The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
About Distortion...
Old 5th December 2002
  #31
Han
Lives for gear
 

Old 5th December 2002
  #32
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Hi (name deleted by request by moderator), ,

> Sorry you find this thread disappointing. <

Not at all! When I saw Curve's original post I figured he was asking for technical details, so I that's what I answered. Then after a bunch of related stuff - which was all fine and very informative - Curve came back again saying he wanted more technical details. That's all I was commenting on. No offense was meant, given, or taken.

> It would be great if you could tell us what you would like to know and I will try to help if I can :-) <

I already know all I need to about distortion. :eek:

--Ethan
Old 6th December 2002
  #33
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Hi (name deleted by request by moderator),

> Actually Curve has a good habit of starting roaring threads like this one <

Yes, he does have that knack! I was kinda surprised he didn't come back asking for more detail. There are many kinds of distortion - EveAnna and Hutch talked about transformer saturation, which was a good point that I didn't even mention. But there's also slew rate limiting, tape saturation ... all kinds of stuff worthy of further discussion.

--Ethan
Old 6th December 2002
  #34
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
***DISCLAIMER***

I started this thread in a PRO-ACTIVE spirit. It was definitely NOT meant as a platform from which to bash on anybody or any products for any reason, or to stir up controversy. I'm here to listen and learn.

I state this because I'm sensing a whiff of defensiveness in certain posts, like I'm gonna break out and accuse you all of being a bunch of glorified fuzzbox makers or something. I'm a LITTLE more mature than that (although I can understand it's hard to tell sometimes).

I just thought it would be a cool subject to explore. We can leave specific kit out for all I care, if that makes everybody happy, and discuss harmonics purely from a theoretical standpoint. I'm a guest here and a student and in absolutely no position to offend anyone, and don't wish to even if I could, which I can't, so that's moot.

OK.

Han: Thanks for the Fourier Analysis paper by Gabe Velez, which I'm printing out and adding to my homework.

Ethan: Yes I had more questions but decided to stand back and follow along a little more before chiming in. EveAnna'a here for the whole month and it's only the 5th today so, we got time.

(name deleted by request by moderator): I don't go looking for trouble but it seems to like looking for me.

Distortion, harmonics, "character"...

As I see it, these are naturally occuring phenomenon, and so nothing to be ashamed of if they happen to reside in your kit in some fashion. George Massenburg comes to mind when he responded to some phase-**** going on about phase issues...GM pointed out that phase is a natural component of sound. There is a fan a few feet away from me which is blowing the second-hand smoke from my Dunhills out the window and onto Waverly Street, and I can hear the sound of the fan going in and out of phase simply by swiveling my head around and back.

As such I tend to view distortion as a naturally occuring phenomenon, not as something "bad." I first noticed this phenomenon in sound at a very early age when plucking the low E string on my mom's Spanish classical guitar, and listening closely to the sustained resonance which had a "fuzzy" sound similar to what I usually at the time associated with distorted electric guitar sound. I asked my older and smarter brother Bobby about this and he said, "Those are harmonic overtones that you're hearing." He then demonstrated that concept by tapping on the 5th and 7th frets of that string...ahh! Those are those "extra" notes I was hearing - harmonics!

I'm sorry to take the discussion back to a Sesame Street mentality, but I relate that antecdote hence anyone doubts my ability to grasp this concept of "character" and the distinctions inherent.

Now to this issue of "the numbers and the specs." We're all grownups here. We all know there's really not a Santa Claus; and we understand the room for abuse on the part of the marketing guys to crunch the numbers into some kind of flattering advert. The numbers and specs don't tell you everything. AGREED.

BUT...and (name deleted by request by moderator), seriously no offense...but to simply say that numbers and specs mean absolutely nothing, that it's all hocus-pocus voodoo which us little people will never understand, seems less than helpful. It seems every bit as suspect as the marketing hype that draws de-luvely charts and graphs and response curves for a quick and easy sale. What I'm saying is: Both extremes smack of obfuscation (I had to check my dictionary for the spelling of that word).

