Gearslutz.com - View Single Post

dale116dot7 · 12th April 2009

Ok, I tried this out. It does prevent 'buildup' or 'cancellation' on average. While running vocals or percussion through it, I don't really hear buildup. With a pure-sounding tone (clarinet, in this case, but the test oscillator on the console pinpoints this in an annoying way), buildup or cancellation happens but after a fraction of a second it goes away. What is noticeable when it comes to switching then staying at a particular tap is that the cancellation or reinforcement 'sticks around' then goes away. Perhaps running a very low-speed chorus in parallel with switching taps would help? ie. Rather than freezing the taps, then moving them a bit, you move them around at very low speeds, maybe a couple samples per second, then you randomize a faster move on top of that. Or is there something else you have in mind for this?

I am guessing that in 'Lexicon' terms this would be kinda-sorta like the 'Wander' parameter? Also, by using a 5ms tap movement, that works but I probably need to lower the tap movement if I lower the size of the loops (for a smaller room). Does that sound right? It would have to, I guess. Right now my 'room 'totals 416 ms, but divided down, the smallest dimension is 100ms or 33 metres. A 5ms chorus is equivalent to 1.6 metres, but if the room is scaled down in size (from 33 x 45 x 58 metres) the distance the taps move is quite a bit relative to the room size.

Since I'm doing this with the LFO's, I notice a tap movement rate where the tap movement becomes noticeable. A tap rate movement of about 100 samples per second can be noticed on pure tones or during the tail decay. Under about 50 isn't easy to notice - the more output diffusion, the less noticeable it is. In a busy song, much faster tap movements are possible unless they happen to fall in a bad time where you might hear them. When you have drum leakage into other mics, you get a funny 'whoosh' effect when a tap moves - I guess a modulation of the drum leakage, what you want to actually have reverb on, and the LFO.

I'm still curious as to how to get rid of the tape looping effect more completely, but I guess we'll get to that. The rest of the algorithm is sounding pretty good. Still some cleanup in the tap movements and further improving (actually, reducing) the tape looping should make it possible to use this in a mix. I think I'll do a mix of some kind of song in a few days so people can hear this. It'll be a mix with way too much reverb, so you can hear the processing.

So far I have 44 free instructions after adding the chorus, but I also have another 100 instructions left in the other chip. The two chips are in series (a true cascade arrangement) with only left and right audio between them. I would probably put input conditioning - predelay, input filters, maybe some allpasses on the inputs - in that part. I actually have a module written with those functions in there, but I have not put those into this algorithm yet.

12th April 2009	#41
dale116dot7 Lives for gear Joined: Dec 2003 Location: Calgary, Alberta Posts: 816 Thread Starter	Ok, I tried this out. It does prevent 'buildup' or 'cancellation' on average. While running vocals or percussion through it, I don't really hear buildup. With a pure-sounding tone (clarinet, in this case, but the test oscillator on the console pinpoints this in an annoying way), buildup or cancellation happens but after a fraction of a second it goes away. What is noticeable when it comes to switching then staying at a particular tap is that the cancellation or reinforcement 'sticks around' then goes away. Perhaps running a very low-speed chorus in parallel with switching taps would help? ie. Rather than freezing the taps, then moving them a bit, you move them around at very low speeds, maybe a couple samples per second, then you randomize a faster move on top of that. Or is there something else you have in mind for this? I am guessing that in 'Lexicon' terms this would be kinda-sorta like the 'Wander' parameter? Also, by using a 5ms tap movement, that works but I probably need to lower the tap movement if I lower the size of the loops (for a smaller room). Does that sound right? It would have to, I guess. Right now my 'room 'totals 416 ms, but divided down, the smallest dimension is 100ms or 33 metres. A 5ms chorus is equivalent to 1.6 metres, but if the room is scaled down in size (from 33 x 45 x 58 metres) the distance the taps move is quite a bit relative to the room size. Since I'm doing this with the LFO's, I notice a tap movement rate where the tap movement becomes noticeable. A tap rate movement of about 100 samples per second can be noticed on pure tones or during the tail decay. Under about 50 isn't easy to notice - the more output diffusion, the less noticeable it is. In a busy song, much faster tap movements are possible unless they happen to fall in a bad time where you might hear them. When you have drum leakage into other mics, you get a funny 'whoosh' effect when a tap moves - I guess a modulation of the drum leakage, what you want to actually have reverb on, and the LFO. I'm still curious as to how to get rid of the tape looping effect more completely, but I guess we'll get to that. The rest of the algorithm is sounding pretty good. Still some cleanup in the tap movements and further improving (actually, reducing) the tape looping should make it possible to use this in a mix. I think I'll do a mix of some kind of song in a few days so people can hear this. It'll be a mix with way too much reverb, so you can hear the processing. So far I have 44 free instructions after adding the chorus, but I also have another 100 instructions left in the other chip. The two chips are in series (a true cascade arrangement) with only left and right audio between them. I would probably put input conditioning - predelay, input filters, maybe some allpasses on the inputs - in that part. I actually have a module written with those functions in there, but I have not put those into this algorithm yet.