Forum Home Forum Home > Other music related lounges > Tech Talk
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - I've Got Tone!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedI've Got Tone!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Message
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 64238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 02:49
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

As with a lot of distortion effects it's good because the circuit is essentially bad (it has poor gain, loads the guitar pickups quite badly, has a dreadful frequency response, and most importantly is non-linear in that it clips the signal asymmetrically which produces a characteristic set of harmonics that you don't get with symmetrical distortion).

Overdrive has an interesting history, accidental damage to amps becoming favored for the sound, later intentionally altered, culminating with things like the famous Dave Davies razor blade story.

 
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 03:24
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

As with a lot of distortion effects it's good because the circuit is essentially bad (it has poor gain, loads the guitar pickups quite badly, has a dreadful frequency response, and most importantly is non-linear in that it clips the signal asymmetrically which produces a characteristic set of harmonics that you don't get with symmetrical distortion).

Overdrive has an interesting history, accidental damage to amps becoming favored for the sound, later intentionally altered, culminating with things like the famous Dave Davies razor blade story.
The other factor is that those early guitar amps were low power (less than 30W) so were easy to overdrive, with most of the distortion being in the output stage and loudspeaker (which resulted in permanent damage to both). As amps became more powerful they were purposely designed so that the input stage would clip before the output, so with amps like the Marshal Valvestate you have an easily overdriven valve (tube) input stage (for that warm distortion) with bullet-proof transistor output stage to prevent damage to the speakers. Stomp boxes mean you can achieve distortion without overdriving the amp, which is why so much effort is put into getting "just the right sound" in each design.

One interesting one is John Deacon's famous Deacy amp used by Brian May, this little germanium transistor amplifier with a pair of tiny speakers (3" and 6") confounded professional and home-builders alike for many years as replicas could never reproduce the same distorted tone as the original even when using the same circuit. Looking at the schematic now it seems obvious (to me at least) that the reason for that is the pair of transformers used in the circuit were originally very low quality and easy to saturate (magnetic saturation), which produces a lot of odd-harmonics that you don't get from overdriving transistors (or valves come to that).
What?
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 64238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 03:42
^ Who'd have thought it would be cheap materials that helped create the rock sound.   Though it does make perfect sense and is totally rock 'n roll.

Regarding boxes being used to avoid damage to the amp, I've always thought the natural distortion of a good amp was always superior to an effects pedal (I'd be surprised if Gilmour used much in the way of artificial distortion).   And the amount of output that a box saps from an amp is huge, it just ruins the tone.   You lose more than you gain.




Edited by Atavachron - September 14 2015 at 03:43
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
Kati View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 03:46
A good option to test the loudness war and dynamic sound range is this site, you can compare any old or new band album releases on here, inc. all releases in. LP format etc.
Here is one for Animals by PF but you can search/type whichever you want and/or upload an album you have in your possession too.
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:04
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

^ Who'd have thought it would be cheap materials that helped create the rock sound.   Though it does make perfect sense and is totally rock 'n roll.

Regarding boxes being used to avoid damage to the amp, I've always thought the natural distortion of a good amp was always superior to an effects pedal (I'd be surprised if Gilmour used much in the way of artificial distortion).   And the amount of output that a box saps from an amp is huge, it just ruins the tone.   You lose more than you gain.


Gilmour used a Fuzz Face in the early days (The Nile Song - perhaps the dirtiest guitar tone he's ever used) and an Elecro-Harmonixs Big Muff since (famously on Comfortably Numb and all of Animals). I think the Elecro-Harmonixs Electric Mistress and the Lesley-effect rotating speakers are the key to his undistorted sound though.
What?
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 64238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:06
Ah yes the Big Muff, also a favorite of Mark and John Gallagher as I recall

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:13
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

Ah yes the Big Muff, also a favorite of Mark and John Gallagher as I recall

hmm... the Big Muff creates the distortion during the mid-stage amplification so the input and output stages are not overdriven, this allows for some "tone-recovery" (I presume by 'feed-forward') in the output stage that doesn't "sap" from the amp like you mentioned before. 
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:28
Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

A good option to test the loudness war and dynamic sound range is this site, you can compare any old or new band album releases on here, inc. all releases in. LP format etc.
Here is one for Animals by PF but you can search/type whichever you want and/or upload an album you have in your possession too.
Personally I think too much play has been made over the so-called loudness wars. There are (not so) hidden agendas at work here that confuse the situation immensely. This confusion is deliberate IMO.

