[Nil[_2_]]

I happened to come across an old ad from the mid-'80s for the Aphex
Aural Exciter, a device I hadn't thought about for many years. I
remember them being popular starting in the late '70s, but it seemed to
me they fell out of favor. I recall in particular a Linda Ronstadt
album that mentioned the brand name in the credits, and that that album
had a rather unnaturally present sound that was a bit fatiguing to
listen to. I'm surprised to see that it's are still being manufactured
and is also available as a software plugin.

Does anyone here still use these kinds of devices? Are they a
legitimate repair tool for recorded tracks that have little or no top
end?

[None]

"Nil" wrote in message
...
I happened to come across an old ad from the mid-'80s for the Aphex
Aural Exciter, a device I hadn't thought about for many years. I
remember them being popular starting in the late '70s, but it seemed
to
me they fell out of favor. I recall in particular a Linda Ronstadt
album that mentioned the brand name in the credits, and that that
album
had a rather unnaturally present sound that was a bit fatiguing to
listen to. I'm surprised to see that it's are still being
manufactured
and is also available as a software plugin.

Does anyone here still use these kinds of devices? Are they a
legitimate repair tool for recorded tracks that have little or no
top
end?

Replaced by auto-tune.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Nil wrote:
I happened to come across an old ad from the mid-'80s for the Aphex
Aural Exciter, a device I hadn't thought about for many years. I
remember them being popular starting in the late '70s, but it seemed to
me they fell out of favor. I recall in particular a Linda Ronstadt
album that mentioned the brand name in the credits, and that that album
had a rather unnaturally present sound that was a bit fatiguing to
listen to.

Yes. It was annoying. It worked out on vinyl records because ..
maybe it didn't work out.

I'm surprised to see that it's are still being manufactured
and is also available as a software plugin.


There exists a class of mistakes which, once made, must be
continued at any cost.

Does anyone here still use these kinds of devices? Are they a
legitimate repair tool for recorded tracks that have little or no top
end?


The (modern?) equivalent is the BBE boxes. They're awful too.

And in other news: singers have stompboxes now. Because there weren't
enough ways to have feedback at a gig before...

I saw one cause a Presonus mixer to crowbar. Tee hee!

--
Les Cargill

[geoff]

On 10/12/2016 3:31 PM, Nil wrote:
I happened to come across an old ad from the mid-'80s for the Aphex
Aural Exciter, a device I hadn't thought about for many years. I
remember them being popular starting in the late '70s, but it seemed to
me they fell out of favor. I recall in particular a Linda Ronstadt
album that mentioned the brand name in the credits, and that that album
had a rather unnaturally present sound that was a bit fatiguing to
listen to. I'm surprised to see that it's are still being manufactured
and is also available as a software plugin.

Does anyone here still use these kinds of devices? Are they a
legitimate repair tool for recorded tracks that have little or no top
end?



I've got a C2 (with Big Bottom). Only ever used the Big Bottom side of
it. Haven't used it at all for years, but still in a rack case.

geoff

[Klay Anderson[_2_]]

As my back room is now filled storing all things Aphex both old and new, (a good friend purchased the company about 5 years ago, I'm storing his stuff and I'm probably starting an Aphex museum) I have followed the company since they started. Either that or I'm older than most of you and have a pretty good memory. At any rate, in the beginning one could only rent the original 402 - I have about 6. I used them on albums and TV soundtracks I mixed. I was the first to use Aphex for live concerts on tour with Hoyt Axton and it made a huuuge improvement. I said old. In analog days it was a tremendous boon for clairity and gaining apparent loudness. Mostly it became overused as novices turned it to 10 listening on Auratones. In the digital age it can become a bit grating. Dolby always touted his "principle of least treatment" by the example of turning off and listening to the image collapse into the screen--then it was the right amount. Same can be said for the Aphex "effect".- don't keep turning it up, bypass it and notice the difference. BBE came much later, and was less expensive but sounded bad. BBE adds third-harmonic distortion to make its "effect". Aphex always designed their process and subsequent products (Compellor (an amazing device), etc.) to *sound good*. I don't think BBE did.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/10/2016 9:49 AM, Klay Anderson wrote:

At any rate, in the
beginning one could only rent the original 402 - I have about 6. I
used them on albums and TV soundtracks I mixed.

