Analogue tape situation

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

As I understand it, Quantegy were the last company that stopped
manufacturing recording tape.

I have a couple of queries though.

If I wanted to make my own Tape Echo loops, what tape should I try and buy?
I think "self lubricating" tape is what you really need?



Also, what is this tape here currently on sale? The stuff that isn't
Quantegy?

http://www.tapecity.co.uk/acatalog/Open-Reel-Tapes.html




Cheers,


Gareth.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>As I understand it, Quantegy were the last company that stopped
>manufacturing recording tape.

Nope, not at all. Pyral in France has the old RMGI plant which is making
all the old BASF formulations. Also you can get ATR Magnetics tape made
in York PA, which is hotter than anything Quantegy ever made.

>I have a couple of queries though.
>
>If I wanted to make my own Tape Echo loops, what tape should I try and buy?
>I think "self lubricating" tape is what you really need?

Yes, you want cart machine tape. The last cart machine tape was made by
Fidelipac which bought out the old Capitol Audiotape plant in Winchester, VA.
It's very, very different than backcoated mastering tape. New old stock is
available from http://www.cartguys.com.

>Also, what is this tape here currently on sale? The stuff that isn't
>Quantegy?
>
>http://www.tapecity.co.uk/acatalog/Open-Reel-Tapes.html

LPR35 and SM911 are both BASF formulations which are currently being
made at the Pyral plant in Normandy. They are good tapes, but not
really suitable for endless loop machines.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

>
> If I wanted to make my own Tape Echo loops,


just curious,

why would you want to do that instead of using a digital device?

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>As I understand it, Quantegy were the last company that stopped
>manufacturing recording tape.

Nope, not at all. Pyral in France has the old RMGI plant which is making
all the old BASF formulations. Also you can get ATR Magnetics tape made
in York PA, which is hotter than anything Quantegy ever made.

>I have a couple of queries though.
>
>If I wanted to make my own Tape Echo loops, what tape should I try and buy?
>I think "self lubricating" tape is what you really need?

Yes, you want cart machine tape. The last cart machine tape was made by
Fidelipac which bought out the old Capitol Audiotape plant in Winchester,
VA.
It's very, very different than backcoated mastering tape. New old stock is
available from http://www.cartguys.com.

>Also, what is this tape here currently on sale? The stuff that isn't
>Quantegy?
>
>http://www.tapecity.co.uk/acatalog/Open-Reel-Tapes.html

LPR35 and SM911 are both BASF formulations which are currently being
made at the Pyral plant in Normandy. They are good tapes, but not
really suitable for endless loop machines.
--scott

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






Thanks, Scott.

Reason for this enquiry (at least in part) is that I have one of these to
repair that is currently in production.
http://www.fulltone.com/products/tube-tape-echo




Gareth.

[geoff]

On 14/05/2016 9:11 AM, wrote:
>
>>
>> If I wanted to make my own Tape Echo loops,
>
>
> just curious,
>
> why would you want to do that instead of using a digital device?
>
>
>

Nostalgia I guess. Nothing wrong with that.

But I'd use something digital, and if a recording situation use the
Magneto plugin or something similar.

geoff

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

gareth magennis wrote:

>
>
> Reason for this enquiry (at least in part) is that I have one of these to
> repair that is currently in production.
>
> http://www.fulltone.com/products/tube-tape-echo
>


** Fulltone sell replacement endless loop cartridges ( # ECT-1) for their machines - it is the owner's problem to obtain spare ones since they will only sell to people with proof of ownership.

Trying to re-load the cartridge with tape and get it to run smoothly sounds like a nightmare and in any case would upset the bias condition unless you get the exact same tape.



...... Phil

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 13-05-2016 22:11, wrote:

>> If I wanted to make my own Tape Echo loops,

> just curious,

> why would you want to do that instead of using a digital device?

If not for any other reason then because there is no valid replacement
for the pure randomness of actual tape. The errors can probably be
mimicked in software, but not the randomness of them.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...

gareth magennis wrote:

>
>
> Reason for this enquiry (at least in part) is that I have one of these to
> repair that is currently in production.
>
> http://www.fulltone.com/products/tube-tape-echo
>


** Fulltone sell replacement endless loop cartridges ( # ECT-1) for their
machines - it is the owner's problem to obtain spare ones since they will
only sell to people with proof of ownership.

Trying to re-load the cartridge with tape and get it to run smoothly sounds
like a nightmare and in any case would upset the bias condition unless you
get the exact same tape.



...... Phil






Yes, I think I have been "given" this nightmare to sort out. This one has
an empty cartridge.


Cheers,


Gareth.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>
>Reason for this enquiry (at least in part) is that I have one of these to
>repair that is currently in production.
>http://www.fulltone.com/products/tube-tape-echo

What does it specify for tape? I know the original Echoplex shipped with
3M low-bias "mono" cart machine tape which the cartguys can supply.
--scott

"Everything I use must have X in it, like sex and echoplex" -- Lee Perry

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>
>Yes, I think I have been "given" this nightmare to sort out. This one has
>an empty cartridge.

If you don't have a cart reloader, ask the cartguys if they can reload
the thing for you. The cart reloader is just a constant tension winding
gadget; every radio station in the country used to have one back when
everyone used carts for commercials and drop-ins.

Reloading endless loop cartridges is tricky but once you get the hang of
it, it's not bad. But if you don't have the proper tool, send it to
the cart guys.
--scott

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

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>
>Reason for this enquiry (at least in part) is that I have one of these to
>repair that is currently in production.
>http://www.fulltone.com/products/tube-tape-echo

What does it specify for tape? I know the original Echoplex shipped with
3M low-bias "mono" cart machine tape which the cartguys can supply.
--scott







Dunno, doesn't say on the one I have.
It's not clear whether the cartridge in this link was loaded by Fulltone, or
is aftermarket.

http://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/anyone-bought-any-fulltone-etc-1-cartridges-recently.1435895/


Are they making LGR50 in Normandy?



Gareth.

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

wrote:
>
> > If I wanted to make my own Tape Echo loops,
>
>
> just curious,
>
> why would you want to do that instead of using a digital device?
>

** Tape and digital echo units are not equivalent devices - there are many differences in the sound effects produced and musicians often prefer the tape based versions, despite the imperfections and need for maintenance.

40 year and more old units made by Roland, Echoplex and many others are keenly sought after on the second hand market.