With guitar effects the dynamic range issue is rendered a little moot since overdrive/distortion, feedback and sustain all tend to result in a reduction of the guitar signal's dynamic range. This is an inescapable consequence of "processing" the output from the pick-ups that has little or nothing to do with the dynamic range of the final recording.
What?
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 64238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:37
I used this puppy for years (or a model close to it); Seymour-Duncan Studio Series, good old workhorse, never needed a pedal

I've noticed a good amp will sound better after a certain amount of use; there's something about wear & tear that does wonders for the character of an amp's sound.




Edited by Atavachron - September 14 2015 at 04:42
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."   -- John F. Kennedy
Back to Top
Kati View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 04:47
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

A good option to test the loudness war and dynamic sound range is this site, you can compare any old or new band album releases on here, inc. all releases in. LP format etc.
Here is one for Animals by PF but you can search/type whichever you want and/or upload an album you have in your possession too.
Personally I think too much play has been made over the so-called loudness wars. There are (not so) hidden agendas at work here that confuse the situation immensely. This confusion is deliberate IMO.

With guitar effects the dynamic range issue is rendered a little moot since overdrive/distortion, feedback and sustain all tend to result in a reduction of the guitar signal's dynamic range. This is an inescapable consequence of "processing" the output from the pick-ups that has little or nothing to do with the dynamic range of the final recording.
Dean I am very surprised you said that, maybe you should not think of loudness war, I will rephrase it as dynamic range instead. This obviously means the difference between the smallest and largest musical tone. A big dynamic range keeps growing unlike a compressed track which you notice little difference between low and high and the changes in-between them because most will lack bottom end and top end and overall the frequencies are chopped of to enable the sound to become louder whereby lacking the special details and at the end while we were impressed at the beginning it ends up making us tired of listening.
Hug
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 05:30
Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

A good option to test the loudness war and dynamic sound range is this site, you can compare any old or new band album releases on here, inc. all releases in. LP format etc.
Here is one for Animals by PF but you can search/type whichever you want and/or upload an album you have in your possession too.
Personally I think too much play has been made over the so-called loudness wars. There are (not so) hidden agendas at work here that confuse the situation immensely. This confusion is deliberate IMO.

With guitar effects the dynamic range issue is rendered a little moot since overdrive/distortion, feedback and sustain all tend to result in a reduction of the guitar signal's dynamic range. This is an inescapable consequence of "processing" the output from the pick-ups that has little or nothing to do with the dynamic range of the final recording.
Dean I am very surprised you said that, maybe you should not think of loudness war, I will rephrase it as dynamic range instead. This obviously means the difference between the smallest and largest musical tone. A big dynamic range keeps growing unlike a compressed track which you notice little difference between low and high and the changes in-between them because most will lack bottom end and top end and overall the frequencies are chopped of to enable the sound to become louder whereby lacking the special details and at the end while we were impressed at the beginning it ends up making us tired of listening.
Hug
I think you need to re-read my lengthy explanation of Dynamic Range, then perhaps my reply will not surprise you so much Tongue

For example, a track with a fade in or fade out has the same "dynamic range" whether it is compressed or not. Also compression does not affect frequency response (top and bottom end as you put it), that is the result of EQ, which is a completely different process. Listener fatigue is a subjective effect, which is susceptible to conformation bias so I play less heed to it in any discussion.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with guitar tone.