As I recall, they charged by the finished minute. They shipped you one,
you used it on a project, and you paid for the amount of it that went
into the end product. I don't know if there was a minimum, for instance,
if you decided that it didn't work on anything. In those days, though,
it was pretty much expected that anything that hit the airwaves or
record stores would have some Exciter on it. Basically, it just made 2nd
harmonic distortion. A little can go a long way, and too much just
sounds like distortion.




--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Nil wrote:
Does anyone here still use these kinds of devices? Are they a
legitimate repair tool for recorded tracks that have little or no top
end?

They are a legtimate fix-up tool, and I used to use them occasionally,
but these days it's been years since anyone has given me a cassette or
an optical sound track they wanted fixed up.

I think I used one about five years ago when mixing a disco song for a
period film that was supposed to take place in the seventies, which got a
band in to record a lot of new songs that all sounded like something out of
1978.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Klay Anderson wrote:
BBE came much later, and was less expensive but sounded bad. BBE adds third=
-harmonic distortion to make its "effect". Aphex always designed their proc=
ess and subsequent products (Compellor (an amazing device), etc.) to *sound=
good*. I don't think BBE did.

I think both BBE and Aphex mostly make high order even harmonic distortion
but the spectrum is clearly very different between the two because they sound
very different. I wouldn't be surprised if the BBE also had some odd harmonic
stuff going on like you suggest. I would tend to argue against either one
sounding good, but that's a personal thing.

I agree about the Compellor, though. And I keep a 108 around; almost
everything I deliver for broadcast winds up going through that thing.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[James Price[_5_]]

On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 9:21:56 AM UTC-6, Mike Rivers wrote:

A little can go a long way, and too much just sounds like distortion.

Most pots go to 10. The BBE unit should have a single knob that goes to 1.

[Trevor]

On 10/12/2016 2:00 PM, None wrote:
"Nil" wrote in message
...
I happened to come across an old ad from the mid-'80s for the Aphex
Aural Exciter, a device I hadn't thought about for many years. I
remember them being popular starting in the late '70s, but it seemed to
me they fell out of favor. I recall in particular a Linda Ronstadt
album that mentioned the brand name in the credits, and that that album
had a rather unnaturally present sound that was a bit fatiguing to
listen to. I'm surprised to see that it's are still being manufactured
and is also available as a software plugin.

Does anyone here still use these kinds of devices? Are they a
legitimate repair tool for recorded tracks that have little or no top
end?

Replaced by auto-tune.

As if Linda Ronstadt ever needed auto tune. The two devices have nothing
whatsoever in common.

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 10/12/2016 03:00, None wrote:
"Nil" wrote in message
...
Does anyone here still use these kinds of devices? Are they a
legitimate repair tool for recorded tracks that have little or no top
end?

Replaced by auto-tune.

Different tools for different jobs. Both are legitimate for their
respective uses.

Though the defects rectified by the Aural Exciter aren't such a common
problem now that Portastudio cassette machines have been replaced by the
digital versions.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

On 12/12/2016 7:38 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 10/12/2016 03:00, None wrote:
"Nil" wrote in message
...
Does anyone here still use these kinds of devices? Are they a
legitimate repair tool for recorded tracks that have little or no top
end?

Replaced by auto-tune.

Different tools for different jobs. Both are legitimate for their
respective uses.

Or both are illegitimate as the case may be. :-)



Though the defects rectified by the Aural Exciter aren't such a common
problem now that Portastudio cassette machines have been replaced by the
digital versions.

As if the users of portastudio's could ever afford to hire an Aphex back
in the day. :-)

Trevor.