Even more sought after are Binson drum echo machines, these use a thin steel band fitted onto a spinning platter much like turntable.

http://www.effectrode.com/wp-content/uploads/binson_echorec_memory_system_1600.png

The band had a indefinite life and with a speed of about 40cm/S gave good fidelity and very rapid echoes. Main draw back was more noise then was usual with tape.


..... Phil

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 20:40:09 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
> wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> > If I wanted to make my own Tape Echo loops,
>>
>>
>> just curious,
>>
>> why would you want to do that instead of using a digital device?
>>
>
>** Tape and digital echo units are not equivalent devices - there are many differences in the sound effects produced and musicians often prefer the tape based versions, despite the imperfections and need for maintenance.
>
>40 year and more old units made by Roland, Echoplex and many others are keenly sought after on the second hand market.
>
>Even more sought after are Binson drum echo machines, these use a thin steel band fitted onto a spinning platter much like turntable.
>
>http://www.effectrode.com/wp-content/uploads/binson_echorec_memory_system_1600.png
>
>The band had a indefinite life and with a speed of about 40cm/S gave good fidelity and very rapid echoes. Main draw back was more noise then was usual with tape.
>
>
>.... Phil

I had to fix a spinning disc echo many years ago. I don't recall it
having a metal band, I seem to remember that the oxide simply coated
the outer face of the disc, which was about the size of a CD and
probably a quarter inch thick.

The main issue I had with it was that you couldn't allow the heads to
actually touch the drum, as they would scrape. So there was always a
gap, which caused pretty massive loss of top. Otherwise, it was robust
and well made - apart from the broken ground wire which made it hum.
Quickly fixed.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

wrote in message
...


>
> If I wanted to make my own Tape Echo loops,


just curious,

why would you want to do that instead of using a digital device?






Because for a lot of people the whole point is a "lo-fi" sound, with each
echo having more noise, less bandwidth, and more distortion.

Dub Reggae very commonly uses this as an effect for instance, manually
increasing the feedback (number of repeats) to a level where the loop has
positive gain and runs away into gross distortion and noise.
A clean digital delay would not do this, and would sound awful (clipped) if
you tried it.



Gareth.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>
>> If I wanted to make my own Tape Echo loops,
>
>
> just curious,
>
> why would you want to do that instead of using a digital device?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Because for a lot of people the whole point is a "lo-fi" sound, with
> each echo having more noise, less bandwidth, and more distortion.
>

Many delay plugins have a "lo-fi" knob or four. Obviously, you'd need
a host to use those and dragging a laptop might not attractive.

They are 1/4"-1/4" but there are several analog delay pedals on the
market that don't use tape.

People used Echoplexes not only for the delay but as a
preamp/distortion box. They're all their own idiomatic sound.

> Dub Reggae very commonly uses this as an effect for instance, manually
> increasing the feedback (number of repeats) to a level where the loop
> has positive gain and runs away into gross distortion and noise.
> A clean digital delay would not do this, and would sound awful (clipped)
> if you tried it.
>

But again, plugins to do that abound.

>
>
> Gareth.
>
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...

Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>
>> If I wanted to make my own Tape Echo loops,
>
>
> just curious,
>
> why would you want to do that instead of using a digital device?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Because for a lot of people the whole point is a "lo-fi" sound, with
> each echo having more noise, less bandwidth, and more distortion.
>

Many delay plugins have a "lo-fi" knob or four. Obviously, you'd need
a host to use those and dragging a laptop might not attractive.

They are 1/4"-1/4" but there are several analog delay pedals on the
market that don't use tape.

People used Echoplexes not only for the delay but as a
preamp/distortion box. They're all their own idiomatic sound.

> Dub Reggae very commonly uses this as an effect for instance, manually
> increasing the feedback (number of repeats) to a level where the loop
> has positive gain and runs away into gross distortion and noise.
> A clean digital delay would not do this, and would sound awful (clipped)
> if you tried it.
>

But again, plugins to do that abound.





If these plugins really did sound like the original completely non linear
and non modelable systems, then you might have a point.
Thing is, to many people, they don't.

I repaired a PCM70 recently for a guy who quite simply couldn't get the
sound he wanted from the Lexicon plugin that actually used to come out of
his broken PCM70.


And, a guy sitting in front of a slightly dodgy Space Echo twiddling knobs
in real time in a real time performance, is perhaps not going to ever repeat
that live performance by drawing parameter data curves in Protools.



Gareth.

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>> Dub Reggae very commonly uses this as an effect for instance, manually
>> increasing the feedback (number of repeats) to a level where the loop
>> has positive gain and runs away into gross distortion and noise.
>> A clean digital delay would not do this, and would sound awful (clipped)
>> if you tried it.
>
>But again, plugins to do that abound.

Don't think of it as audio equipment. Think of it, like a guitar amp,
as part of the instrument.

You can simulate a lot of instruments and maybe the results are close
enough, but in the end people are always going to want the real thing
even if they can't tell the Guarneri from the copy.
--scott


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

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...

Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>
> wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>
>> If I wanted to make my own Tape Echo loops,
>
>
> just curious,
>
> why would you want to do that instead of using a digital device?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Because for a lot of people the whole point is a "lo-fi" sound, with
> each echo having more noise, less bandwidth, and more distortion.
>

Many delay plugins have a "lo-fi" knob or four. Obviously, you'd need
a host to use those and dragging a laptop might not attractive.

They are 1/4"-1/4" but there are several analog delay pedals on the
market that don't use tape.

People used Echoplexes not only for the delay but as a
preamp/distortion box. They're all their own idiomatic sound.

> Dub Reggae very commonly uses this as an effect for instance, manually
> increasing the feedback (number of repeats) to a level where the loop
> has positive gain and runs away into gross distortion and noise.
> A clean digital delay would not do this, and would sound awful (clipped)
> if you tried it.
>

But again, plugins to do that abound.

>
>
> Gareth.
>
>
>

--
Les Cargill





Here's a thing, take a short human vocal sample and repeat it several
times.

The human brain is really good at realising that after very few plays
(certainly less than 10) that that sound is no longer a human being singing
a line, but is now the same vocal sample repeated time after time. The
known randomness of the human voice has disappeared extremely quickly.
And it's not just the voice we suss is exactly the same, it's also the
background noise that the brain recognises is unnaturally exactly the same
too, each time the sample is triggered.