Edited by Dean - September 14 2015 at 05:30
What?
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 05:36
Originally posted by Atavachron Atavachron wrote:

I used this puppy for years (or a model close to it); Seymour-Duncan Studio Series, good old workhorse, never needed a pedal

I've noticed a good amp will sound better after a certain amount of use; there's something about wear & tear that does wonders for the character of an amp's sound.


This goes back to the notion that bad circuits make for good guitar sounds. With guitar tones we are looking for distortion of the guitar output, anything that modifies the signal away from the pure-tone is distortion even when it sounds good. As amplifiers age they move away from their design specification and that affects the tone of the signal. For example valves (tubes) naturally age, and they each age slightly differently, so what was originally a perfectly matched-pair in a new amp will not be so closely matched once the amp has been burned-in for a period of time, which of course adds to the distortion. Also over-driving valves causes them to run hot, which accelerates their ageing (you'll read of things such as "cathode stripping", but as with all esoteric technical concepts, you should read them with extreme caution).


Edited by Dean - September 14 2015 at 05:36
What?
Back to Top
Kati View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 05:43
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

A good option to test the loudness war and dynamic sound range is this site, you can compare any old or new band album releases on here, inc. all releases in. LP format etc.
Here is one for Animals by PF but you can search/type whichever you want and/or upload an album you have in your possession too.
Personally I think too much play has been made over the so-called loudness wars. There are (not so) hidden agendas at work here that confuse the situation immensely. This confusion is deliberate IMO.

With guitar effects the dynamic range issue is rendered a little moot since overdrive/distortion, feedback and sustain all tend to result in a reduction of the guitar signal's dynamic range. This is an inescapable consequence of "processing" the output from the pick-ups that has little or nothing to do with the dynamic range of the final recording.
Dean I am very surprised you said that, maybe you should not think of loudness war, I will rephrase it as dynamic range instead. This obviously means the difference between the smallest and largest musical tone. A big dynamic range keeps growing unlike a compressed track which you notice little difference between low and high and the changes in-between them because most will lack bottom end and top end and overall the frequencies are chopped of to enable the sound to become louder whereby lacking the special details and at the end while we were impressed at the beginning it ends up making us tired of listening.
Hug
I think you need to re-read my lengthy explanation of Dynamic Range, then perhaps my reply will not surprise you so much Tongue

For example, a track with a fade in or fade out has the same "dynamic range" whether it is compressed or not. Also compression does not affect frequency response (top and bottom end as you put it), that is the result of EQ, which is a completely different process. Listener fatigue is a subjective effect, which is susceptible to conformation bias so I play less heed to it in any discussion.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with guitar tone.
Dean, overall the fact is that most details, especially the tiniest details are lost (and with prog this is major) maybe it has not necessary to do with the guitar tone, btw acoustic guitar always sounds louder funny enough compared to electric. Compression works just like digital painting if I can describe it that way, if you use auto contrast, it might sound more impressive at first but you lose all the details.
Hug
There must be a reason why prior to the 80's most bands and an average dynamic range of atleast 11 compared to thereafter having  8 and 8 is bordering the red minimum line. Meanwhile LP's continued to have a minimum of 11 or 12 dynamic range same album.


Edited by Kati - September 14 2015 at 05:46
Back to Top
odinalcatraz View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 12 2010
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 347
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 09:27
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

A good option to test the loudness war and dynamic sound range is this site, you can compare any old or new band album releases on here, inc. all releases in. LP format etc.
Here is one for Animals by PF but you can search/type whichever you want and/or upload an album you have in your possession too.
Personally I think too much play has been made over the so-called loudness wars. There are (not so) hidden agendas at work here that confuse the situation immensely. This confusion is deliberate IMO.

