Revalver 4 6505 vs TSE X50 V2

[Hawkevil]

I put together a little test with the new Revalver 4 and the TSE X50 V2.

​

I set all of the settings to the same and used the same impulse for this to be fair. The only difference is the gain setting. The X50 has MUCH more gain than the Revalver version.

I honestly don't know which one I prefer at this point. When soloed you can hear the X50 has more energy at the top end and the Revalver version has some boxy mids but with a few small adjustments I think you could get them both sounding pretty identical. I think the X50 on its own sounds a bit better but in a mix there is not much between them. The Revalver version seems to cut through a bit more with the mids I guess but the X50 version blends a little better.

I think it really just comes down to what tone you are looking for. The X50 has a slightly nicer high end but the Revalver version has more mids to play with making it a little more versatile.

I just wish I had the real thing to compare them to.


UPDATE:

​

After messing around with Revalver further I noticed that the IR Loaders on my last video were quite different in sound so it was only fair I used the same one. I also didn't notice there was a quality setting for Revalver until after my first video.

I also messed around with the valves.

The only thing different in the chain is the amp itself. Everything else is identical.

I decided to exaggerate the guitars a little more in the mix than my last test by softening the drums up a little. The tones are so close I thought it would be a good idea.

After doing this both amp sims are pretty identical. Neither is better than the other in my opinion. Yea, you can hear slight differences in the tone but when it comes to the quality I don't think you can really rule one over the other. I'm actually edging on the side of Revalver here with the versatility it holds with how much you can tweak.

 

[indecizo]

das it

 

[sjcortese]

My preference so far is the X50. I played around with the 6505 in Rev 4 last night in the demo version and I just kept going back to the X50. Something about how it feels to me. I own III.V, just not sure about upgrading yet.

Your audio demo kicks some ass!

~scott

 

[UncleBob]

Prefer X50 as well

 

[Wookieslayer]

Great demo, thanks for that.

Any chance you know which uses more CPU power in these settings?

 

[Hawkevil]

Thanks everyone! Yea I think I prefer X50 too. I'm sure with some tweaking though the Revalver version can be just as good!

Wookieslayer, that's something I was going to mention but totally forgot. Running X50 on full quality was double the CPU usage.

 

[Wookieslayer]

Cheers, may be worth considering for some (I desperately need a computer upgrade lol)

 

[Sloan]

i like the voicing of the revalver thang

 

[Rex Rocker]

I liked X50 better too. Definitely less boxy.

 

[HOFX]

To me:
x50 has more crisp high end
Revalver sounds a bit cloudy in the mids

In an instrumental, I would pick Revalver, but if there were to be vocals, x50 would be the better choice. I'm sure there is some gentle EQing that could be applied to get Revalver to sound just like x50 but here's the thing: At what point did the RIR2 cabinet modelling kick in and blow us all away with the realism? Answer is, it didn't.

I really want to support innovation in cabinet simulation and getting to the next level of realism and I applaud Revalver guys for having a crack at it. At the moment x50's 'movement' with IRs of at least 8000 samples seems to be the leader here.

 

[jacare]

To me:
x50 has more crisp high end
Revalver sounds a bit cloudy in the mids

In an instrumental, I would pick Revalver, but if there were to be vocals, x50 would be the better choice. I'm sure there is some gentle EQing that could be applied to get Revalver to sound just like x50 but here's the thing: At what point did the RIR2 cabinet modelling kick in and blow us all away with the realism? Answer is, it didn't.

I really want to support innovation in cabinet simulation and getting to the next level of realism and I applaud Revalver guys for having a crack at it. At the moment x50's 'movement' with IRs of at least 8000 samples seems to be the leader here.

If you are talking about the video it seems to me that, at least by the pic he used in it, he is using the RIR module, not RIR2?

 

[Matt-Steele]

The lead sounds horrible on Revalver compared to the X50. Obvious clear winner to my ears hands down.

 

[Hawkevil]

Yea, I used the standard IR loader for this to keep things the same.

After messing around with this more tonight I am actually loving the feel and tone I am getting from it. Someone on my video suggested changing the tubes. That alone brought it to life. For most part RIR2 is pretty standard stuff but the flathill 4x12 feels so right to me for some reason. This is through headphones though so I might think completely different about it tomorrow when I play with it through my monitors, haha.

Try this though:

Change power tubes to 6v6.

Use the Flathill Cab. (I used SM57 off axis and the position furthest right on the speaker diagram)

It really brings the character out. I was getting so close to that Clayman tone people used to bang on about all the time a few years ago.

The lead sounds horrible on Revalver compared to the X50. Obvious clear winner to my ears hands down.

Yea, that really stood out to me. I didn't really try and get a lead tone for either one though. Just copied the settings from the rhythm tone, added reverb and EQed some of the low end out.

 

[HOFX]

Hawkevil, in response to jacare's comment, can you re-run the test with x50 movement on and using RIR2 please?

I'll have a play with the Flathill as you suggest tonight.

 

[jacare]

Yea, I used the standard IR loader for this to keep things the same.

I thought so. Thank you for doing the video, great playing and great tones!

Hawkevil, in response to jacare's comment, can you re-run the test with x50 movement on and using RIR2 please?

That would be cool. I merely pointed that you were mentioning RIR2, but it wasn't being used on the video. Still, it will be nice to see one with it .

 

[indecizo]

I like both sims, I preferred x50 at parts and liked revalver better at other parts. Pretty sick audio.

 

[Manicompression]

Just want to echo the sentiment of really cool playing and video. I dig Revalver pretty well from jamming around with it today. I think many of the models sound pretty great, shits all over the line 6 stuff in terms of dynamic response and tweakability imo. I think the value here is that their are actually alot of good sounding models. The Dual Rec sounds pretty spot on imo, and the matching cab is excellent. The acoustic sim, and pickup sims seem like they could be great for layering in or creating some variation in takes without having to change guitars and deal with intonation inconsistency. In regards to X50, I think I would be more prone to loading it up if I wanted to achieve a ballsy tone quickly, where I might pick Revalver if I wanted something other than a 5150 sound and had a little time on my hands.

 

[crillemannen]

X50 sounded the best.

More alive, better top end and just blended better with the mix. Revalver sounded a bit more like how i perceive ITB plugins, flatter sounding in general.

 

[Hawkevil]

Hawkevil, in response to jacare's comment, can you re-run the test with x50 movement on and using RIR2 please?

I'll have a play with the Flathill as you suggest tonight.

I might put something together over the weekend. I'm guessing the tones are going to sound very different though so it not be the greatest comparisons.

 

[anotherpaul]

You can also try x50 into RIR2 and revalver's 6505 into x50's cab sim. That would be interesting.