True random analogue sources are detected, often unconsciously, as "real" by
our brains in a similar way. I don't think we are all so fooled by plugins
that don't quite get things random or unique enough.


All IMHO by the way.


Gareth.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 5/15/2016 4:29 PM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>
> "Les Cargill" wrote in message ...
>
> Gareth Magennis wrote:
>>
>>
>> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If I wanted to make my own Tape Echo loops,
>>
>>
>> just curious,
>>
>> why would you want to do that instead of using a digital device?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Because for a lot of people the whole point is a "lo-fi" sound, with
>> each echo having more noise, less bandwidth, and more distortion.
>>
>
> Many delay plugins have a "lo-fi" knob or four. Obviously, you'd need
> a host to use those and dragging a laptop might not attractive.
>
> They are 1/4"-1/4" but there are several analog delay pedals on the
> market that don't use tape.
>
> People used Echoplexes not only for the delay but as a
> preamp/distortion box. They're all their own idiomatic sound.
>
>> Dub Reggae very commonly uses this as an effect for instance, manually
>> increasing the feedback (number of repeats) to a level where the loop
>> has positive gain and runs away into gross distortion and noise.
>> A clean digital delay would not do this, and would sound awful (clipped)
>> if you tried it.
>>
>
> But again, plugins to do that abound.
>
>>
>>
>> Gareth.
>>
>>
>>
>
Interesting problem.
Wondering if the quasi-analog bucket-brigade device (BBD) delay
could take the place of the tape loop. Else, maybe it might provide
a slightly different take on the loop effect.
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>Dunno, doesn't say on the one I have.

Then get the cartguys to refill it with the low-bias "mono" cart machine
tape instead of any of the fancy stuff.

>It's not clear whether the cartridge in this link was loaded by Fulltone, or
>is aftermarket.
>
>http://www.thegearpage.net/board/index.php?threads/anyone-bought-any-fulltone-etc-1-cartridges-recently.1435895/

Does it matter?

>Are they making LGR50 in Normandy?

I think LPR35 is still in production but I think most of the other cheap duping
tapes like LGR50 are gone.
--scott

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

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Phil Allison

>
> >Even more sought after are Binson drum echo machines, these use a thin
> >steel band fitted onto a spinning platter much like turntable.
> >
> >http://www.effectrode.com/wp-content/uploads/binson_echorec_memory_system_1600.png
> >
> >The band had a indefinite life and with a speed of about 40cm/S gave
> >good fidelity and very rapid echoes. Main draw back was more noise then
> > was usual with tape.
> >
>
>
> I had to fix a spinning disc echo many years ago. I don't recall it
> having a metal band, I seem to remember that the oxide simply coated
> the outer face of the disc, which was about the size of a CD and
> probably a quarter inch thick.
>
> The main issue I had with it was that you couldn't allow the heads to
> actually touch the drum, as they would scrape. So there was always a
> gap, which caused pretty massive loss of top. Otherwise, it was robust
> and well made - apart from the broken ground wire which made it hum.
> Quickly fixed.
>

** The drum on a Binson is exactly the same size as a CD.

The recording "band" is made up by winding fine steel wire onto the drum and then smoothing the surface with a lathe. The heads do make gentle contact protected by a thin film of light oil - see details here:

http://www.effectrode.com/binson-echorec-pages/binson-echorec-memory-system/

This U-tube from "Hawanna DJ" is more entertaining than instructive - but not to be missed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-6k-8GgtsM



..... Phil

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>
> "Les Cargill" wrote in message ...
>
> Gareth Magennis wrote:
>>
>>
>> wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If I wanted to make my own Tape Echo loops,
>>
>>
>> just curious,
>>
>> why would you want to do that instead of using a digital device?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Because for a lot of people the whole point is a "lo-fi" sound, with
>> each echo having more noise, less bandwidth, and more distortion.
>>
>
> Many delay plugins have a "lo-fi" knob or four. Obviously, you'd need
> a host to use those and dragging a laptop might not attractive.
>
> They are 1/4"-1/4" but there are several analog delay pedals on the
> market that don't use tape.
>
> People used Echoplexes not only for the delay but as a
> preamp/distortion box. They're all their own idiomatic sound.
>
>> Dub Reggae very commonly uses this as an effect for instance, manually
>> increasing the feedback (number of repeats) to a level where the loop
>> has positive gain and runs away into gross distortion and noise.
>> A clean digital delay would not do this, and would sound awful (clipped)
>> if you tried it.
>>
>
> But again, plugins to do that abound.
>
>
>
>
>
> If these plugins really did sound like the original completely non
> linear and non modelable systems,

I don't buy any of that at all. you can do anything these days
but it may or may not recoup cost.

> then you might have a point.
> Thing is, to many people, they don't.
>
> I repaired a PCM70 recently for a guy who quite simply couldn't get the
> sound he wanted from the Lexicon plugin that actually used to come out
> of his broken PCM70.
>
>

I'm sure he'll make some repair person very happy then. He should find
the Samplecity impulses and be happy.

> And, a guy sitting in front of a slightly dodgy Space Echo twiddling
> knobs in real time in a real time performance, is perhaps not going to
> ever repeat that live performance by drawing parameter data curves in
> Protools.
>
>
>

So he can find an actual Space Echo then.

> Gareth.
>
>
>


--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> Gareth Magennis wrote:
>>
>>> Dub Reggae very commonly uses this as an effect for instance, manually
>>> increasing the feedback (number of repeats) to a level where the loop
>>> has positive gain and runs away into gross distortion and noise.
>>> A clean digital delay would not do this, and would sound awful (clipped)
>>> if you tried it.
>>
>> But again, plugins to do that abound.
>
> Don't think of it as audio equipment. Think of it, like a guitar amp,
> as part of the instrument.
>

That's exactly what I think of it as. This is just a method
of achieving that.

> You can simulate a lot of instruments and maybe the results are close
> enough, but in the end people are always going to want the real thing
> even if they can't tell the Guarneri from the copy.


"Rosebud." - Charles Foster Kane, "Citizen Kane."

> --scott
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Trevor]

On 16/05/2016 2:15 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:

> Because for a lot of people the whole point is a "lo-fi" sound, with
> each echo having more noise, less bandwidth, and more distortion.
>
> Dub Reggae very commonly uses this as an effect for instance, manually
> increasing the feedback (number of repeats) to a level where the loop
> has positive gain and runs away into gross distortion and noise.
> A clean digital delay would not do this, and would sound awful (clipped)
> if you tried it.


