REV 5 vs REV 7 - What's the difference?
John Noll
JN
nmm
>What's the difference betweeen Yamaha's Rev 5 and Rev 7 reverbs?
>
>JN
>
i thnk it's an AtoD thing and maybe processor upgrade. The 5 is slightly
newer.
K
>What's the difference betweeen Yamaha's Rev 5 and Rev 7 reverbs?
2?
sorry.
drumsound
> What's the difference betweeen Yamaha's Rev 5 and Rev 7 reverbs?
>
> JN
2
Tony
Shiny On Top Studios/SanCastle Mastering
Fletcher
7 is a mediocre kik reverb.
--
Fletcher
Mercenary Audio
TEL: 508-543-0069
FAX: 508-543-9670
http://www.mercenary.com
"this is not a problem"
or playing the Dr. Laura of hum at:
http://www.prosoundweb.com/recpit
Ty Ford
>What's the difference betweeen Yamaha's Rev 5 and Rev 7 reverbs?
>
>JN
I have a 7. The 5 was more expensive (about $1k or so as I remember) and was
supposed to be quieter and more powerful. It has a 16-bit 44.1 A/D and D/A
with 20Hz to 20kHz freq. resp.
The Rev 7 has 31.25kHz 16-bit A/D and D/A with 20Hz to 12kHz frequency response.
Regards,
Ty Ford
Ty Ford's web site is http://www.jagunet.com/~tford.
Check it out for voiceover samples and audio equipment reviews.
OKden
I use a Rev5 as part of my regular "mix setup". It can be the front
half of a very nice reverb. Neither the ProR3 or the Rev500 have the
rev5 sound(grunge)....Also has pitch shift setups and all. The Rev7
makes a good dull 450ms delay, or headphone reverb. That's about it.
The 7's reverbs rival the original spx90.
Predrag Trpkov
>
> JN
Are you familiar with SPX-90 and SPX900/1000?
The set of algorithms/presets in REV-7 is very similar to that in SPX-90.
The set of algorithms/presets in REV-5 is very similar to that in
SPX-900/1000.
If you know the difference between SPX-90 and SPX-900, you have the answer.
Predrag
Altasrecrd
On a somewhat related note, I remember the Rev7 had a fairly decent plate
sound.
Any opinions on which digital box does a plate the best?
ScotFraser
EQ on all algorithms, IIRC has additional L, C, R delays on all algorithms, has
many more parameters available, & cleaner converters than the 7. The 5 is
basically pretty similar to an SPX900 in programmability.
Scott Fraser
Bob Ross
I've always felt the original SPX-90 was a vast improvement over the
REV-7.
And the REV-5 is indeed a vast improvement over both the REV-7 and the
SPX-90.
And I've come to hate all Yamaha 'verbs and multi-effect processors, so
take what I say with a grain of salt.
/Bob Ross
nmm
>I've always felt the original SPX-90 was a vast improvement over the
>REV-7.
>
>And the REV-5 is indeed a vast improvement over both the REV-7 and the
>SPX-90.
>
>And I've come to hate all Yamaha 'verbs and multi-effect processors, so
>take what I say with a grain of salt.
>
>/Bob Ross
How about the REV-1, wasn't that Yamaha's Cadilac of Digital Reverb?
Still the AMS, and Quantec (SP) were the way to go, back then.
So now that the 80's are back, how are people getting that 80's gated
reverb sounds.
Brian Tankersley
Unless they sound the same to you, in which case, there is no
difference.
Regards,
Brian T
ScotFraser
In article <a33th4$2pg2$1...@as201.hinet.hr>, "Predrag wrote:
<< The set of algorithms/presets in REV-7 is very similar to that in SPX-90.>>
The SPX90 did a bunch of things (mostly rather poorly) that the Rev 7 doesn't
do, like pitch shifting, gating & compression. What the Rev 7 does is more
limited, mainly delays, reverbs & chorusing, but it does them much better than
the SPX90.
<<The set of algorithms/presets in REV-5 is very similar to that in
SPX-900/1000.>>
Pretty much the same feature set, yes.