The English language is extensive enough that there must be words and terms for which we can describe and discuss distortion, harmonics, character...however we want to label it, in ways that us working and struggling folks on the front lines of producing music can find helpful in some way.

But for us to be shamed and embarrassed and intimidated away from discussing this intriguing and fascinating and HIGHLY RELEVENT subject simply because the numbers are sometimes put to dubious use in the advertising offices on Madison Avenue...THAT'S absurd.

Can I get a witness?
Old 6th December 2002
  #35
Moderator
 
EveAnna Manley's Avatar
 

Hey yo Curve,
You can get a witness.

When I wasn't sure how to take something you said earlier, I asked for clarification. And then you expressly clarified it for me, but it is like some folks didn't see what you wrote and are still confusing your position? Read people. Read and digest what is being said before you post, and if you ain't sure you can ask.

I have found this thread very interesting, informative, technical, philosophical, and explorative. I don't think some folks are "getting it". There *is* a lot of techie explaination stuff to digest in these pages, examples, and anecdotes that are only touched upon. I know someone like Hutch or (name deleted by request by moderator) doesn't have time to write several PHD thesis volumes (I'd just do a Folio) on "The Technical Relationship Between the Subjective and Empirical with Regards to All Manifestations of Distortion: The Observations We Have Made and Those Elusive Anomalies We Are Still Seeking to Explain", although we could, but just not today... (too busy).

Remember there is much more *not* being said, only hinted at, and I think Hutch and (name deleted by request by moderator), (and I) have done a good job keeping this discussion in a friendly language that most folks reading this should be able to keep up with. But they gotta read and digest what's being typed. And if you don't understand, just ask.


Let's keep lotsa good vibes here.
Old 6th December 2002
  #36
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Curve,

You nailed it.

> I'm sorry to take the discussion back to a Sesame Street mentality ... Both extremes smack of obfuscation <

Yes, even the most complex topics can usually be explained in practical, mechanical terms, and that should always be the goal. There's rarely a need to invoke higher math or physics when explaining the behavior of audio gear.

--Ethan
Old 7th December 2002
  #37
Lives for gear
 
Curve Dominant's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Curve,

You nailed it.

> I'm sorry to take the discussion back to a Sesame Street mentality ... Both extremes smack of obfuscation <

Yes, even the most complex topics can usually be explained in practical, mechanical terms, and that should always be the goal. There's rarely a need to invoke higher math or physics when explaining the behavior of audio gear.

--Ethan
Ethan,

Good, my man, I'm glad you got that. I was hoping somebody got that.

But here's what I don't get: some of the posts on this thread refer to "(name deleted by request by moderator)" somebody, but I don't see anyone named "(name deleted by request by moderator)" who's posted on this thread...?? There's rarely a need to invoke higher math or physics when explaining the behavior of audio forums, but this might call for something like that. Quantum weirdness? A time warp? A very small and polite black hole? It's very irking and vexing and I've searched Hyper-Math extensively and cannot find one single flashcard that explains it.

Maybe Ed Meitner could explain it, who knows...

Quote:
posted by EveAnna:
Let's keep lotsa good vibes here.
I'm trying, EveAnna, really, I am! But I seem to be haunted by the Ghost Of Audio Christmas Past.
Old 7th December 2002
  #38
Moderator
 
EveAnna Manley's Avatar
 

Sorry guys,
I have had to take a few off-topic posts off this thread, sorry....

Let's just get back to talking about distortion.


Old 13th December 2002
  #39
Here for the gear
 

Old 14th December 2002
  #40
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Keith,

> Tubes Versus Transistors ... on D.W.Fearn's web site <

That's the biggest load of crap I've seen in a while. While there may be differences between tubes and transistors, and some folks may legitimately prefer one over the other, that article adds nothing of value to the knowledge base. Quoting a guitar player (hey, I'm one too) saying "Tube records have more bass. . . . The bass actually sounds an octave lower" pretty well sums up my point.