"Would sound awful", as opposed to "gross distortion and noise"?
I guess your definition of what doesn't sound awful differs from mine. :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 16/05/2016 6:29 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
Here's a thing, take a short human vocal sample and repeat it several
times.
The human brain is really good at realising that after very few plays
(certainly less than 10) that that sound is no longer a human being
singing a line, but is now the same vocal sample repeated time after
time. The known randomness of the human voice has disappeared extremely
quickly.
And it's not just the voice we suss is exactly the same, it's also the
background noise that the brain recognises is unnaturally exactly the
same too, each time the sample is triggered.

True random analogue sources are detected, often unconsciously, as
"real" by our brains in a similar way. I don't think we are all so
fooled by plugins that don't quite get things random or unique enough.

------------------------------------------------

Anybody would think you are using a 20YO computer if you think adding
random variables, noise etc. to digital effects wasn't trivial these
days. But just as many people prefer playing real vinyl to a digital
copy even though they cannot tell the difference when tested, some
people will always prefer recording to analog tape. No need to pretend
to justify it. Fact is though, that it was usually possible to pick
looped choruses etc. using analog tape long before digital recording was
invented. Slight variations in noise or distortion weren't enough to
fool anybody.

Trevor.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 15-05-2016 04:40, Phil Allison wrote:

> ** Tape and digital echo units are not equivalent devices - there are many
> differences in the sound effects produced and musicians often prefer
the tape
> based versions, despite the imperfections and need for maintenance.
> 40 year and more old units made by Roland, Echoplex and many others are
> keenly sought after on the second hand market.
>
> Even more sought after are Binson drum echo machines, these use
> a thin steel band fitted onto a spinning platter much like turntable.

> http://www.effectrode.com/wp-content/uploads/binson_echorec_memory_system_1600.png

> The band had a indefinite life and with a speed of about 40cm/S gave good fidelity
> and very rapid echoes. Main draw back was more noise then was usual
with tape.

Extremely useful devices the binsons ...

> ..... Phil

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 15 May 2016 19:26:26 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
> wrote:

>Phil Allison
>
>>
>> >Even more sought after are Binson drum echo machines, these use a thin
>> >steel band fitted onto a spinning platter much like turntable.
>> >
>> >http://www.effectrode.com/wp-content/uploads/binson_echorec_memory_system_1600.png
>> >
>> >The band had a indefinite life and with a speed of about 40cm/S gave
>> >good fidelity and very rapid echoes. Main draw back was more noise then
>> > was usual with tape.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I had to fix a spinning disc echo many years ago. I don't recall it
>> having a metal band, I seem to remember that the oxide simply coated
>> the outer face of the disc, which was about the size of a CD and
>> probably a quarter inch thick.
>>
>> The main issue I had with it was that you couldn't allow the heads to
>> actually touch the drum, as they would scrape. So there was always a
>> gap, which caused pretty massive loss of top. Otherwise, it was robust
>> and well made - apart from the broken ground wire which made it hum.
>> Quickly fixed.
>>
>
>** The drum on a Binson is exactly the same size as a CD.
>
>The recording "band" is made up by winding fine steel wire onto the drum and then smoothing the surface with a lathe. The heads do make gentle contact protected by a thin film of light oil - see details here:
>
>http://www.effectrode.com/binson-echorec-pages/binson-echorec-memory-system/
>
>This U-tube from "Hawanna DJ" is more entertaining than instructive - but not to be missed.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-6k-8GgtsM
>
>

My memory may be faulty, but that doesn't appear to be the machine I
fixed. I remember the outer face being the same shade of brown as
ordinary magnetic tape, and it had no "structure", it was just a metal
surface.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Phil Allison[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:


>
> >
> >** The drum on a Binson is exactly the same size as a CD.
> >
> >The recording "band" is made up by winding fine steel wire onto the drum and then smoothing the surface with a lathe. The heads do make gentle contact protected by a thin film of light oil - see details here:
> >
> >http://www.effectrode.com/binson-echorec-pages/binson-echorec-memory-system/
> >
> >This U-tube from "Hawanna DJ" is more entertaining than instructive - but not to be missed.
> >
> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-6k-8GgtsM
> >
> >
>
> My memory may be faulty, but that doesn't appear to be the machine I
> fixed. I remember the outer face being the same shade of brown as
> ordinary magnetic tape, and it had no "structure", it was just a metal
> surface.
>


** Maybe it was a Meazzi Echomatic:

http://www.ac15.org.uk/meazzi/Echomatic%202.html




..... Phil


> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 16 May 2016 05:53:31 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >** The drum on a Binson is exactly the same size as a CD.
>> >
>> >The recording "band" is made up by winding fine steel wire onto the drum and then smoothing the surface with a lathe. The heads do make gentle contact protected by a thin film of light oil - see details here:
>> >
>> >http://www.effectrode.com/binson-echorec-pages/binson-echorec-memory-system/
>> >
>> >This U-tube from "Hawanna DJ" is more entertaining than instructive - but not to be missed.
>> >
>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-6k-8GgtsM
>> >
>> >
>>
>> My memory may be faulty, but that doesn't appear to be the machine I
>> fixed. I remember the outer face being the same shade of brown as
>> ordinary magnetic tape, and it had no "structure", it was just a metal
>> surface.
>>
>
>
>** Maybe it was a Meazzi Echomatic:
>
>http://www.ac15.org.uk/meazzi/Echomatic%202.html
>
>
>
>
>.... Phil
>
Nope, definitely not that one. I'll search.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 16 May 2016 13:10:52 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

>On Mon, 16 May 2016 05:53:31 -0700 (PDT), Phil Allison
> wrote:
>
>>Don Pearce wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >** The drum on a Binson is exactly the same size as a CD.
>>> >
>>> >The recording "band" is made up by winding fine steel wire onto the drum and then smoothing the surface with a lathe. The heads do make gentle contact protected by a thin film of light oil - see details here:
>>> >
>>> >http://www.effectrode.com/binson-echorec-pages/binson-echorec-memory-system/
>>> >
>>> >This U-tube from "Hawanna DJ" is more entertaining than instructive - but not to be missed.
>>> >
>>> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-6k-8GgtsM
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> My memory may be faulty, but that doesn't appear to be the machine I
>>> fixed. I remember the outer face being the same shade of brown as
>>> ordinary magnetic tape, and it had no "structure", it was just a metal
>>> surface.
>>>
>>
>>
>>** Maybe it was a Meazzi Echomatic:
>>
>>http://www.ac15.org.uk/meazzi/Echomatic%202.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>.... Phil
>>
>Nope, definitely not that one. I'll search.
>
>d
>
Just found one by Arbiter that looks much more like my memory of it.

