D16 Sigmund vs Fabfilter Timeless 3

[kenny saunders]

I can get Timeless 3 for only about £45 but I already have D16 Sigmund v2. I have never used Sigmund I had a quick look a few times but at first glance I don't really know how to use it (not a clue). I could take some time to figure it out and RTFM, watch tutorials, but is there anything Timeless 3 can do that Sigmund can't, also is there anything Sigmund can do that Timeless 3 can't?

[Dr.Gunjah]

Have you demoed Timeless 3? I bought it "blindly" when it was on sale, because it looked like a no brainer for 38€ since I already had timeless 2 that I used fairly often. Turns out that was a mistake, because v3 is the most complicated delay plugin I've ever used. The workflow completely changed, as did the gui and I personally liked the old style better.

I haven't tried Sigmund but I have a hard time to believe it's harder to learn than Timeless 3

[zerocrossing]

I don’t know Sigmund 2, but I find v1 to be a bit confusing. It’s honestly not that complicated, but the layout makes it seem like it is. Maybe they fixed this in v2. Not sure. I find that pretty much any plugin can become familiar with enough time.

Timeless 3 was easier for me to handle because I’m already used to FabFilter’s way of working. I don’t always like how they do things, but I get it. Ultimately, Timeless is super flexible and sounds great, so if you’re willing to learn it, it will be rewarding. It’s definitely not a plugin I go to when I want a basic delay.

[jens]

is there anything Timeless 3 can do that Sigmund can't, also is there anything Sigmund can do that Timeless 3 can't?

Both can do things the other can't - but what Timless imo can't and Sigmund excels at is to actually sound good.

This is my opinion regarding all things Fabfilter - on paper they are fantastic and extremely powerful and have a great and modern GUI, but then personally I always find myself tweaking away endlessly on a fiddly interface in search for some useable sound I never really end up getting which tends to take me less than a minute with certain other plugins.

So for me they are just a huge waste of time&money (and I keep ending up falling for them and paying more for upgrade fees than most of my favourite plugins cost on their own).

So: beware of the Fabfilter-trap is my advice.


Edit: grammar

[kmonkey]

is there anything Timeless 3 can do that Sigmund can't, also is there anything Sigmund can do that Timeless 3 can't?

Both can do things the other can't - but what Timless imo can't and Sigmund excels at is actually sound good.

This is my opinion regarding all things Fabfilter - on paper they are fantastic and extremely powerful and have a great and modern GUI, but then personally I found to be tweaking away endlessly on a fiddly interface in search for some useable sound I never really end up getting which tends to take me less than a minute with certain other plugins.

So for me they are just a huge waste of time&money (and I keep ending up falling for them and paying more for upgrade fees than most of my favourite plugins cost on their own).

So: beware of the Fabfilter-trap is my advice.

Pretty much 1:1 my experience as well. And yes love Sigmund 2. Fantastic plugin. Not only for delay it can do amazing chorus and weird reverbs.

[Funky40]

........ but is there anything Timeless 3 can do that Sigmund can't, also is there anything Sigmund can do that Timeless 3 can't?

These are not anything same. There might be some overlap though vs. specific settings.
But how much might depend on how you work.

i for example map CCs and jamm away using HW controls.
"then" are both entirely different things.

Besides what they can do, and how they would sound, is the whole access a main point here, imho !.....both might not look that accessible at a first glance.
I personally never found my way "that deep in" into Timeless3. so my jamms were -so far- not that giving as i first thought it would be. While i´d see sigmund more as a "setup a nice DLY beat" thing rather than a "jamm away" thing. But it´s really deep and has nice presets -some quite surprising- .

So yeah, if just one, then maybe sigmund first.
For me, timeless3 still for some wild jamms

[jens]

" thing. But it´s really deep and has nice presets -some quite surprising

Good point about the presets - Sigmund's tend to make a really good job in showcasing what it can do and quite a few of them I find both surprising and awesome indeed - the Timeless presets on the other hand do a good job in illustrating how the thing really just doesn't sound very good - I mean: if even bmanic can't really get much worthwhile stuff out of it then chances are it's really just not possible.

[SonicDimension]

I haven’t tried Sigmund 2 yet, but I found the old version uninspiring. The feature set seems cool, but the interface is cluttered and rather confusing. Because the four delay lines are independent and can be routed in different ways, you can design some unusual sounds. Somehow, my experiments with it were unrewarding, though.

I find the Timeless 3 experience more intuitive and fun for experimental sound design. I don’t know why FabFilter markets it as a ‘vintage tape delay.’ It’s actually a modular multitap delay. With the feedback effects, modulators, tap designer, and EQ, you can build some really wild delay, modulation, and reverb sounds. It’s like a more powerful and better-sounding Echoboy.