--Ethan
Old 14th December 2002
  #41
Moderator
 
EveAnna Manley's Avatar
 

Don't forget that paper was written in 1972...
Old 14th December 2002
  #42
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

EveAnna,

> Don't forget that paper was written in 1972... <

Yeah, good point. But still, poor research, opinion promoted as fact, and anti-science BS is still BS at the end of the day.

--Ethan
Old 14th December 2002
  #43
Moderator
 
EveAnna Manley's Avatar
 

I agree with you completely about that paper; however, that paper needs to be taken in the historical context in which it resides.

My AP American History teacher in high school, Dr. Boggs, told us the first day of class, "What actually occurred in History matters less than what people at the time thought was happening."
Old 14th December 2002
  #44
Lives for gear
 
Steve Smith's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by EveAnna Manley
Sorry guys,
I have had to take a few off-topic posts off this thread, sorry....

Let's just get back to talking about distortion.


off topic??? if it is the post that I am noticing missing, it was brilliantly on topic.....

alsa, it is not my forum, nor do I have a clue what has gone on here the last few days whilst I have been away..

Cheers All!

and to "the person in red " thanks anyway !
Old 14th December 2002
  #45
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

EveAnna,

> "What actually occurred in History matters less than what people at the time thought was happening." <

That's a great quote!

Thanks.

--Ethan
Old 14th December 2002
  #46
Gear nut
 

Quote:
"What actually occurred in History matters less than what people at the time thought was happening."
Just because peoples perceptions matter more does not make them accurate or true. The distortion of history is probably even more difficult to grasp than audio distortion.

Back on topic. I wish I would have caught the deleted thread that everyone is quoting. I feel like I bought a novel and chapter three is missing.
Old 14th December 2002
  #47
Han
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
and to "the person in red " thanks anyway !
The person in red? Are you talking about the well respected name deleted by request by moderator ?

Please forgive me my ignorance, perhaps I'm totally stupid, but what was wrong with name deleted by request by moderator posting anyway?
Old 14th December 2002
  #48
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Ethan Winer
Keith,

> Tubes Versus Transistors ... on D.W.Fearn's web site <

That's the biggest load of crap I've seen in a while.
OK, I didn't writie it. But that's a pretty big diss, considering how much crap there is about and how hard it is to miss that crap.

Quote:
While there may be differences between tubes and transistors, and some folks may legitimately prefer one over the other, that article adds nothing of value to the knowledge base.
Can you explain further, please? What is it about the observations related in the article that make them eduationally useless? Are they flawed? If so, in what way? Or do you mean to say simply that this is from the beginning of understanding the real issues around tubes vs. transistors (etc.) and the perspectives are way off in light of what is now common knowledge? I expect there are plenty of folks reading this who, like me, don't share your wealth of knowledge and would not be able to see what makes the information in this article (especially about the type of distortion produced) of no value. Is there another article somewhere that refutes it, or could you write up such a thing for us? Or is this really a much simpler issue, such as, perhaps, that you only read the first page and never got to the meat of the article?

Quote:
Quoting a guitar player (hey, I'm one too) saying "Tube records have more bass. . . . The bass actually sounds an octave lower" pretty well sums up my point.
Then I'm not getting your point at all. It seems rather appropriate to me that the author tried to convey some sense of the perceptions of non-technical musicians and their imprecise attempts to describe them, since they formed the cultural context of the phenomena being discussed. The meat and focus of the article was obviously elsewhere. This suggests to me that perhaps the article might have touched some "sensitive spot" for you, and that maybe (just maybe) you are overreacting.

