My thoughts on Futzbox

[Marco Raaphorst]

Audiomatic is fantastic. 

I tried Futzbox and wasn't impressed too much. The simulations are filters but don't have any ambience to it (lacking depth). And some distortion settings have too sharp transients, they create a click on certain sounds (like percussive instruments).

I contacted McDSP and didn't recieve anything back from them. It was about a bug. Don't like that. Customer support is key.

Did you email them?

I have never had an issue with customer support. I hear back quite promptly and have even received follow-ups without having to re-engage the conversation.

yeah email. maybe I was unlucky.

[gak]

I wish the patch and sim selection menu would be multi-leveled like the vst version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1YqXyTqL-I

it's not really nice to scroll through the list right now

What I do is temporarily assign a controller to it. 

[Faastwalker]

we need a serious update with audiomatics ,

I want :

Or an ART 2 (in bright yellow, same style as ART 1) with a complete new set of presets / scenes (or whatever the hell you call them). More control would of course be great. But I do like the immediacy of what's on offer with ART. It's a cool device but, as with Futzbox, not for everyone.

[CharlyCharlzz]

Me too, Charly.  I would love an update to Audiomatic.  I truly love that device, but I don't like how limited it is.  It could be so much more than it is.  It could be so much more than 16 presets. 

we need a serious update with audiomatics ,

I want :

Or an ART 2 (in bright yellow, same style as ART 1) with a complete new set of presets / scenes (or whatever the hell you call them). More control would of course be great. But I do like the immediacy of what's on offer with ART. It's a cool device but, as with Futzbox, not for everyone.

some presets of audiomatic are way cool , maybe they should make a Poll on what presets we would like or something .
futz box got a lot of fan's here but I aint down with the low-fi fanboys LOL , I am more a Hi-Fi type of guy héhé but if I ever need it I heard it's the OG low-fi fx plug-in  !
 

[JoshuaPhilgarlic]

FutzBox is pretty popular in film mixing to simulate any kind of speakers like TVs, phones etc. If you look at the RE you immediately see what it was made for primarily . We used FutzBox a lot in our studio in the past, but by now we switched to SpeakerPhone 'cause it offers even more weird features (e.g. the 'cover' option to create the sound of a cellphone in a bucket ).

I was surprised when McDSP offered this device as RE 'cause it's nothing for the mass market. And seeing the complaints here I think I was right . It's cool for all kind of speaker simulations, but for specialties like 'vacuum cleaner tube' or 'garbage can' I know better stuff from AltiVerb (or Audiomatic sometimes).

[joeyluck]

Here's some music applications:

Papa Roach in the studio:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PDohjPJRxc

Tracks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qot3Ubz16Jo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0_h7vUcnhs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSolalT2S-U

[platzangst]

We used FutzBox a lot in our studio in the past, but by now we switched to SpeakerPhone

I wondered what "SpeakerPhone" was so I Googled it up...

For 500 bucks I hope your studio loooves it. Wow.

[JoshuaPhilgarlic]

We used FutzBox a lot in our studio in the past, but by now we switched to SpeakerPhone

I wondered what "SpeakerPhone" was so I Googled it up...

For

500 bucks

I hope your studio loooves it.

Wow

.

Well, here is our large mixing stage...

 
So, 500 bucks for SpeakerPhone are not really an issue .

[challism]

I'm really having a hard time justifying this purchase.  I'm trying to give it a chance.  When push comes to shove, I really only like the sims on this device.  And I have half a mind to think that those can be created with other devices, eqs and filters (and the like), although Futzbox makes getting these sounds so easy.  This is where I am debating back and forth. 

The footprint of this RE is just so huge for only liking/using one section.  I wish they had a Futzbox jr that looked something like this.
 

[alex]

I'm really having a hard time justifying this purchase.  I'm trying to give it a chance.  When push comes to shove, I really only like the sims on this device.  And I have half a mind to think that those can be created with other devices, eqs and filters (and the like), although Futzbox makes getting these sounds so easy.  This is where I am debating back and forth. 