Scott Fraser
ScotFraser
In article <3C561367...@verizon.net>, Bob wrote:
<< I've always felt the original SPX-90 was a vast improvement over the
REV-7. >>
I always felt the SPX90 was an ugly sounding piece of crap, slightly useable
for its delays & not much else. The REV 7 early reflections & reverbs were a
huge improvement over the 90.
Scott Fraser
Kooch
> On a somewhat related note, I remember the Rev7 had a fairly decent plate
> sound.
>
> Any opinions on which digital box does a plate the best?
I like the PCM70 plates.
Kooch
dense reverbs.....
If you run a distorted droning guitar through the "reverb flange"
preset with the rate turned as slow as possible, it sounds just like
the first Spacemen 3 album.
--Jim
Fletcher <Flet...@mercenary.com> wrote in message news:<3C55548A...@mercenary.com>...
Analogeezer
It's nice to hear that someone else actually thought this too back
then. The "Symphonic" thing as a guitar chorus was pretty cool, but
that was about it.
I never understood why everybody raved over the SPX-90 (well it sort
of was the first multi-effect) I never thought it sounded that great
and that was back when I was using spring reverbs and Midiverb II's
(granted it sounded better than those two things, but it just never
floated my boat that much).
I used to shudder when you'd encounter somebody with 2 or 3 of the
things in their racks...they always thought they were very cool with a
setup like that.
RE: The REV 7
We mixed a band project of ours (recorded on 8 track) in the mid
1980's and we had our SRV-2000 and the guy's studio had a Rev 7. We
wound up using the Rev 7 on the more "covered" parts and the SRV on
the exposed stuff.
YMMV but I always thought the SRV-2000 was one of the best under
kilobuck 1980's reverb boxes...mine developed a bad gate board, and
since the replacement part exceeds the value of the box, I just keep
it around as an artifact of my past. I still wished the thing worked
right, I'd still probably use it on certain things.
I have no idea how the Rev 5 sounded, but I remember encountering a
Rev 1 (at least I think it was) for FOH at a big gig we did...me and
my soundman looked at that thing (I think it was $12k in 1984, which
was a LOT of money back then) like it was from another planet <g>
Analogeezer
Bob Ross
> How about the REV-1, wasn't that Yamaha's Cadilac of Digital Reverb?
I built a control room as an in-store demo facility for a pro audio retailer
in 1985 that had a Yamaha REV-1 as its processing centerpiece. Despite the
cool looking YARC or whatever they called the remote, it suffered from
exactly the same problems that seem to plague all Yamaha digital reverbs:
grainy, pixillated, metallic, with raggedy tails and no way to turn the Dirt
parameter to 0. That was one overpriced pig fersure.
/Bob Ross
Bob Ross
> What the Rev 7 does is more
> limited, mainly delays, reverbs & chorusing, but it does them much better than
> the SPX90.
>
I distinctly remember being involved in a casual A/B test circa 1985: we put a
then brand new just released SPX90 next to a mint 6-month old REV7 and dialed up
identical Hall programs on the two. What most impressed me about the SPX90 was
that it was conspicuously quieter than the REV-7.
Well, that and it was cheaper.
Can't say I've listened to them side by side since then, but I've always been
majorly underwhelmed with every REV-7 I've encountered since, whereas at least I
know what to expect from an SPX90 and am rarely disappointed.
YMV, clearly.
/Bob
ScotFraser
In article <3C575726...@verizon.net>, Bob wrote:
<< we put a
then brand new just released SPX90 next to a mint 6-month old REV7 and dialed
up
identical Hall programs on the two. What most impressed me about the SPX90 was
that it was conspicuously quieter than the REV-7. >>
My beef with the 90 was that its Hall program was NOT identical to the Rev 7.
And the early reflection patterns were nowhere near as convincing acoustically.
Scott Fraser
Andre Sommer
>
> JN
One of my brothers bought the Rev 7 when it came out. We all thought it
sounded good back then. My other brother bought the 5 when that came out
and I have it now. It definitely sounds better than the 7 and I use it
for mainly delay's and rooms. It also had some excellent chorus stuff.
But then again, I personally can't complain at all about the unit
because I got it for free <beg>.
Andre.
Fibes
quieter than the spx90 but if you say so...
The Rev 5 is a kickass kick drum reverb, everything else is OK IMO.
Fibes
"You can like it, or not like it."