I have enjoyed the helpful knowledge you have been dispensing on the internet for years now, appreciate it a lot, and respect your opinion. So that's why I'm asking you to elaborate on what it is about this article that makes it invalid. The main thing I came away with was the observation about relative differences in lower and upper harmonics and 2nd and 3rd harmonics. Isn't that still a valid generalization, albeit perhaps with plenty of exceptions? If not, please share your superior knowledge to offer a better way of looking at it. Simply saying "that's a load of crap" is only so helpful as it makes me wonder if what I learned from that article is actually either invalid or irrelevant. I still don't know which, or why.

Thanks.
Old 15th December 2002
  #49
Moderator
 
EveAnna Manley's Avatar
 

Please note: Moderator did not remove Person in Red's posts. Person in Red removed them himself due to circumstances beyond our control.

What is done is done. Moderator hereby requests that we move on and keep on topic "About Distortion" and not about Person in Red.
Old 15th December 2002
  #50
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Keith,

> OK, I didn't write it.

Yes, of course!

> But that's a pretty big diss

Big crap requires a big diss.

> What is it about the observations related in the article that make them eduationally useless? Are they flawed? If so, in what way? <

The only way we can further our knowledge is by methodical testing. This is known as the scientific method. Don't confuse that with the common sentiment "Science doesn't know everything and there are things we can hear but not measure" which may or may not be true. But if someone claims a particular artifact is audible that's fine, but it can and must be verified by controlled double-blind listening tests. And preferably by people without any bias or product to sell. Anything less is just guessing or salesmanship.

All of the "facts" presented in that article are anecdotal opinions. A statements like "With tubes there is a space between the instruments even when they play loud . . . transistors make a lot of buzzing" contributes nothing of value. Heck, the opening paragraph talks about running an amplifier at a level that allows transient peaks to reach 30% distortion! I don't record or monitor like that. Do you or anyone you know? Yikes, no wonder they heard buzzing!

> Is there another article somewhere that refutes it, or could you write up such a thing for us? <

The closest I have is my Audio Myths article I wrote for Audio Media magazine a few years ago. You'll find it on my Articles page here:

www.ethanwiner.com/articles.html

> It seems rather appropriate to me that the author tried to convey some sense of the perceptions of non-technical musicians <

Sure, but anyone who says one difference between tube and solid state power amps is "the bass actually sounds an octave lower" is clearly not a very informed listener! Again, without controlled double-blind listening tests where many people participate, it's all just a bunch of opinion passed off as fact.

> The main thing I came away with was the observation about relative differences in lower and upper harmonics and 2nd and 3rd harmonics. Isn't that still a valid generalization, albeit perhaps with plenty of exceptions? <

One reason that's irrelevant is because nobody aims to record with distortion. I'm not talking about Pete Townshend's guitar tone, but recording engineers trying to capture a performance accurately.

Another reason that harmonic distortion alone is irrelevant is because whenever there's HD there is also IM distortion. And IM distortion is always damaging, even when a little added harmonic content might not be.

Finally, most of the observations about tubes versus transistors, and analog versus digital, and vinyl versus CD, ad nauseum, focus on issues that clearly are not related to the difference in those mediums. You always hear terms like "sound stage" and "depth" and other spacial descriptions, and those things are affected much more by the acoustics of the recording room.

--Ethan
Old 15th December 2002
  #51
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Ethan Winer
The only way we can further our knowledge is by methodical testing. This is known as the scientific method.
Aha. Now I understand where you're coming from. Perhaps your epistemological foundations are strictly naturalistic. I can't quite go that far with you, and I think that there are plenty of papers written that share observations without double-blind testing and are nonetheless valuable. I also doubt that many people reading this forum have "knowledge" in excess of 1% that was derived from the scientific method. However, for this particular issue, I do agree that being more scientific is important. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question by clarifying your disagreement more fully. If you don't mind, I would like to respond to a few things.