With guitar effects the dynamic range issue is rendered a little moot since overdrive/distortion, feedback and sustain all tend to result in a reduction of the guitar signal's dynamic range. This is an inescapable consequence of "processing" the output from the pick-ups that has little or nothing to do with the dynamic range of the final recording.
Dean I am very surprised you said that, maybe you should not think of loudness war, I will rephrase it as dynamic range instead. This obviously means the difference between the smallest and largest musical tone. A big dynamic range keeps growing unlike a compressed track which you notice little difference between low and high and the changes in-between them because most will lack bottom end and top end and overall the frequencies are chopped of to enable the sound to become louder whereby lacking the special details and at the end while we were impressed at the beginning it ends up making us tired of listening.
Hug
I think you need to re-read my lengthy explanation of Dynamic Range, then perhaps my reply will not surprise you so much Tongue

For example, a track with a fade in or fade out has the same "dynamic range" whether it is compressed or not. Also compression does not affect frequency response (top and bottom end as you put it), that is the result of EQ, which is a completely different process. Listener fatigue is a subjective effect, which is susceptible to conformation bias so I play less heed to it in any discussion.

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with guitar tone.


I agree. Absolutely anything goes to make a sound (I leave many sounds in a mix that some would clean up). Distortion and compression and even old strings are all good if it sounds good.
The loudness war in my opinion is ignored WAY too much. Many can't tell and have no idea what it is or how it sounds. I hate the sound of most albums and only recently realised why. It's a bit like radiation or the flu, you don't know it's there but it ruins everything and anyone who dislikes complexity in music, hates it a whole lot more when compressed too much. It sounds nasty to them and they refuse to listen. Listener fatigue is much worse for the person who has to hear music they haven't chosen to listen to. The effect is that they will never realise they would like it if it was dynamic or radiation free.
Guitar tone is not generally affected by the loudness war tho. Ha ha!
http://www.corvusstone.com
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 09:37
Originally posted by odinalcatraz odinalcatraz wrote:


The loudness war in my opinion is ignored WAY too much. Many can't tell and have no idea what it is or how it sounds. I hate the sound of most albums and only recently realised why. It's a bit like radiation or the flu, you don't know it's there but it ruins everything and anyone who dislikes complexity in music, hates it a whole lot more when compressed too much. It sounds nasty to them and they refuse to listen. Listener fatigue is much worse for the person who has to hear music they haven't chosen to listen to. The effect is that they will never realise they would like it if it was dynamic or radiation free.
Guitar tone is not generally affected by the loudness war tho. Ha ha!
I've discussed dynamic range and loudness at length in other threads, the only point I was really intending here was that it is waaaaay off topic in a thread about guitar tone. If you can find one of those other threads (such as the one I linked in my reply to Sonia) I'll happily discuss your points in detail. Just not here.
What?
Back to Top
SteveG View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20245
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 09:39
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

Does anyone have DIY effects?
A few.  My fave is a replica of Jim Dunlop's Fuzz Face that I made using some germanium transistors I 'found' in my box of assorted bits

Fuzz Face Circuit Diagram
(this is an example circuit from the web, I don't have an image of the cct I actually used)

As with a lot of distortion effects it's good because the circuit is essentially bad (it has poor gain, loads the guitar pickups quite badly, has a dreadful frequency response, and most importantly is non-linear in that it clips the signal asymmetrically which produces a characteristic set of harmonics that you don't get with symmetrical distortion).

This tread details an infinity sustainer mod to a cheap guitar I did a while back.
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

This is a homemade oscillator/synth unit I cobbled together with a friend:
Sounds very 'squelchy', so it's not used much. LOL
  
Like Andrey I was curious about the breadboard Wink I've breadboarded a lot of different guitar effects circuits but few of them ever got made into usable pedals.

