Following a small debate about the difference of these two in another thread, I went and did a quick comparison.
It is not meant as a scientific test and I just connected the audio source to one filter, made some settings, recorded it, and then tried to recreate similar settings on the other. I did not use much of the feedback-going-bonkers-stuff because it is hard to reproduce it on even the same unit. Also, obviously, I did not dial in the FX on the T-Reso (but they cannot be switched off completely).
General tone is similar, and probably the filter itself it the same. But the T version has still a few more differences than "just added FX".
First: T-Reso has a completely different gain staging, which makes sense since the FX can be backfed. But it also means that the distortion behaviour is different. It has a huge influence on how the unit is "experienced" when working with it. But it also explains why I initially thought that they are much more different then they actually are: M-Reso is "hotter", and when levelling the files, difference gets smaller.
All files are: 1 dry 2 m 3 t
Here are some drum patterns with distortion on it:
Certainly in the same ballpark (T-Reso is not just less driven though, it does distort less).
Second difference: envelope. The M-Reso has attack/release, while the T has just "ENV" (depth, no settings), BUT it also has LFO. The LFO makes sense when using delay, but if you do not want that or on rhytmic stuff, it can get a bit in the way, as it is always present when you apply envelope mod. T-Reso is spikier, and M obviously allows more tweaking of the envelope. I could not get the M to be as snappy as the T, though.
Here's a drum loop with more distortion.
And another one without envelope mod
And....a TB bassline. Both Filters are nice to make a mono source stereo, due to the settings being available independently per channel, which still can influence each other. Notice the clickyness of the T-envelopes.
All in all, they are both nice sounding units, and clearly off the same family. These files do not show what the T can do with the FX of course.
So the answer is that it is worth having both of them. We can relax!
I have the M, dholl is right it works best for me on drums and perc loops, adds a meaty low end to things. Great for techno or idm, but its hard to find the sweet spots, so lots of experimenting required. And you'll probably never get the same setting twice, just so you know. They are more effects rather than simple filter.
“Music is my religion" - Hendrix
I intend to mount an analog effects rack and im searching for a nice analog reverb. This jomox stuff caught a bit of my attention.
Just wanted to ask you if the reverb on it is any good? Can we make some nice long tails?
Thx a lot
Jomox T has a digital delay/flanger/reverb, the filter is analog. Digital FX can go up to a second. It would not be my first choice for anything "nice", to be honest. Probably for reverb, many stock plugins will be equal if not better.