Quote:
All of the "facts" presented in that article are anecdotal opinions.
Gee whiz, Ethan. They took a lot of measurements, found some similarities that led them to group things, and presented the data. Didn't you read beyond the first page? If so, are those measurements again useless because they didn't do the testing in a blind fashion (i.e., because they knew at the time what kind of amplifier they were measuring, you can't accept the measurements as valid)?

Quote:
The closest I have is my Audio Myths article I wrote for Audio Media magazine a few years ago.
Thanks for the ref. I scanned your article and didn't see anything suggesting that the measurements presented in the article are invalid or irrelevant.

Quote:
> The main thing I came away with was the observation about relative differences in lower and upper harmonics and 2nd and 3rd harmonics. Isn't that still a valid generalization, albeit perhaps with plenty of exceptions? <

One reason that's irrelevant is because nobody aims to record with distortion. I'm not talking about Pete Townshend's guitar tone, but recording engineers trying to capture a performance accurately.
Whoa, there. You just lost me. I may be a neophyte, but I've already heard from lots of recordists who are exceptions to your statement. Many people find certain types and amounts of distortion to be musically useful in certain applications. You're moving beyond sounding dogmatic to sounding downright elitist.

And how does this make the measurements of harmonics from common tube and non-tube pre-amps irrelevant? If you don't want distortion, then it would seem very relevant to understand how those devices introduce distortion, and the relative amounts of different harmonics likely to be introduced. Even if there's much more to understand, isn't this an important part of the overall picture?

Quote:
Another reason that harmonic distortion alone is irrelevant is because whenever there's HD there is also IM distortion. And IM distortion is always damaging, even when a little added harmonic content might not be.
Saying that HD alone is not the complete picture would be more accurate, don't you think? I cannot yet fathom why you say that the technical information presented in that article is irrelevant. Was their measuring method inaccurate? Was the measurement methodology fundamentally flawed? Is harmonic distortion in general simply irrelevant? Isn't it the topic of this thread? Is this whole thread irrelevant?

Honestly, I can't help but think you must have stopped on the first page of that article and not even gotten to the meat of it, since the faults you find with it here are from the fluff on that first page. And I can't help but agree with you about the quoted statements. I just didn't see them as being particularly representative of what was most important in that article.

Respectfully,
Old 15th December 2002
  #52
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Keith,

> Perhaps your epistemological foundations are strictly naturalistic. <

Man, that's too many 50-cent words in one sentence. But if (after visiting my dictionary) you're saying that I demand to learn what's really going on while rejecting nonsense explanations, you are certainly correct.

> I think that there are plenty of papers written that share observations without double-blind testing and are nonetheless valuable. <

Perhaps, but not this one. To make the point "transistors require pads and tubes do not" is preposterous. That article is full of stuff like that. In fact, that article contains only silly statements like that.

> They took a lot of measurements, found some similarities that led them to group things, and presented the data. <

Yes, but those tests are all irrelevant! Who cares that tubes sound "better" when you run a floor tom through a preamp with the gain set so high the distortion exceeds 20%? Even the authors concede "In their normal nonoverload range all three amplifiers sounded very clean."

> are those measurements again useless because they didn't do the testing in a blind fashion <

No, they are useless because what they measured is irrelevant, and because they drew conclusions that have no relationship to accepted recording practice. For all of the fancy charts and graphs, all you can walk away with is the knowledge that when driven into extreme overload, tube and transistor circuits distort differently. Well, duh!

> Many people find certain types and amounts of distortion to be musically useful in certain applications. <

Yes, and I'm one of them too. But the statements presented at the outset of that article are not supported by what they tested and measured. Most galling to me was the claim that using a tube preamp is more important than having good acoustics. But all of the other claims like "more air" etc. have nothing to do with what they measured. In science this is called obfuscation. Make a claim, then follow up with fancy-looking graphs and statistics that have nothing to do with the claims.

> And how does this make the measurements of harmonics from common tube and non-tube pre-amps irrelevant? <

Because nobody records with preamps driven to such high levels of distortion! (Again, discounting intentional distortion used as an effect.)

