Premier Rock Forum

i was wondering if anyone had experience with these popular multifx units.... i've been after one of them for years now and am finally forcing my indecissive self into buying one off ebay... however, when it comes to guitar fx setups im mostly a novice and the reason ive sought after this piece of equip is mainly for the shoegazing sound my band goes for and the fact according to serveral sources kevin shields used an spx-900 (have seen confusion over wether he used an spx90 or spx900..)..

my question is, i cant find a straightup answer as to what exactly the difference between the spx90 and spx900 is, and if there would be any cons to going with one over the other? the only real obvious diff i can see is that of higher price for the spx900 and that it has more presets, is it worth the extra dollars? or would i be better off settling for an spx90 and saving some cash...

I don't know what the difference is, but I'm pretty sure Kevin used the SPX-90.

Hi,

I must admit that I am not the biggest fan of Yamaha FX always thought they make things sound a bit cloudy compared to Lexicon and TC. There is however quite a difference between the 90 and the 900. the 900 is about ten times better! (no kidding) the reverb tails on the SPX90 always sound artificial and metalic to me so you can only use them as a dark reverb by cutting all the top end out. Basically: there is a reason the 90 was quite a bit cheaper than the 900.
I prefer SPX990s as they have a stereo in and a pre + post FX so you can EQ your send and compress the reverb which always helps with not so amazing Reverbs.

Tara
Rob

cool thanks rob..

i guess im mainly just interested in getting that particular shoegazey sound, with reverse reverb and whatnot... but i guess the 900 & 990 have that? only slightly improved?

Hi Sydb

Was away in London to see the Shellac gig in London, was amazing.. anyway back to the Japanese Idea of Reverb: The 900 does everything the 90 does as far as I know but I think it sounds "better" (i.e. clearer, more 3D less artefacts) but have a look for yourself:

90:

http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/CDA/Con ... CT,00.html

900:

http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/CDA/Con ... CT,00.html


The 990 is different in that it has a stereo in and I find it more versatile
but I must admit that I prefer springs and tape delays on guitar stuff. I have had people offer me SPX90s and inquired about them quite a bit recently (everybody seems to be getting rid of theirs!) and my advice is always: I wouldn't.

But then, I don't really like cheap digital Reverb,ever.

Get a CopiCat! and/or a Space echo (just got one the other day).

tara
Rob

i like the spx90. i don't use a ton of reverb but i find it sounds way less "digital" than a lot of others. if you can find one cheap, which i think you can, go for it.

-e

the spx90 is MBV thingie.

in my opinion, it all depends on purpose. the 900 is alot more programable- but it involves alot more headscratching. you can do more with it- but as you do more- i find it starts to sound shittier.

there is plenty you can do with the 90, and while you may not have as many options as with the 900, you'll actually use many of the patches on the 90 (as very few of them sound stupid), instead of having a library of patches on the 900 that are used only for a cheap laugh to mess with a singer.

for what it's worth, being a touring soundguy, i deal with yamaha spx series boxes ALOT. and as far as sound quality, the 90 always wins.
for general purpose reverb needs, #3 "Vocal" and #2 "Room" (if used sparingly and responsibly) will yeild pretty pleasing results (although not at all "realistic" sounding).
and if you're into the "Pyschocandy" thing- just play with the parameter buttons and you'll get it. exactly.

one last thing- having low pass filters on the console is very handy. SPX 90s, 90IIs, & 900s are all VERY noisy boxes.

hope that helps.