The footprint of this RE is just so huge for only liking/using one section.  I wish they had a Futzbox jr that looked something like this.
 

In my opinion this unit is worth the filter section alone because it provides two full band sweepable (20Hz to 20KHz) HPF/LPF filters with indipendent selectable slopes (12/24 dB), resonance control AND they have perfectly linear frequency response.

This is a graph I've made some moths ago using REW which shows what I mean:

 
As you can see, besides the cutoff points, the frequency responce is absolutely flat.

Now, as far as I know, there are no stock reason filters/devices that can do that!

SSL?
- LPF is limited from 100Hz to 20KHz
- HPF is limited from 20Hz to 4KHz and is not linear! (it introduce a boost when the knob is all the way up)
- Fixed slope!

Thor?
- its filters are narrower in band than futzbox and colour too much the sound because they are modeled: sometimes is what you want, sometimes is not.
For example: imagine you need to process the entire mix with a transparent/linear frequency response device.
Thor filters could not be the right choice.

Pulveriser?
- it has one LP24 and one HPF and they both can open at most at 11.05KHz
- Fixed slope!

ECF-42?
- it doesn't have HPF. Plus when the LPF is opened all the way up it boost the signal in a non-linear way that create a sort of half-bell like curve at around 20KHz ...

If this is not enough, well on futzbox

1) you can engage/disengage every single section so you can reduce the footprint (which BTW on my i5 laptop doesn't seems to be high)
2) the gate section can go down to -80dB (for threshold and range parameters), the release time down to 10ms: both values are "deeper" than the the ones you get on the SSL gate
3) the sim section when used in parallel, can do wonders on synth lines and pads especially if you automate the "tune" knob. Even a plain saw wave most of the time gets a pleasant character / timbre

To me it is a no brainer RE.

Cheers,
Alessandro

[gak]

Yeah, that is kinda my thing. It's not a "record breaker" per se, but it get's you from point a to b in a hurry imho. You can certainly get that effect on your own if that is what you want.

[gak]

Ok, so I had an idea: Try mixing the futzbox stuff with with wet/dry or as another amp sim (like in a comb/mixer) and seeing what happens (like the PR viddy). Just "futzing" around ( ) I like some of the results but need more time to play around with it.

Would anyone care to hear examples? I don't want to waste my time if nobody cares  

Wouldn't mind having some other ears though

[challism]

I would be interested to listen to what you come up with, gak.
 
I had a similar idea yesterday.  I thought, well if Futzbox is supposed to be Audiomatic on steroids, why not chain them together and give audiodmatic some steroids?  So I did.  I got some more interesting sounds that way, of course.  I'm still debating about Futzbox.  $40 really isn't much for all these kick ass sims.  The filter and eq sections aren't without their merits.  And even that awful lo-fi section is growing on me (but only if I pull back on the wet/dry knob A LOT).  I wish the lo-fi had a dedicated wet/dry knob... I just find the lo-fi to be way too over powering.


Anywho.... still debating.  16(ish) days left before the sale ends.

In my opinion this unit is worth the filter section alone because it provides two full band sweepable (20Hz to 20KHz) HPF/LPF filters with indipendent selectable slopes (12/24 dB), resonance control AND they have perfectly linear frequency response.

To me it is a no brainer RE.

You make a really good point (and nice graph, too).  Thanks for sharing the analysis of your findings.  You got me to thinking about it, and playing around with the filters yesterday.  You are right, it is really quite good.  I wonder how it compares to Etch Red?  Etch Red is amazing.  I have Etch Red, but I don't have that fancy graph making software.  What are your thoughts vs Etch?