My bug-bear is those industrial stomp switches, I've used them and still have a bag-full I bought cheaply from Proops on Tottenham Court Road many (many) years ago but they are too strong and hurt your feet unless you're wearing heavy work boots. I've since gone over to using Cherry™ keyboard switch with latch circuit similar to those used by Ibanez and Danelectro (among others)
My DIY stomp box was never intended for the stage, just the studio so the stomp switch was always "on." But for live playing I agree they they are a drag, but it was the only thing available 30 years ago and you never had to worry about it failing just before an important solo.
Back to Top
Kati View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 10 2010
Location: Earth
Status: Offline
Points: 6253
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 10:54
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by odinalcatraz odinalcatraz wrote:


The loudness war in my opinion is ignored WAY too much. Many can't tell and have no idea what it is or how it sounds. I hate the sound of most albums and only recently realised why. It's a bit like radiation or the flu, you don't know it's there but it ruins everything and anyone who dislikes complexity in music, hates it a whole lot more when compressed too much. It sounds nasty to them and they refuse to listen. Listener fatigue is much worse for the person who has to hear music they haven't chosen to listen to. The effect is that they will never realise they would like it if it was dynamic or radiation free.
Guitar tone is not generally affected by the loudness war tho. Ha ha!
I've discussed dynamic range and loudness at length in other threads, the only point I was really intending here was that it is waaaaay off topic in a thread about guitar tone. If you can find one of those other threads (such as the one I linked in my reply to Sonia) I'll happily discuss your points in detail. Just not here.
bah! You two need to get a room. Stern Smile I did change the topic conversation yes and got this outcome arghh Confused
3some hug Hug
hahahahaha!!! LOL hahaaha!!! sorry but hahaha!! LOL
 
Back to Top
odinalcatraz View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: July 12 2010
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 347
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 14 2015 at 13:13
Originally posted by Kati Kati wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by odinalcatraz odinalcatraz wrote:


The loudness war in my opinion is ignored WAY too much. Many can't tell and have no idea what it is or how it sounds. I hate the sound of most albums and only recently realised why. It's a bit like radiation or the flu, you don't know it's there but it ruins everything and anyone who dislikes complexity in music, hates it a whole lot more when compressed too much. It sounds nasty to them and they refuse to listen. Listener fatigue is much worse for the person who has to hear music they haven't chosen to listen to. The effect is that they will never realise they would like it if it was dynamic or radiation free.
Guitar tone is not generally affected by the loudness war tho. Ha ha!
I've discussed dynamic range and loudness at length in other threads, the only point I was really intending here was that it is waaaaay off topic in a thread about guitar tone. If you can find one of those other threads (such as the one I linked in my reply to Sonia) I'll happily discuss your points in detail. Just not here.
bah! You two need to get a room. Stern Smile I did change the topic conversation yes and got this outcome arghh Confused
3some hug Hug
hahahahaha!!! LOL hahaaha!!! sorry but hahaha!! LOL
 

I saw that other discussion and good to see that Dean!
As for Sonia and her topic changing tendencies, I have no suggestions but I would like to warn everyone that Sonia has very scary hearing and will spot every single sound in the most complex piece and complain where necessary!

http://www.corvusstone.com
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7946
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 23 2015 at 22:00
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:


Does anyone have DIY effects?
A few.  My fave is a replica of Jim Dunlop's Fuzz Face that I made using some germanium transistors I 'found' in my box of assorted bits

Fuzz Face Circuit Diagram
(this is an example circuit from the web, I don't have an image of the cct I actually used)

As with a lot of distortion effects it's good because the circuit is essentially bad (it has poor gain, loads the guitar pickups quite badly, has a dreadful frequency response, and most importantly is non-linear in that it clips the signal asymmetrically which produces a characteristic set of harmonics that you don't get with symmetrical distortion).

This tread details an infinity sustainer mod to a cheap guitar I did a while back.
<span style="line-height: 18.2px;">
Originally posted by SteveG SteveG wrote:

</span>This is a homemade oscillator/synth unit I cobbled together with a friend:
Sounds very 'squelchy', so it's not used much. LOL
  

Like Andrey I was curious about the breadboard Wink I've breadboarded a lot of different guitar effects circuits but few of them ever got made into usable pedals.