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/userpix0903/5608_Arbiter_Soundette_2_1.jpg

Not 100%, but that's what I would go for.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...

On 16/05/2016 6:29 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
Here's a thing, take a short human vocal sample and repeat it several
times.
The human brain is really good at realising that after very few plays
(certainly less than 10) that that sound is no longer a human being
singing a line, but is now the same vocal sample repeated time after
time. The known randomness of the human voice has disappeared extremely
quickly.
And it's not just the voice we suss is exactly the same, it's also the
background noise that the brain recognises is unnaturally exactly the
same too, each time the sample is triggered.

True random analogue sources are detected, often unconsciously, as
"real" by our brains in a similar way. I don't think we are all so
fooled by plugins that don't quite get things random or unique enough.

------------------------------------------------

Anybody would think you are using a 20YO computer if you think adding
random variables, noise etc. to digital effects wasn't trivial these
days. But just as many people prefer playing real vinyl to a digital
copy even though they cannot tell the difference when tested, some
people will always prefer recording to analog tape. No need to pretend
to justify it. Fact is though, that it was usually possible to pick
looped choruses etc. using analog tape long before digital recording was
invented. Slight variations in noise or distortion weren't enough to
fool anybody.

Trevor.






Well that's kind of my point.

Each repetition of a tape in a tape machine/tape echo is unique, and sounds
so.
Each repetition of a digital recording is for all intents and purposes
identical.


Go sample 3 seconds of vocal and play it back repeatedly. That will
illustrate this point far better than I can do in text.


Gareth.

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"Gareth Magennis" wrote in message ...



"Trevor" wrote in message ...

On 16/05/2016 6:29 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
Here's a thing, take a short human vocal sample and repeat it several
times.
The human brain is really good at realising that after very few plays
(certainly less than 10) that that sound is no longer a human being
singing a line, but is now the same vocal sample repeated time after
time. The known randomness of the human voice has disappeared extremely
quickly.
And it's not just the voice we suss is exactly the same, it's also the
background noise that the brain recognises is unnaturally exactly the
same too, each time the sample is triggered.

True random analogue sources are detected, often unconsciously, as
"real" by our brains in a similar way. I don't think we are all so
fooled by plugins that don't quite get things random or unique enough.

------------------------------------------------

Anybody would think you are using a 20YO computer if you think adding
random variables, noise etc. to digital effects wasn't trivial these
days. But just as many people prefer playing real vinyl to a digital
copy even though they cannot tell the difference when tested, some
people will always prefer recording to analog tape. No need to pretend
to justify it. Fact is though, that it was usually possible to pick
looped choruses etc. using analog tape long before digital recording was
invented. Slight variations in noise or distortion weren't enough to
fool anybody.

Trevor.






Well that's kind of my point.

Each repetition of a tape in a tape machine/tape echo is unique, and sounds
so.
Each repetition of a digital recording is for all intents and purposes
identical.


Go sample 3 seconds of vocal and play it back repeatedly. That will
illustrate this point far better than I can do in text.


Gareth.






Trouble is you will then have to make a 3 second tape loop and play that
back to A/B it to really prove my point.

A Space Echo will sound great. Your digital sample will be extremely
irritating.



Gareth.

[Trevor]

On 18/05/2016 5:55 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote>
> Well that's kind of my point.
>
> Each repetition of a tape in a tape machine/tape echo is unique, and
> sounds so.
> Each repetition of a digital recording is for all intents and purposes
> identical.


ONLY *IF* you choose it to be so and do nothing to make it so that it
isn't. You CAN though of course, Which was my point.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 18/05/2016 6:28 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
> ...
> "Trevor" wrote in message ...
>
> On 16/05/2016 6:29 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> Here's a thing, take a short human vocal sample and repeat it several
> times.
> The human brain is really good at realising that after very few plays
> (certainly less than 10) that that sound is no longer a human being
> singing a line, but is now the same vocal sample repeated time after
> time. The known randomness of the human voice has disappeared extremely
> quickly.
> And it's not just the voice we suss is exactly the same, it's also the
> background noise that the brain recognises is unnaturally exactly the
> same too, each time the sample is triggered.
>
> True random analogue sources are detected, often unconsciously, as
> "real" by our brains in a similar way. I don't think we are all so
> fooled by plugins that don't quite get things random or unique enough.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Anybody would think you are using a 20YO computer if you think adding
> random variables, noise etc. to digital effects wasn't trivial these
> days. But just as many people prefer playing real vinyl to a digital
> copy even though they cannot tell the difference when tested, some
> people will always prefer recording to analog tape. No need to pretend
> to justify it. Fact is though, that it was usually possible to pick
> looped choruses etc. using analog tape long before digital recording was
> invented. Slight variations in noise or distortion weren't enough to
> fool anybody.
>
>
>
> Well that's kind of my point.
>
> Each repetition of a tape in a tape machine/tape echo is unique, and sounds
> so.
> Each repetition of a digital recording is for all intents and purposes
> identical.
>
>
> Go sample 3 seconds of vocal and play it back repeatedly. That will
> illustrate this point far better than I can do in text.
>
>
>
>
> Trouble is you will then have to make a 3 second tape loop and play that
> back to A/B it to really prove my point.
>
> A Space Echo will sound great. Your digital sample will be extremely
> irritating.


No need, since you have stated a complete fallacy about the proper use
of digital effects which your test does nothing to prove or disprove.

Trevor.

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...

