Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello  The thing that is nice about a single loop is that the output taps will always have the same relationship to each other. Make those sound nice, and you're in business. The allpasses within the loop can be viewed as adding phase randomization to the loop, although they can also cause artifacts if not tuned properly.
I look at each comb as a wheel, and the taps as spokes. You have wheels rotating at different rates, and they are on top of each other. Each time the spokes of one or more wheels are at the same place, an unpleasant resonance is formed. So...is it easier to reduce the overlap with a bunch of wheels with less spokes, or less wheels and more spokes? |
The thing I'm sorta wondering is whether it would be worthwhile to make a "multitap delay with single feedback path" where the multitap part is fairly dense. Of course this will be annoyingly periodic, but maybe if several of these were used in parallel it would reduce the easily perceived periodicity without (er, hopefully) making it much harder to tune. Maybe a single very dense FIR could be "decomposed" by alternately assigning taps to different loops, such that the initial output (before the input signal reaches the feedback taps) would be identical to the original impulse response. Then, uh, put a modulated APF on the feedback tap and hope for the best.
What got me thinking along these lines is that the "single loop" topology basically reduces to a multitap with feedback if all the APF coefficients are zero. This initially didn't strike me as a great idea, but the results are good.