Spring reverb: what is the state of affairs in 2023?

[ChristopherWD]

I like the Arturia one because it can do that bouncy "drip" sound surprisingly well, but it can also get smooth or grungy too depending how you dial it in so it isn't just a one-trick spring reverb. It takes a bit of resouces but I think it's worth it.

Also, there's a bit of fun if you click on the stamped label...

[jens]

both Spirit Reverb and Twangstrom wouldn't lead to buyer's remorse, they sound great

Tbh I have serious buyer's remorse about the latter - I love spring reverbs, however for Twangström I have no real use... whenever I try using it on something I end up replacing it with something else - I keep wondering why on earth I purchased it (well, actually I know exactly why).

[kraster]

both Spirit Reverb and Twangstrom wouldn't lead to buyer's remorse, they sound great

Tbh I have serious buyer's remorse about the latter - I love spring reverbs, however for Twangström I have no real use... whenever I try using it on something I end up replacing it with something else - I keep wondering why on earth I purchased it (well, actually I know exactly why).

Yeah, I have Twangstrom and I never use it.

I don't think it sounds anything like a spring at all. It's kind of just a murky ringing thing.

[MadDogE134]

yet to hear a spring sim i like or actually sounds like a tank

[plexuss]

yet to hear a spring sim i like or actually sounds like a tank

As previously mentioned did you try Spirit? I was just playing with it... it sounds pretty close, to me. YMWV

[jens]

both Spirit Reverb and Twangstrom wouldn't lead to buyer's remorse, they sound great

Tbh I have serious buyer's remorse about the latter - I love spring reverbs, however for Twangström I have no real use... whenever I try using it on something I end up replacing it with something else - I keep wondering why on earth I purchased it (well, actually I know exactly why).

Yeah, I have Twangstrom and I never use it.

I don't think it sounds anything like a spring at all. It's kind of just a murky ringing thing.

Yes, exactly - and yet Sascha (who is one of the original legends of plugin development after all) appeared to be convinced that it absolutely nails it.

[kevinsparks]

Spring reverb (hardware) offers such a diverse array of sounds that lots of people are going to have preferences and different opinions on what sounds "realistic". Even springs found in combo amps vary pretty wildly, some drip while others provide much cleaner ambience.

Jens, you might be right about combos causing sympathetic vibrations with their built-in springs. I've never had an amp with a drippy spring so I can't say if we're hearing the same thing.

I forgot about Spirit, which is a good option. It will sound real enough, and also let you do crazy things that aren't possible with the real thing, like near infinite decay.

[jamcat]

I demoed a few more spring reverbs. All of these were tested between two instances of TONEX, the first with the cab disabled, and the second with the amp disabled.

Audiothing Springs - Feels flat and stagnant, lacks movement. I think it must be convolution based. Nothing special, wouldn't recommend.

Softube Spring Reverb - Really metallic. Middle of the road for realism, if that, and doesn't sound good. But on the plus side, it has a "shake" lever and it's only $39.

PSP SpringBox - Wow on this one! It's now in my top 2, along with Physical Audio Dual Spring. Maybe my #1. This one drips. It’s got the juice. It's also extremely versatile, and can add plenty of gain, so you're sure to get a good mix. Much better than Dual Spring in that regard, as I find myself turning the output all the way up and still lacking volume. It's also darker, danker, and dirtier than Dual Spring, which may be good or bad, depending on how thick you like your soup.

I didn't bother with Spirit Verb because as abandonware that is neither Apple Silicon nor VST3, it has zero chance of finding its way into my plugin menu. I also didn't get around to MixWave Benson Tall Bird yet. I probably will, but I'm not terribly excited about convolution reverbs.

[audenso]

I demoed a few more spring reverbs. All of these were tested between two instances of TONEX, the first with the cab disabled, and the second with the amp disabled.

PSP SpringBox - Wow on this one! It's now in my top 2, along with Physical Audio Dual Spring. Maybe my #1. This one drips. It’s got the juice. It's also extremely versatile, and can add plenty of gain, so you're sure to get a good mix. Much better than Dual Spring in that regard, as I find myself turning the output all the way up and still lacking volume. It's also darker, danker, and dirtier than Dual Spring, which may be good or bad, depending on how thick you like your soup.

Thank you for sharing your experience with PSP SpringBox. I’m at a crossroad looking to replace Twangström with one of two: PSP SpringBox or PSP Nexcellence. The latter is more flexible IMO. Did you also check this one and if that’s the case what’s your opinion on it compared to SpringBox?

[jens]

Spring reverb (hardware) offers such a diverse array of sounds that lots of people are going to have preferences and different opinions on what sounds "realistic". Even springs found in combo amps vary pretty wildly, some drip while others provide much cleaner ambience.

Yes, I partly agree, however I think there is enough common ground between different spring-reverb devices in order to tell whether an emulation nails the basic sound or not.

