディレイ
Reverb -> Delay

The front panel display shows you the routing if I remember correctly.  If my FX500 is still working I will take a look, but im pretty sure its in that order.

[Digital Larry]

Ok here's either a philosophical or scientific question for y'all.

Is reverb -> delay different than delay -> reverb?

Justify your answer.

[Matthew Sanford]

Ok here's either a philosophical or scientific question for y'all.

Is reverb -> delay different than delay -> reverb?

Justify your answer.

I normally D->R as I like the echo to be whole prior to spreading into the background chord that forms, but in the case of making deeper and more lush reverb R->D wins by making echoes of reverberated sounds, creating that blanket of foreverness

[Andon]

Whenever this thread was created and I was going back through my notes (I'm the boutique builder Tom mentioned earlier - he and I had an extensive email chain on this when I was still pouring through datasheets and getting my feet wet), and cross-referencing all of the known sources (well, obviously not ALL of them, as the Japanese manual shows), and started asking that same question of whether either delay into reverb, or reverb into delay was - in general - more preferable, and found this comparison post on Reddit from a couple of years ago:

I am here to "prove" that Delay>Reverb and Reverb>Delay sound (almost) exactly the same. Audio A/B included.

It's a pretty well done comparison, with plenty of responses.

For me, personally, it doesn't matter too much the order of the aforementioned effects, though even a cursory search will show plenty of people bemoaning the presence of pre-delay in reverb signals, which is admittedly a salient point to this discussion (perhaps). That is, until you consider that it's all run through the symphonic chorus block.

The modulation of the symphonic chorus block obscures all sins, even for a relatively early reverb algorithm, which can just sound like a bunch of tapped delay lines with no real spreading and smearing of the signal, which the symphonic chorus takes care of. If I remember correctly, I don't believe it's ever mentioned exactly WHAT constitutes the symphonic chorus, save for the fact that it's at least more than one chorus line. Are they in series? Are they in parallel? Is there any phase shifting of the LFO signal (cosine, tri-phase, quadrature, etc.)? We know the rate, depth, and mix of the chorus signal, but not what it exactly is, other than "multiple" chorus lines.

EDIT: Barring some sort of multi-tap reverb, if we're looking at this as "how many" total delay lines you'd need to approach a reasonable facsimile of the Soft Focus patch, I'd say at minimum it's six: two for reverb, two for delay (different delay times), and two for chorus. You can actually get a pretty convincing reverb from just two delay lines, as shown here in this reverb I've been working on:

Direct link in case the embed doesn't work: https://youtu.be/O-SrY1wBGZ4

The delay ICs in the above video are two PT2399 workalikes, both set to the same delay time via a dual gang pot, except the first IC receives the dry signal, and the second IC only receives the wet signal from the first, with both of their feedbacks summed together and fed back in (with another dual gang control over both feedback lines).

[Geoff Hunter]

Luckily it still works, Such an interesting sound!

[ElectricDruid]

I am here to "prove" that Delay>Reverb and Reverb>Delay sound (almost) exactly the same. Audio A/B included.

It's a pretty well done comparison, with plenty of responses.

I think that's pretty much the whole story, right there. If the delay and reverb are linear, it doesn't matter. Theoretically and practically, it would make no difference. The further from linear you get, by adding modulations and/or distortions, the less that's true and the more difference the order makes.

[Digital Larry]

I am here to "prove" that Delay>Reverb and Reverb>Delay sound (almost) exactly the same. Audio A/B included.

It's a pretty well done comparison, with plenty of responses.

I think that's pretty much the whole story, right there. If the delay and reverb are linear, it doesn't matter. Theoretically and practically, it would make no difference. The further from linear you get, by adding modulations and/or distortions, the less that's true and the more difference the order makes.

That is such the right answer I'm not even going to embellish it (much). 
Don't forget about "time invariant".

You win!  Tell him what he wins, Bob!.... wait for it... a NEW CAR!!!! ding ding ding   

[ElectricDruid]

What's amazing is how much some of the commenters under that Reddit post are still willing to absolutely confirm that they sound completely different and the OP's arguments "doesn't work in reality" or "isn't what you really hear" or whatever, despite them being the ones who are simply wrong and the OP having explained carefully how and why and even provided real-world examples and detailed caveats.

Sigh. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them think. Or something like that.

[Matthew Sanford]

Thank you, my disillusionment with attaining "knowledge" is complete! Still, on that soft focus the high harmonics develop beautifully! Is that the chorus?

[Andon]

Thank you, my disillusionment with attaining "knowledge" is complete! Still, on that soft focus the high harmonics develop beautifully! Is that the chorus?

I would think, perhaps, it's the cut around 1Khz that allows the higher frequencies to really shine, but I could be (and often am) mistaken.

[niektb]

What's amazing is how much some of the commenters under that Reddit post are still willing to absolutely confirm that they sound completely different and the OP's arguments "doesn't work in reality" or "isn't what you really hear" or whatever, despite them being the ones who are simply wrong and the OP having explained carefully how and why and even provided real-world examples and detailed caveats.

Sigh. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them think. Or something like that.

I tried it myself in a DAW with a sample of my own and the two reverb + delay plugins I use by default (NI Raum and Replika) and replicated ( ) the null test... I was astonished! I díd have to turn off reverb modulation on my case and distortion on the delay tails, and then it was dead quiet. Did not expect that!

[ElectricDruid]

I could be (and often am) mistaken.

Recognizing that is what makes you a wiser person than those idiots on Reddit, Andon!! 

[potul]

I think that's pretty much the whole story, right there. If the delay and reverb are linear, it doesn't matter. Theoretically and practically, it would make no difference. The further from linear you get, by adding modulations and/or distortions, the less that's true and the more difference the order makes.

I was about to answer something in the same lines of "if they are linear, it doesn't matter", and then I thought "are they really linear?"
So my question for you experts is, what are the non-linear components of a reverb/delay, vs the linear ones?

I would assume delay lines, filters (including all-pass?) are linears, and modulation, ditortion  are not.

Am I correct?

[potul]

I found this....

[Digital Larry]

I think that's pretty much the whole story, right there. If the delay and reverb are linear, it doesn't matter. Theoretically and practically, it would make no difference. The further from linear you get, by adding modulations and/or distortions, the less that's true and the more difference the order makes.

I was about to answer something in the same lines of "if they are linear, it doesn't matter", and then I thought "are they really linear?"
So my question for you experts is, what are the non-linear components of a reverb/delay, vs the linear ones?

I would assume delay lines, filters (including all-pass?) are linears, and modulation, ditortion  are not.

Am I correct?

I'd say that's a pretty good summary.  A convolution reverb is going to be linear, but the reality is that most algorithmic reverbs do have some modulation in them AFAIK.