> If you don't want distortion, then it would seem very relevant to understand how those devices introduce distortion, and the relative amounts of different harmonics likely to be introduced. <

Why is it useful to know what harmonics are generated by a device when operated in a manner you will never duplicate?

> Saying that HD alone is not the complete picture would be more accurate, don't you think? <

Okay.

--Ethan
Old 16th December 2002
  #53
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Ethan Winer
Yes, and I'm one of them too. But the statements presented at the outset of that article are not supported by what they tested and measured. Most galling to me was the claim that using a tube preamp is more important than having good acoustics. But all of the other claims like "more air" etc. have nothing to do with what they measured. In science this is called obfuscation. Make a claim, then follow up with fancy-looking graphs and statistics that have nothing to do with the claims.
Thanks for the reply, Ethan. I think I understand now your objections. I agree with your objections. But I still found the actual information in the article (namely, the measurements) to be not only interesting but valuable. I'm glad you pointed out some of the flaws in the rest of the paper.

Quote:
> And how does this make the measurements of harmonics from common tube and non-tube pre-amps irrelevant? <

Because nobody records with preamps driven to such high levels of distortion! (Again, discounting intentional distortion used as an effect.)
Well, it's still very relevant to my interests, because I don't discount intentional distortion used as an effect. In fact, I want to understand it better as part of a hobby project improving a distortion plugin DSP effect that I wrote. So I can't meet you all the way on this one. I still found the data (measurements) to be interesting, even if the fluff and silly statements surrounding them are of no value. Perhaps this sort of information has been better presented elsewhere.

In any case, may the reader beware, as usual. :-)

Best regards,
Old 16th December 2002
  #54
Gear interested
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Ethan Winer
Keith,

> Perhaps your epistemological foundations are strictly naturalistic. <

Man, that's too many 50-cent words in one sentence. But if (after visiting my dictionary) you're saying that I demand to learn what's really going on while rejecting nonsense explanations, you are certainly correct.

> I think that there are plenty of papers written that share observations without double-blind testing and are nonetheless valuable. <

Perhaps, but not this one. To make the point "transistors require pads and tubes do not" is preposterous. That article is full of stuff like that. In fact, that article contains only silly statements like that.

> They took a lot of measurements, found some similarities that led them to group things, and presented the data. <

Yes, but those tests are all irrelevant! Who cares that tubes sound "better" when you run a floor tom through a preamp with the gain set so high the distortion exceeds 20%? Even the authors concede "In their normal nonoverload range all three amplifiers sounded very clean."

> are those measurements again useless because they didn't do the testing in a blind fashion <

No, they are useless because what they measured is irrelevant, and because they drew conclusions that have no relationship to accepted recording practice. For all of the fancy charts and graphs, all you can walk away with is the knowledge that when driven into extreme overload, tube and transistor circuits distort differently. Well, duh!


Okay.

--Ethan
Whoa! You guy's are shooting it out strong. In my limited experience I can see truth in what you are both saying. The problem seems to be that its not the technology that produces a sound that is most interesting or even exclusive, it's the causes of those sounds that should interest us more if we want to go forwards. Like the Manley guy Hutch and the missing guy seem to be saying, everything you hear that coming out of your monitor can be measured if these guy's spend enough time at it. And it seems to me that they are doin just that and we get some great soundin kit as a result maybe? The Manley guys use tubes and stuff to get their sound and other guy's use processing and who knows what, if it sounds right it gets my vote?

Having said that some technologies produce specific distortions more readily than others and it's ok that we uninformed guys make generalisations to categorise sounds to bits of kit, tubes or transistors because thats what we're hearing. I'm not slinging out my tube experiences or my descriptions any time soon over some argument because the sounds are there I can hear em and thats that in my book. Only a crazy would say tube sound don't exist because we all hear it right? I'll leave the why's and wherefores to those guys and I'm not going to diss em for what they're up to.