[jens]

PSP SpringBox - Wow on this one! It's now in my top 2, along with Physical Audio Dual Spring. Maybe my #1. This one drips. It’s got the juice.

Told you guys!

[jens]

I’m at a crossroad looking to replace Twangström with one of two: PSP SpringBox or PSP Nexcellence. The latter is more flexible IMO.

Nexcellence doesn't emulate a normal spring reverb. The necklace type of spring reverb creates a much more naturally sounding reverberation due to its design.

This animated picture shows in simplified form how the necklace reverb unit works. The red, blue and green dots represent the vibrations in the three hanging springs that were induced there by the input transducers in response to the signal represented by the small sine wave that occurs briefly at the upper left. As you can see, the three signals from the springs arrive at different times at the output transducers. The springs, as expected, both slightly blur the initial attacks of subsequent signals as well as prolong them. Because the springs are wound from finer wire, and also because the transducers used have much less mass, these reverb units can respond adequately to the entire pitch range of a typical Hammond organ. Just as in a real room, the combination of reflected signals arriving at different times adds to the complexity of the final result, which sounds much more like real room reverb with repeats that occur randomly and are much less pronounced than those from a single spring reverb unit. Also, because the three springs have different lengths, they have different resonant frequencies from each other which makes the over-all response much flatter without pronounced peaks and cancellations that would occur with just a single spring

https://www.nshos.com/HAMMOND17.htm

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

I wonder how many folks in this thread use IRL spring reverbs on a regular basis and what types. I assure you based on lots of first-hand experience, convolution does a GREAT job with springs. It's still the best method for capturing them.

Also, spring tanks can sound very different. My idea of a spring, particularly for surf guitar (which is what the OP wants), is a type 4 spring tank. The kind that would've been found in Fender amps or their standalone spring reverbs (there's a reason there's a power outlet on the back of old Fender amps, they wanted you to plug your Fender reverb tank into it - then just kept it even after they added reverb to their own amps). Type 4's are long tanks, 2 springs and have lots of drip. It's a bright, splashy sound. Other tanks, like an 8, sound totally different. These sound murky. These have 3 springs in a short tank, there's less drip (if any). I had a type 3 in my Vox AC15, hated that (again, murky and not much drip), replaced it with a Type 4 and now I'm happy with it. I recently bought a Vibrolux Reverb and was really annoyed at the sound of the tank. Popped it open, there was a type 8 in there. Replaced it with an 30 year old Accutronics Type 4 and the amp sounds great again. Don't think I've ever used a Type 9. Studio springs can also be a bit of the wild west in that they can use different designs. That's where Audio Thing's Springs excels IMO. It's got so many of those.

I'm using springs daily here in guitar amps and I'm quite picky about them. When you want a classic guitar/Fender spring, IMO, only a Tye 4 will do. Marhsall-style murky spring, Type 8 or even a 3 as they can sound different. If you're used to real springs from a Space Echo or other studio gear, your idea about what a good spring should sound like may be completely different.

[jens]

I wonder how many folks in this thread use IRL spring reverbs on a regular basis and what types. I assure you based on lots of first-hand experience, convolution does a GREAT job with springs. It's still the best method for capturing them.

No, I don't think IRs can capture springs successfully at all, due to the dynamic (non-linear) behaviour I mentioned earlier.

I have no idea who in this thread uses what - but personally I own around ten spring tanks in a range of devices - standalone (Type 4 (2 long springs) / Danelectro Spring King (3 short springs), guitar amp combos, rotary speakers, combo organs... so... I kinda feel competent to talk about the topic here.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

No, I don't think IRs can capture springs successfully at all, due to the dynamic (non-linear) behaviour I mentioned earlier

Sean Costello, who knows a thing or two about reverb, disagrees with you. I've heard him say (or rather read his posts on forums) that convolution is still the most accurate way to capture springs at present. This is evidenced by there presently being zero definitive physical models of a spring reverb that we can point to. I bolded that because well, there's no better proof than that. All modeled springs I've heard either do "one sound kind of ok" or are various degrees of bad. Convolution is [comparitively] the least bad option and definitely good enough for me. Though, I do think one day I'll build I reverb driver that I can hook some of my external tanks up to for real spring fun with non-guitar.

There was a post somewhere where Sean explained, it's not just the springs themselves moving aound and responding to the audio you'd have to model, but also the tiny imperfections in the shape of the springs where the direction of the audio will suddently flip and change direction, then hit another imperfection at a different spot and head back around, and this is all happening at extremely fast speeds many times over short distances. Modeling that would require a LOT of CPU cycles. Then what? Even if you could create a good model, you'd probably want to make an impulse of it just to make it usable from a CPU perspective (that's what Arturia did with their Plate model). And we're right back to convolution.

So yeah, this is a rare instance where I'm "team convolution". It's usually not my favorite, but it's the least bad approach for springs IMO.