On 18/05/2016 6:28 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
> ...
> "Trevor" wrote in message ...
>
> On 16/05/2016 6:29 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> Here's a thing, take a short human vocal sample and repeat it several
> times.
> The human brain is really good at realising that after very few plays
> (certainly less than 10) that that sound is no longer a human being
> singing a line, but is now the same vocal sample repeated time after
> time. The known randomness of the human voice has disappeared extremely
> quickly.
> And it's not just the voice we suss is exactly the same, it's also the
> background noise that the brain recognises is unnaturally exactly the
> same too, each time the sample is triggered.
>
> True random analogue sources are detected, often unconsciously, as
> "real" by our brains in a similar way. I don't think we are all so
> fooled by plugins that don't quite get things random or unique enough.
>
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> Anybody would think you are using a 20YO computer if you think adding
> random variables, noise etc. to digital effects wasn't trivial these
> days. But just as many people prefer playing real vinyl to a digital
> copy even though they cannot tell the difference when tested, some
> people will always prefer recording to analog tape. No need to pretend
> to justify it. Fact is though, that it was usually possible to pick
> looped choruses etc. using analog tape long before digital recording was
> invented. Slight variations in noise or distortion weren't enough to
> fool anybody.
>
>
>
> Well that's kind of my point.
>
> Each repetition of a tape in a tape machine/tape echo is unique, and
> sounds
> so.
> Each repetition of a digital recording is for all intents and purposes
> identical.
>
>
> Go sample 3 seconds of vocal and play it back repeatedly. That will
> illustrate this point far better than I can do in text.
>
>
>
>
> Trouble is you will then have to make a 3 second tape loop and play that
> back to A/B it to really prove my point.
>
> A Space Echo will sound great. Your digital sample will be extremely
> irritating.


No need, since you have stated a complete fallacy about the proper use
of digital effects which your test does nothing to prove or disprove.

Trevor.







There is a need, Trevor, as you don't appear to have experienced what
happens when the brain encounters a series of short identical samples, and
refuse to conduct the experiment which will show you.



Gareth.

[Scott Dorsey]

Phil Allison > wrote:
>Don Pearce wrote:
>> >
>> >** The drum on a Binson is exactly the same size as a CD.
>> >
>> >The recording "band" is made up by winding fine steel wire onto the drum and then smoothing the surface with a lathe. The heads do make gentle contact protected by a thin film of light oil - see details here:
>> >
>> My memory may be faulty, but that doesn't appear to be the machine I
>> fixed. I remember the outer face being the same shade of brown as
>> ordinary magnetic tape, and it had no "structure", it was just a metal
>> surface.
>
>** Maybe it was a Meazzi Echomatic:
>
>http://www.ac15.org.uk/meazzi/Echomatic%202.html

What IS it with these crazy Italians?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 19/05/2016 6:54 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> "Trevor" wrote in message ...
>
> On 18/05/2016 6:28 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>> "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
>> ...
>> "Trevor" wrote in message ...
>>
>> On 16/05/2016 6:29 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>> Here's a thing, take a short human vocal sample and repeat it several
>> times.
>> The human brain is really good at realising that after very few plays
>> (certainly less than 10) that that sound is no longer a human being
>> singing a line, but is now the same vocal sample repeated time after
>> time. The known randomness of the human voice has disappeared extremely
>> quickly.
>> And it's not just the voice we suss is exactly the same, it's also the
>> background noise that the brain recognises is unnaturally exactly the
>> same too, each time the sample is triggered.
>>
>> True random analogue sources are detected, often unconsciously, as
>> "real" by our brains in a similar way. I don't think we are all so
>> fooled by plugins that don't quite get things random or unique enough.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Anybody would think you are using a 20YO computer if you think adding
>> random variables, noise etc. to digital effects wasn't trivial these
>> days. But just as many people prefer playing real vinyl to a digital
>> copy even though they cannot tell the difference when tested, some
>> people will always prefer recording to analog tape. No need to pretend
>> to justify it. Fact is though, that it was usually possible to pick
>> looped choruses etc. using analog tape long before digital recording was
>> invented. Slight variations in noise or distortion weren't enough to
>> fool anybody.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well that's kind of my point.
>>
>> Each repetition of a tape in a tape machine/tape echo is unique, and
>> sounds
>> so.
>> Each repetition of a digital recording is for all intents and purposes
>> identical.
>>
>>
>> Go sample 3 seconds of vocal and play it back repeatedly. That will
>> illustrate this point far better than I can do in text.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Trouble is you will then have to make a 3 second tape loop and play that
>> back to A/B it to really prove my point.
>>
>> A Space Echo will sound great. Your digital sample will be extremely
>> irritating.
>
>
> No need, since you have stated a complete fallacy about the proper use
> of digital effects which your test does nothing to prove or disprove.
>
>
> There is a need, Trevor, as you don't appear to have experienced what
> happens when the brain encounters a series of short identical samples,

Of course I have. No need for me to "prove" something I already know,
whether tape or digital in fact.


> and refuse to conduct the experiment which will show you.

Your experiment proves nothing about the proper use of digital effects
and your fallacy in thinking they must always be identical repetition,
so it is you who refuses to experiment it seems.

Trevor.

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...

On 19/05/2016 6:54 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
> "Trevor" wrote in message ...
>
> On 18/05/2016 6:28 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>> "Gareth Magennis" wrote in message
>> ...
>> "Trevor" wrote in message ...
>>
>> On 16/05/2016 6:29 AM, Gareth Magennis wrote:
>> Here's a thing, take a short human vocal sample and repeat it several
>> times.
>> The human brain is really good at realising that after very few plays
>> (certainly less than 10) that that sound is no longer a human being
>> singing a line, but is now the same vocal sample repeated time after
>> time. The known randomness of the human voice has disappeared extremely
>> quickly.
>> And it's not just the voice we suss is exactly the same, it's also the
>> background noise that the brain recognises is unnaturally exactly the
>> same too, each time the sample is triggered.
>>
>> True random analogue sources are detected, often unconsciously, as
>> "real" by our brains in a similar way. I don't think we are all so
>> fooled by plugins that don't quite get things random or unique enough.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Anybody would think you are using a 20YO computer if you think adding
>> random variables, noise etc. to digital effects wasn't trivial these
>> days. But just as many people prefer playing real vinyl to a digital
>> copy even though they cannot tell the difference when tested, some
>> people will always prefer recording to analog tape. No need to pretend
>> to justify it. Fact is though, that it was usually possible to pick
>> looped choruses etc. using analog tape long before digital recording was
>> invented. Slight variations in noise or distortion weren't enough to
>> fool anybody.
>>
>>
>>
>> Well that's kind of my point.
>>
>> Each repetition of a tape in a tape machine/tape echo is unique, and
>> sounds
>> so.
>> Each repetition of a digital recording is for all intents and purposes
>> identical.
>>
>>
>> Go sample 3 seconds of vocal and play it back repeatedly. That will
>> illustrate this point far better than I can do in text.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Trouble is you will then have to make a 3 second tape loop and play that
>> back to A/B it to really prove my point.
>>
>> A Space Echo will sound great. Your digital sample will be extremely
>> irritating.
>
>
> No need, since you have stated a complete fallacy about the proper use
> of digital effects which your test does nothing to prove or disprove.
>
>
> There is a need, Trevor, as you don't appear to have experienced what
> happens when the brain encounters a series of short identical samples,

Of course I have. No need for me to "prove" something I already know,
whether tape or digital in fact.