[gak]

fwiw, I think that the idea was in your case that futzbox was something that it really wasn't...and you are now discovering just how cool and original it can be

I will also push the demos to the limit, but unless I find a fatal flaw, I'm sold on it. I was "interested" at 79 bucks, I'm pretty much all the way in at 39 bucks

Yep, I'm becoming an RE ho (but I have a fabulous/well tested selection ) 

[ProfessaKaos]

I'm really liking Futzbox, I've been using it vocals not so much lead vocal (maybe for phrase) but more so backing vocals, synths and percussion. I could pretty much use it on anything but not everything as it will only get used may be once or twice in a mix where it is needed. Great device

[challism]

Now that I've actually had a chance to let my initial disappointment fade away (of what I thought this device was) and play around with it in different ways, I've come to enjoy it quite a bit in the last few days.  I've been doing more automation in the sequencer, and combining it with some other effects.  I'm really starting to like it much more now.  I even found some useful ways to use the lo-fi, in intro/outro/transition parts of a song.  The lo-fi can add some very different twists and flavor to the same old melody.  I've also tried using Futz on a parallel channel, and that has really helped to calm some of the overwhelming noise of the lo-fi effect.  This device is a great way to color a sound.  I think I'm going to be pulling the trigger @ a mere $40.

[alex]

You make a really good point (and nice graph, too).  Thanks for sharing the analysis of your findings.  You got me to thinking about it, and playing around with the filters yesterday.  You are right, it is really quite good.  I wonder how it compares to Etch Red?  Etch Red is amazing.  I have Etch Red, but I don't have that fancy graph making software.  What are your thoughts vs Etch?

Thank you,

I have Etch Red too and I think it's great: is one of the first RE I've got!
In my opinion Etch Red and FutzBox are hard to compare because they are two different beasts: the former is a dedicated modeled filters unit with impressive modulation capabilities (2 LFOs, Follower, Envelope, S&H and a wonderful matrix mod), the latter is more a collection of sound shaping tools in a box (gate, noise generator, speaker sims, bitcrusher, eq etc. without internal modulation capabilities), at least that's the way I see it.

Audiomatic is also different to me because it's inspired by an instagram workflow: put a predefined "shoot or character" to your sound do not tweak so much and see if it works ... so I would not say FutzBox is Audiomatic on steroids, granted there are some few areas where they overlap each other.

Back on your question, Etch Red filters sounds amazing to me but please be aware that they are modeled! From the manual:
- the Japan type is based on the OTA (Roland Synths?)
- the SVF type is based on state-variable filter (Oberheim synths?)
- the Fatty is based on OTA Sallen-Key (Korg MS* synths?)

AFAIK, they are all famous vintage synthesizer filters (I still get excited like a kid whenever I think of that!  )

So, even without doing graphs, I guess I could safely say that they have been designed without a flat frequency response HPF/LPF in mind, that's why whenever I have to process an entire mix I prefer to use FutzBox filter section or another dedicated transparent filtering RE unit.

In my experience Etch Red has more cpu footprint than FutzBox.
I would love to see an "improved" FutzBox version which could let the users to change lo-fi and SIM sections placement (for example, IMO it would be interesting to place the "lo-fi converter" before the SIM speaker!).

Anyway, like you and many others, I often find myself using FutzBox SIM section alone (in dry/wet or parallel mode), while automating its tune parameter: on synths and pad it sounds crazy, I really like it!

Cheers,
Alessandro

[challism]

I would really like to see a dedicated wet/dry knob on the lo-fi section.  That section has a lot of potential for adding some angry sounding shit, but it is just too over the top and over-whelming 99% of the time.  One thing you could do to fix this is to split to signal and run them thru the line mixer (or run a parallel channel) with only the Lo-Fi turned on for one channel, the wet dry knob would then act as a web/dry knob for the Lo-Fi section.  Thankfully this solution won't be too damaging to CPU, as it seem that Futzbox is pretty CPU friend (in my test thus far).
And I suppose 10 years down the road, we will all be laughing at the idea of some of these REs eating up CPU/DSP.  Let's at least hope that is the case.