[sdiy] Cheapest good sounding digital reverb?

[cheater cheater]

Yeah, I'm mostly looking for that sort of information about
algorithms. Something that'll run on a small mcu while also having a
pretty good sound.

On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 12:09 AM Tom Wiltshire <tom at electricdruid.net> wrote:
>
> The cost isn’t the memory, so the decay time isn’t a big deal.
>
> The cost/quality trade-off mostly comes from the ADC/DAC, I'd say. Cheap convertors gives a cheap result, quality convertors gives a more expensive result. Mike B proposes one way of doing the conversions at very low cost.
>
> However, I have to say that I think a simple delay line won’t satisfy as a reverb. Keith Barr’s impressively simple reverbs all used other tricks beyond delay to make the reverb tail smoother and denser - combinations of allpass and delay, mostly.
>
> > On 21 Mar 2021, at 20:45, cheater cheater <cheater00social at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Right, but what can be done regarding reverb in a small inexpensive
> > microcontroller? Remember, we're not talking about decays of several
> > seconds here.
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 6:13 PM Tom Wiltshire <tom at electricdruid.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> There isn’t much at the low-end of the DSP market, so your options are limited.
> >>
> >> There’s the FXCore, which can deal with 4 ins/4 outs, but needs external codecs (but that lets you choose for best quality or lowest price)
> >>
> >> http://www.experimentalnoize.com/product_FXCore.php
> >>
> >> Otherwise, you might be best moving to a bigger, faster chip and then expecting the one device to process 16 channels of audio for you. You’d still need a multi-channel codec, and the hardware is going to be all throughly modern and SMD-tiny!
> >>
> >>
> >> On 21 Mar 2021, at 14:34, cheater cheater <cheater00social at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It's 2-4x too expensive, but I'll check the youtube demos anyways -
> >> thanks a lot.
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 3:23 PM Tom Wiltshire <tom at electricdruid.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I don’t know that it fits your definition of cheap in small volumes, but the Spin FV-1 chip is about your best option, I’d say. It’s a simple-to-use almost all-in-one option and there are loads of good reverb algorithms for it freely available.
> >>
> >> The standard application uses a cheap watch crystal (so 32KHz sampling) but you can run the chip faster if you need a little bit more hi-fi. Honestly, I doubt this is necessary for reverb. The high end is absorbed most quickly and hardly appears in any reverb signal. But it’s easy to do if required. I think the chip is specced up to 50KHz or so, and people have overclocked them faster than that - Spin left themselves a good safety margin.
> >>
> >> The algorithms are stored on an external EEPROM, but there are also 8 internal programs, including several reverbs, so if you use those you can do without the external EEPROM, at which point it really is a one-chip solution.
> >>
> >> Check out a few FV-1 effects pedals on Youtube and see what you think.
> >>
> >> HTH,
> >> Tom
> >>
> >> On 21 Mar 2021, at 13:19, cheater cheater <cheater00social at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have been thinking recently about whether it would be feasible to
> >> have a simple reverb of some sort per voice, and so I wonder if anyone
> >> had any suggestions on a cheap algorithm that could be executed on
> >> inexpensive chips.
> >>
> >> what I need from the reverb: exponential decay of ~0.5 second, flat
> >> frequency spectrum @ 22 Hz...22 kHz
> >>
> >> instrument: 16-voice
> >>
> >> architecture: vcos -> filters -> vca1 -> possibly vca2 (all stages analog)
> >>
> >> I'd like to be able to insert reverb after the filter but before the last vca:
> >>
> >> vcos -> filters -> vca1 -> rev -> vca2
> >>
> >> or possibly after the vco:
> >>
> >> vcos -> rev -> filters -> vca
> >>
> >> or after the filter:
> >>
> >> vcos -> filters -> rev -> vca
> >>
> >> or even:
> >>
> >> vcos -> rev1 -> filters -> rev2 -> vca -> rev3 -> vca2 -> rev4
> >>
> >> The reverb is meant to only "sweeten up" the sound by giving filter
> >> sweeps, transients, and vco sweeps some more substance in the time
> >> domain. I think this sort of thing could easily add a unique sound to
> >> the synthesizer. I know some of you will mention the DSI Evolver, but
> >> honestly I did not think that the digital part in that synth was of
> >> high enough quality. So what I'm looking for is an inexpensive "hi fi"
> >> reverb.
> >>
> >> The considerations are either:
> >> A) a single chip per voice/stage which only processes one stage in one
> >> voice. this chip would have to have high audio quality AD/DA, work
> >> without a lot of additional circuitry, just enough processing power to
> >> perform the reverb, and be relatively inexpensive (up to ~5 per chip
> >> at low volumes)
> >> B) one global chip with a bunch of AD/DA. this chip would need to be
> >> able to read from 64 AD and write to 64 DA, each at 16 bit.
> >>
> >> personally I prefer A because 1. it does not carry a bunch of digital
> >> stuff around an otherwise analog board which can be a royal pain and
> >> 2. drifting clocks (or ones shifted on purpose) will add variety to
> >> the sound. So those two kind of kill B for me.
> >>
> >> What sort of chip would you all suggest for version A?
> >>
> >> What algorithm would you suggest to run on it?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Synth-diy mailing list
> >> Synth-diy at synth-diy.org
> >> http://synth-diy.org/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy
> >> Selling or trading? Use marketplace at synth-diy.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
>