> and refuse to conduct the experiment which will show you.

Your experiment proves nothing about the proper use of digital effects
and your fallacy in thinking they must always be identical repetition,
so it is you who refuses to experiment it seems.

Trevor.








This thread is not about the "proper" use of digital effects, it is about
tape echoes and why digital delays and/or plugins do not sound like tape
echo's, even though they might have a control or two that add distortion or
EQ to each repeat etc, in an attempt to reproduce something pretty much
totally random and unique to each particular instance of tape echo.

And that the brain can distinguish totally random/unique from contrived.




Gareth.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>
>
>
> This thread is not about the "proper" use of digital effects, it is
> about tape echoes and why digital delays and/or plugins do not sound
> like tape echo's, even though they might have a control or two that add
> distortion or EQ to each repeat etc, in an attempt to reproduce
> something pretty much totally random and unique to each particular
> instance of tape echo.
>

They can be very much not bad, but I'm not a big fan of tape echo to
start with :)

I can certainly see how an afficianado might prefer the real
thing. But whadda I know; I like digital pianos better than the real
thing, generally ( until you get into really nice pianos ).

> And that the brain can distinguish totally random/unique from contrived.
>

I remain unconvinced that this is true. My brain at least is a
world-class liar :)

Constrained randomness isn't that hard. The problem is characterizing
the randomness of a particular machine. But that should be doable.
Indeed, I would not be surprised of there were not impulse sets for
certain tape echo machines.

You seem to be angling that tape echo is inherently nonlinear; I'd have
to profess some agnosticism of that.

>
>
>
> Gareth.
>
--
Les Cargill

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message ...

Gareth Magennis wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>
>
>
> This thread is not about the "proper" use of digital effects, it is
> about tape echoes and why digital delays and/or plugins do not sound
> like tape echo's, even though they might have a control or two that add
> distortion or EQ to each repeat etc, in an attempt to reproduce
> something pretty much totally random and unique to each particular
> instance of tape echo.
>

They can be very much not bad, but I'm not a big fan of tape echo to
start with :)

I can certainly see how an afficianado might prefer the real
thing. But whadda I know; I like digital pianos better than the real
thing, generally ( until you get into really nice pianos ).

> And that the brain can distinguish totally random/unique from contrived.
>

I remain unconvinced that this is true. My brain at least is a
world-class liar :)

Constrained randomness isn't that hard. The problem is characterizing
the randomness of a particular machine. But that should be doable.
Indeed, I would not be surprised of there were not impulse sets for
certain tape echo machines.

You seem to be angling that tape echo is inherently nonlinear; I'd have
to profess some agnosticism of that.

>
>
>
> Gareth.
>
--
Les Cargill




How might you obtain an impulse set for a Space Echo?



Gareth.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Gareth Magennis wrote:
> How might you obtain an impulse set for a Space Echo?

I'd start with a single sample impulse at various numbers
of repeats and speeds, same way you do a guitar amp.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

>You seem to be angling that tape echo is inherently nonlinear; I'd have
>to profess some agnosticism of that.

It's pretty severely nonlinear, as the distortion spectrum should
demonstrate. Listen to a repeated echo... by the fourth time around you
can't even make out what the original signal was.

>How might you obtain an impulse set for a Space Echo?

You put an impulse into the input and you record what comes out, and you
get an okay nonlinear time-invariant model out.

Problems with this approach include the fact that it's not time-invariant
at all and there is significant FM due to speed variations going over the
heads.

Another big one is that the Echoplex is subject to external influences and
can't be modelled in isolation. Put it on top of a bass cabinet and the
cabinet vibrates the tape going by and you get another set of (mostly FM)
modulations from the external mechanical source.

Sometimes people will push and pull on the tape with their fingers to
get still different effects.

Sure... you could probably get a pretty good digital model of the thing, but
it would be a lot of work, and people would still prefer the real thing
because of the sheer aesthetics of it and ability to control it mechanically.
People aren't logical, but that's fine. That's how we get music.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> You seem to be angling that tape echo is inherently nonlinear; I'd have
>> to profess some agnosticism of that.
>
> It's pretty severely nonlinear, as the distortion spectrum should
> demonstrate. Listen to a repeated echo... by the fourth time around you
> can't even make out what the original signal was.
>

That's just a grainy iterated low pass filter. I have a couple of cheezy
bucket brigade pedals that do a decent job of this. It's not
exactly the same thing.

>> How might you obtain an impulse set for a Space Echo?
>
> You put an impulse into the input and you record what comes out, and you
> get an okay nonlinear time-invariant model out.
>
> Problems with this approach include the fact that it's not time-invariant
> at all and there is significant FM due to speed variations going over the
> heads.
>

Well, sure.

> Another big one is that the Echoplex is subject to external influences and
> can't be modelled in isolation. Put it on top of a bass cabinet and the
> cabinet vibrates the tape going by and you get another set of (mostly FM)
> modulations from the external mechanical source.
>
> Sometimes people will push and pull on the tape with their fingers to
> get still different effects.
>
> Sure... you could probably get a pretty good digital model of the thing, but
> it would be a lot of work, and people would still prefer the real thing
> because of the sheer aesthetics of it and ability to control it mechanically.

Of course.

> People aren't logical, but that's fine. That's how we get music.
> --scott
>

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> You seem to be angling that tape echo is inherently nonlinear; I'd have
>>> to profess some agnosticism of that.
>>
>> It's pretty severely nonlinear, as the distortion spectrum should
>> demonstrate. Listen to a repeated echo... by the fourth time around you
>> can't even make out what the original signal was.
>
>That's just a grainy iterated low pass filter. I have a couple of cheezy
> bucket brigade pedals that do a decent job of this. It's not
>exactly the same thing.

That "graininess" is distortion. There's a lot of it. That distortion is
not a linear function and therefore requires modelling if you want to
effectively model the device.