My bug-bear is those industrial stomp switches, I've used them and still have a bag-full I bought cheaply from Proops on Tottenham Court Road many (many) years ago but they are too strong and hurt your feet unless you're wearing heavy work boots. I've since gone over to using Cherry™ keyboard switch with latch circuit similar to those used by Ibanez and Danelectro (among others)

Dean, as you know, I perused your sustainer pickup thread quite awhile ago. I was wondering if you had been following Paul Vo's Vo Guitar. He showed it off at this year's Namm festival. He uses a digitally controlled sustainer pickup mounted on/in an acoustic guitar not just to vibrate the string but to control the vibration so that it produces a square wave or a saw tooth (and with the desired amount of sustain too of course). It controls what harmonics are present and can arpeggiate the harmonics even. It's a whole new type of synthesis he calls acoustic synthesis; purely physical - no signal processing or PV conversion. Talk about tone! They're not available yet. I'm waiting, though. I thought you might also get excited by the technical achievement of it. See www.paulvo.com (if you haven't already).

Edited by HackettFan - September 23 2015 at 22:05
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: September 24 2015 at 02:42
Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

 Dean, as you know, I perused your sustainer pickup thread quite awhile ago. I was wondering if you had been following Paul Vo's Vo Guitar. He showed it off at this year's Namm festival. He uses a digitally controlled sustainer pickup mounted on/in an acoustic guitar not just to vibrate the string but to control the vibration so that it produces a square wave or a saw tooth (and with the desired amount of sustain too of course). It controls what harmonics are present and can arpeggiate the harmonics even. It's a whole new type of synthesis he calls acoustic synthesis; purely physical - no signal processing or PV conversion. Talk about tone! They're not available yet. I'm waiting, though. I thought you might also get excited by the technical achievement of it. See www.paulvo.com (if you haven't already).
I had seen his Wond but not the Vo-96. Interesting. There is signal processing and conversions going on, they're just part of the feedback process instead of being post-processing. Unfortunately the demo video was as dull as dishwater as I didn't care what the presets do or any of that so I didn't watch it to the end, I was more interested in the pick-up/exciter. I had considered a pick-up/exciter per string for my sustainer but that was too complicated for what I was building. Thinking about how the Vo-96 must work and judging by its size, I surmise that he has used (at least) two pick-up/exciter pairs per string so he can control the harmonics and create the tone-arpeggios, giving a total of 24 individual coils.


This has got me thinking... sustainers work by feeding back the picked-up note to a driver coil such that it is in-phase with the note fundamental, the Vo-96 uses two (or more) driver coils so the secondary driver can be a little out of phase with the fundamental and thus control the harmonics. In sustainers such as the Sustainiac and Ebow the drivers are continuously pushing and pulling the string, and unless told otherwise I'm guessing that this is also how the Wond and Vo-96 work (based on the Wond, but he says the technology is the same) but perhaps it isn't... Because this isn't how we play a guitar, we apply the initial impetus to start the vibration and the string oscillates at its fundamental frequency, and without further stimulation it decays naturally. 

Now consider pushing a child on a swing... here we don't continuously run backwards and forwards while holding on to the swing's seat to keep it swinging, we apply a single push at the top of its backward swing and allow physics to do the rest. This impulse function is more efficient and requires less energy from us to keep the kid amused. In fact we don't even need to give this extra impetus on every back-swing, we can do it once every 2nd, 3rd or nth back-swing and the swing will maintain its oscillation.

So what if we applied this technique to a guitar string... this is tricky in pure analogue sustainers but in digital sustainers it would be simple as the DSP analysis has already analysed each string for pitch, phase and amplitude. So rather than driving the exciter-coil with a reconstituted analogue signal (from a D to A, which I'm pretty certain is how Paul Vo does it), "digitally" pulsing the exciter-coil at the peak point in each vibration cycle would be a doddle, we could even pulse the string 180° out of phase and thus dampen the string. This opens up another (technical) possibility - since the coil is only being driven for a brief time during the note's cycle, the rest of the time the string's vibration will be inducing current in its windings, therefore the exciter can simultaneously be used as a pick-up to give continuous feedback to the control circuitry.

hmm... food for thought.



Edited by Dean - September 24 2015 at 02:49
What?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.135 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.