If you just want a straightforward and great-sounding delay, get something like Valhalla Delay. Sigmund and Timeless are better for the weird stuff.

[Funky40]

..... the Timeless presets on the other hand do a good job in illustrating how the thing really just doesn't sound very good - I mean: if even bmanic can't really get much worthwhile stuff out of it then chances are it's just not possible.

i´ve probably barely touched any presets with TL3.
i have no problems with its sound !
but i´m in general NOT a "Delay sound" guy.


respectivly do i find many -vintage- Delays that get to see high amounts of hype, to be not aynthing good sounding at all. So, i´m totally not representative, haha. Anything that can do clean is for me "good sounding enough".
I found TL3 did that (long time not used)

[jens]

i´ve probably barely touched any presets with TL3.
i have no problems with its sound !

I certainly do - and I have a hunch that the main problem for me are simply its LFO's which aren't really LFOs to begin with... (i.e. I wouldn't really call them "oscillators"... )

[kenny saunders]

ok thanks guys, I' think I'll have a bash at figuring out Sigmund.

[bmanic]

I mean: if even bmanic can't really get much worthwhile stuff out of it then chances are it's really just not possible.

Mmmkay.. thanks I guess??

It's definitely subjective but in my opinion Timeless sounds absolutely fantastic! It's super easy to get it sitting in a mix and it's so immensely flexible. I use it for a lot of other things besides just delays too.

I mean sure, if you don't think these kinds of sounds are "good" then of course it's your prerogative.

100% Timeless doing all kinds of crazy stuff to a very simple EP sound

Twin 3 resonating filters (with Timeless doing the heavy lifting of the delay and reverb

Simple omnisphere preset into a couple of Timeless instances


The most useful part of Timeless is of course the ability to explore really unique sound scapes but even as a simple delay it can be made to "sit" very well in the mix (as demonstrated in the simple synth example above). It somehow manages to blend really well without interfering with other stuff, thus it's usually my go-to when I need to do very simplistic slap back delays or very short rooms. It's really REALLY good at doing a simple guitar ambience slapback thing.

What it's not very good at is doing authentic tape/vintage delay emulations. Yes you do have all the LFOs and envelopes and such but it takes more than that to create a convincing tape delay. If that's something one wants then timeless is definitely not the correct plugin to get. Another weakness, in my opinion, is the lo-fi module which behaves a bit odd.. yes it can be useful but I would have preferred to have it more traditionally split into samplerate and bit depth instead of it being some kind of custom sound that FabFilter cooked up. Heck, if at all possible I'd love to have both!

I also wish the saturation/drive knob had way more different algorithms available. For instance the transformer saturation algorithms from Saturn would be awesome to have here.

Oh, and the final really big negative is still, in my humble opinion, the user interface. It could be much better. This is probably the weakest user interface of the whole FabFilter lineup. It's so ridiculously crowded and lacks the tools to easily manage all the clutter.. like all the taps and their parameters in the multi-tap area.. or even the filters in the filter section! I really hope FabFilter takes a good look at the UI in the future and doesn't go all nuts with the weird retro futuristic color scheme and the way it all operates.

[jens]

I mean sure, if you don't think these kinds of sounds are "good" then of course it's your prerogative.

matter of taste - I like warmf... I'm super old-school like that.

(but then again maybe I should add a disclaimer: unlike most folks here I make rather traditional music)


I also remember us having to agree to disagree on Excalibur, which frankly speaking sounds surprisingly poor to me while you praised it a lot, so it's not the first time our tastes sort of clash.

[t.o.t.s.]

I think the two delays compliment one another pretty well. They can both tap into some different areas and the different interfaces surely will yield some different results. I think they both sound cool. I prefer the workflow in Timeless, I think it's a little faster to use once you know your way around. I can't comment on how the presets are on either as I'm never digging into them but as someone who has a bunch of delays and both of these... these are two of the most used in my setup.

[vitocorleone123]

It's been awhile since I sold Timeless3, but I'd say that, overall, it may be an overall tie in the UX department depending on what's being done. For more basic delays, I find S2 easy. For more complex, I suspect T3 may end up easier.

Sonically, I didn't find T3 special, whereas S2 sounds amazing (with the quality increased) - but uses more CPU to do it. I think S2 sounds better than Recirculate, as well, though that one is easier to use... but uses even more CPU than S2!

Timeless 3 is the only Fabfilter plugin I've ever sold after buying it, and is the only one other than R2 that I've disliked.