The bucket brigade filters do something else, they actually have a carrier
frequency and aliasing effects from anything above twice the carrier
frequency, and no reconstruction filters either so plenty of weird aliasing
going on there too. The BBD quantizes time but not amplitude so it has some
attributes of a digital device but not all of them. You can model that too,
but the math is very different.
--scott

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

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>> You seem to be angling that tape echo is inherently nonlinear; I'd have
>>>> to profess some agnosticism of that.
>>>
>>> It's pretty severely nonlinear, as the distortion spectrum should
>>> demonstrate. Listen to a repeated echo... by the fourth time around you
>>> can't even make out what the original signal was.
>>
>> That's just a grainy iterated low pass filter. I have a couple of cheezy
>> bucket brigade pedals that do a decent job of this. It's not
>> exactly the same thing.
>
> That "graininess" is distortion. There's a lot of it. That distortion is
> not a linear function and therefore requires modelling if you want to
> effectively model the device.
>

I still think of it as more like something like chiaroscuro for sound.
Lots of specific techniques, but which is "best" is not clear.

I suppose somebody could prefer this version or that version, but
it's just a preference.


> The bucket brigade filters do something else, they actually have a carrier
> frequency and aliasing effects from anything above twice the carrier
> frequency, and no reconstruction filters either so plenty of weird aliasing
> going on there too.

Yes. Of course, this is a guitar pedal, so the assumption is
that the amp drops off rapidly past 5k.


> The BBD quantizes time but not amplitude so it has some
> attributes of a digital device but not all of them. You can model that too,
> but the math is very different.
> --scott
>

--
Les Cargill

[Gareth Magennis[_3_]]

>How might you obtain an impulse set for a Space Echo?

You put an impulse into the input and you record what comes out, and you
get an okay nonlinear time-invariant model out.

Problems with this approach include the fact that it's not time-invariant
at all and there is significant FM due to speed variations going over the
heads.






I think that pretty much sums up my point, in that each instance of Tape
Echo is unique.


I think you said a while ago that tape echo's are actually more of an
instrument than an effect.




Gareth.

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> That "graininess" is distortion. There's a lot of it. That distortion is
>> not a linear function and therefore requires modelling if you want to
>> effectively model the device.
>
>I still think of it as more like something like chiaroscuro for sound.

If you're doing the math, you think about things that are linear and things
that are nonlinear. If frequencies are being generated that weren't in the
original, then we describe that as distortion and there is a specific way
to address that.

>Lots of specific techniques, but which is "best" is not clear.

There are a lot needed because there are a lot of different effects in the
system that need to be modelled.

>I suppose somebody could prefer this version or that version, but
>it's just a preference.

Objectively I can say that this function matches the original better than
this other function. At some point we have to make some subjective evaluation
once we get to the point where it doesn't match the original very well, but
the goal is to stay away from the point where there is any need to worry
about that.
--scott

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

[Scott Dorsey]

Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>
>>>How might you obtain an impulse set for a Space Echo?
>>
>>You put an impulse into the input and you record what comes out, and you
>>get an okay nonlinear time-invariant model out.
>>
>>Problems with this approach include the fact that it's not time-invariant
>>at all and there is significant FM due to speed variations going over the
>>heads.
>
>
>I think that pretty much sums up my point, in that each instance of Tape
>Echo is unique.

No, it just says that the model required to describe the system is pretty
complex.

The inconsistency of tape echo is different (and that can be modelled too,
but it makes the model even more complex).

>I think you said a while ago that tape echo's are actually more of an
>instrument than an effect.

People play them.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Les Cargill > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>
>>> That "graininess" is distortion. There's a lot of it. That distortion is
>>> not a linear function and therefore requires modelling if you want to
>>> effectively model the device.
>>
>> I still think of it as more like something like chiaroscuro for sound.
>
> If you're doing the math, you think about things that are linear and things
> that are nonlinear. If frequencies are being generated that weren't in the
> original, then we describe that as distortion and there is a specific way
> to address that.
>

Wait; we're no longer in reproduction-land here; were talking
about intentionally torturing waveforms to some nefarious end.

I bet there are more devices for sale now that add distortion than
try to eliminate it. "Warm" is a code word for distortion, after all.

And yeah - various sort of nonlinearities have varying degrees of
success in being modelled. At some point, the sheer face of the
math keeps the merely interested largely out of it.

>> Lots of specific techniques, but which is "best" is not clear.
>
> There are a lot needed because there are a lot of different effects in the
> system that need to be modelled.
>
>> I suppose somebody could prefer this version or that version, but
>> it's just a preference.
>
> Objectively I can say that this function matches the original better than
> this other function. At some point we have to make some subjective evaluation
> once we get to the point where it doesn't match the original very well, but
> the goal is to stay away from the point where there is any need to worry
> about that.

So what really happens is that you end up with an ... electric piano,
which is not really a piano at all. Then there are emulations of
electric pianos, and those become ...resepctable* and on and on.

"[expletive deleted] and ugly buildings get respectable if they last
long enough." - Noah Cross, "Chinatown".

> --scott
>

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> Les Cargill > wrote:
>>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That "graininess" is distortion. There's a lot of it. That distortion is
>>>> not a linear function and therefore requires modelling if you want to
>>>> effectively model the device.
>>>
>>> I still think of it as more like something like chiaroscuro for sound.
>>
>> If you're doing the math, you think about things that are linear and things
>> that are nonlinear. If frequencies are being generated that weren't in the
>> original, then we describe that as distortion and there is a specific way
>> to address that.
>
>Wait; we're no longer in reproduction-land here; were talking
>about intentionally torturing waveforms to some nefarious end.

We never were. This is a thread about tape echo machines.

>I bet there are more devices for sale now that add distortion than
>try to eliminate it. "Warm" is a code word for distortion, after all.

Probably, although when the Echoplex was new, a lot of effort was put into
reducing coloration. Now the coloration is what people like about it. Go
figure.

>And yeah - various sort of nonlinearities have varying degrees of
>success in being modelled. At some point, the sheer face of the
>math keeps the merely interested largely out of it.

The nonlinearity isn't so bad, a lot of the issue is that on top of the
time-invariant nonlinearity you also get all that FM modulation.

>So what really happens is that you end up with an ... electric piano,
>which is not really a piano at all. Then there are emulations of
>electric pianos, and those become ...resepctable* and on and on.
>
>"[expletive deleted] and ugly buildings get respectable if they last
>long enough." - Noah Cross, "Chinatown".

It's that kind of world, yeah.
--scott

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