We shouldn't get on the moral high ground and criticise people who describe things. All investigative science should listen to all opinion, culture and folklore because truths often lurk in the words these people are saying. The big guy's recently found this with old traditional remedies that turned out to be good, even though the old guys in the wilderness got no idea how they worked. Same thing in my book, if it works you use it you don't wait till some bod comes along to explain it all to yer first. But if they are going to explain this stuff anyway I'm sure goin to listen.
Old 16th December 2002
  #55
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

Keith,

> But I still found the actual information in the article (namely, the measurements) to be not only interesting but valuable. <

And that's fine. In fact, I should make clear that I have a lot of respect for anyone who can design and manufacture really high quality tube gear. It's a lot harder than making solid state stuff!

> I still found the data (measurements) to be interesting, even if the fluff and silly statements surrounding them are of no value. <

And maybe I'm being overly sensitive, though as a consumerist I have a big problem with nonsense being promoted as fact. And not just in audio!

--Ethan
Old 16th December 2002
  #56
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Lightbulb

JT,

> Whoa! You guy's are shooting it out strong. <

Not from my perspective! I have no attitude about this stuff, no axe to grind, and nothing to sell (at least not in this aspect of audio). My goal is merely to discover what really matters, and expose nonsense when necessary. I try to keep an open mind, and I'm willing to change my opinion in light of new evidence.

> We shouldn't get on the moral high ground and criticise people who describe things. <

My criticism there is of a vendor's misleading statements. If their products are good, and I have no reason to think they're not, they ought to be able to make their case on the facts, no?

> The big guy's recently found this with old traditional remedies that turned out to be good, even though the old guys in the wilderness got no idea how they worked. <

But don't fall into the trap of thinking that "all natural" products are inherently superior to manufactured products because that simply isn't true. A lot of those old remedies don't work and never did. Again, the only way to know what works and what does not is with impartial testing.

--Ethan
Old 16th December 2002
  #57
Lives for gear
 
oldgearguy's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by k.w.blackwell

Well, it's still very relevant to my interests, because I don't discount intentional distortion used as an effect. In fact, I want to understand it better as part of a hobby project improving a distortion plugin DSP effect that I wrote. So I can't meet you all the way on this one. I still found the data (measurements) to be interesting, even if the fluff and silly statements surrounding them are of no value. Perhaps this sort of information has been better presented elsewhere.
If you need more distortion research, might I suggest listening to the 'Warzone' CD by The Missing Brazilians. Perpetuated by Adrian Sherwood and the folks at ON-U Sound back in 1984. I don't know how it was ever cut to vinyl... The executive summary is dub reggae, distortion, hiss, and dynamic range. PETRG (People for the Ethical Treatment of Recording Gear) might take offense, but I sure like it.
Old 18th December 2002
  #58
Han
Lives for gear
 

Mmmmmmmmm.......... post has gone and the server said "thank you for posting"!
Old 18th December 2002
  #59
"If you need more distortion research, might I suggest listening to the 'Warzone' CD by The Missing Brazilians. Perpetuated by Adrian Sherwood and the folks at ON-U Sound back in 1984. I don't know how it was ever cut to vinyl... The executive summary is dub reggae, distortion, hiss, and dynamic range. PETRG (People for the Ethical Treatment of Recording Gear) might take offense, but I sure like it."

During the first session where I was engineering for Adrian Sherwood & Lee Scratch Perry - I pounded the old SSL console in time to the beat with my two fists, I was hitting 'crackle points' and the the desk made distorted crunching noises to the hip hop beat I was pounding - that was on my first day, they all liked that and it integrated me into the session!

Distortion rules!

Adrian is a true gent..
Loading mentioned products ...
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Alexi / Music Computers
7
e-are / So much gear, so little time!
5
whyuncertainty / Low End Theory
8
Darius van H / Mastering forum
25

Forum Jump