[[email protected]]

it is easy to produce ODD ONLY order distortion with a symmetrical transfer function

it is easy to produce both ODD and EVEN order distortion with an Asymmetrical function

it is not so easy to produce ONLY even order distortion, but it is possible.

http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforu...?topic=69179.0

m

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/11/2016 11:03 PM, Trevor wrote:
As if Linda Ronstadt ever needed auto tune. The two devices have nothing
whatsoever in common.

I think that might be interpreted as "overused on every recording"
during its period of popularity. That's what the two devices have in
common. But nothing sonically or electrically

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

John Williamson wrote:
On 10/12/2016 03:00, None wrote:
"Nil" wrote in message
...
Does anyone here still use these kinds of devices? Are they a
legitimate repair tool for recorded tracks that have little or no top
end?

Replaced by auto-tune.

Different tools for different jobs. Both are legitimate for their
respective uses.

Though the defects rectified by the Aural Exciter aren't such a common
problem now that Portastudio cassette machines have been replaced by the
digital versions.



I have a Portastudio - a '90s one - ( Tascam 488 MkII ) and with the
right tape and dbx enabled, you didn't have *inadequate* treble,
although tape alignment was always suspect. This being said, I
don't recall a lot of audible artifacts from alignment.

It would respectably represent 12k. Perhaps more like 14k.

I swear it sounds better than the 1" 16 track Fostex recorders that
were everywhere in the '80s.

It's not that bad of a recorder. Really. Of course, that would be
different still from the first generation.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

wrote:




it is easy to produce ODD ONLY order distortion with a symmetrical transfer function

it is easy to produce both ODD and EVEN order distortion with an Asymmetrical function

it is not so easy to produce ONLY even order distortion, but it is possible.

http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforu...?topic=69179.0

m


I have a Fulltone GT500 and that's exactly what it does. Bizarre
pedal.

In the digital domain. you can use the Chebyshev transform to ....
enhance even order harmonics. You'll need offset correction and
a nice LPF to get rid of DC offset.

The GT500 has offset and DC offset correction, somehow.

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

On 13/12/2016 2:23 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/11/2016 11:03 PM, Trevor wrote:
As if Linda Ronstadt ever needed auto tune. The two devices have nothing
whatsoever in common.

I think that might be interpreted as "overused on every recording"
during its period of popularity. That's what the two devices have in
common. But nothing sonically or electrically

OK, that's a reasonable enough interpretation I guess.

Trevor.

[cedricl[_2_]]

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 6:31:44 PM UTC-8, Nil wrote:


Does anyone here still use these kinds of devices? Are they a
legitimate repair tool for recorded tracks that have little or no top
end?

I have one with big bottom for "guest" engineers that insist on having a separate send for a sub. I don't run my subs thorough an aux send. They're just part of my full range left/right main system. When I have to set up a guest console in the house (the outputs go through the booth console), engineers that want a sub send go through my "big bottom" and they never know the difference. I just roll off everything above 112 Hz and send it to some inputs on my booth console and assign it to stereo L/R.

[geoff]

On 12/12/2016 5:03 p.m., Trevor wrote:
On 10/12/2016 2:00 PM, None wrote:

Replaced by auto-tune.

As if Linda Ronstadt ever needed auto tune. The two devices have
nothing whatsoever in common.

Trevor.


Yes they have. Over-use.

geoff

[geoff]

On 13/12/2016 4:23 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/11/2016 11:03 PM, Trevor wrote:
As if Linda Ronstadt ever needed auto tune. The two devices have nothing
whatsoever in common.

I think that might be interpreted as "overused on every recording"
during its period of popularity. That's what the two devices have in
common. But nothing sonically or electrically

The real scary thing is that now the younger generation think that
severe-autotune is what normal singing should sound like.

The saving grace is that most of the related music is never purchased as
physical media, and will simply be discarded as devices or services fade
away into redundancy or are supplanted by the newest fad.

geoff

[geoff]

On 12/12/2016 11:06 p.m., Trevor wrote:
.

As if the users of portastudio's could ever afford to hire an Aphex
back in the day. :-)

Trevor.


Hire ? The C2 wasn't particularly expensive IIRC.

I bought one by mistake. I thought I was purchasing an Oral Exciter ;-0

geoff