ilovefuzz.com

Boneshaker kinda does this in a much more crude manner (as noted by DR's Tele Terror).

friendship wrote:

DRodriguez wrote: Multiband stuff is really hard to do in analog without phase issues.

I've heard this and always wondered why that is. If the time of the waveforms being independently processed aren't offset from one another, wouldn't their phase relationship be the same regardless of how you change their amplitude? Or is there something about analog multiband splitting that has its own "latency" thing?

Essentially, all EQ is created by phasing, except for a few clever tricks done digitally in something called "linear phase EQ".

So when you do multiband stuff your creating bands that are slightly out of phase with eachother. The more bands, the more phase issues that could happen. If you don't have too many bands and the circuit that follows doesn't create additional phase issues, you should be alright.

This then also creates the issue that you now need multiples of whatever circuit follows the crossover.

With digital, you can do all that cheaper, without phase issues, and with more bands sans issues.

A more common analog effect to accomplish this would be to distort the whole spectrum, then put a band pass afterwards, and blend in the clean signal

DRodriguez wrote:
Multiband stuff is really hard to do in analog without phase issues. Might be better to high pass and low pass a dirt and blend that in

They [devices such as TubeTech multiband compressor smc2b] are typically transformer coupled on both input & output otherwise phasing would def be an issue.

Lateral Sound makes a pedal called The Root, perhaps it's somewhat relevant/usefu as a solution for OPl: http://lateralsound.com/product/root
Jon might even be able to make a custom version with multiple bands, could be worth reaching out to him.

http://vfepedals.com/rup.html

It ain't small.....

DRodriguez wrote:

friendship wrote:

DRodriguez wrote: Multiband stuff is really hard to do in analog without phase issues.

I've heard this and always wondered why that is. If the time of the waveforms being independently processed aren't offset from one another, wouldn't their phase relationship be the same regardless of how you change their amplitude? Or is there something about analog multiband splitting that has its own "latency" thing?

Essentially, all EQ is created by phasing

I'd love to read more about this, you know any good online reads on the subject?

DRodriguez wrote:Essentially, all EQ is created by phasing

This is probably splitting hairs, I would counter that phase shifting is a byproduct of frequency selective circuits in the analog domain. It does exist, but it is not the root process by which most equalizers function.

friendship wrote:I've heard this and always wondered why that is. If the time of the waveforms being independently processed aren't offset from one another, wouldn't their phase relationship be the same regardless of how you change their amplitude? Or is there something about analog multiband splitting that has its own "latency" thing?

The "latency" you speak of is based in capacitive charge time and reactance. In an ideal capacitor, high frequencies of AC pass unhindered (zero ohms resistance equivalent) while DC is stopped cold (infinite resistance), there is a curve of increasing "resistance" between these two points. That curve will be centered at a frequency depending on the capacity, or value, of the capacitor, so higher value capacitors will pass lower frequencies..

It is that function of capacitive reactance that is frequency selective and employed in equalizer circuits, either simply as a high pass, or within a negative feedback loop or lossy shunt to ground as a low pass.

Now, nothing is instantaneous. It takes a finite amount of time for a capacitor to charge and discharge. The capacitor, like *everything in nature* drifts to a state of equilibrium. That is to say, if you introduce a voltage potential change on one leg, the other leg will rise or fall to meet that change and resume balance. The rise and fall time is hindered by the above mentioned "resistive curve" of the capacitive reactance, so lower frequencies attain balance at a slower rate (and therefore do not climb as high before the incoming signal has changed direction, which amounts to attenuation of the lower frequencies). It is this delay between signal introduced at the capacitor and the signal reflected on the other side of the capacitor that creates shifts in phase.

Most frequency selecting circuits use a lot more than a single cap, so as you split the signal into multiple paths, each path will see a different amount of phase shifting due to the function of the frequency transfer (described above) and will give the circuit CHARACTER (phase anomalies) upon summing.

There's a lot of online material regarding this, but it's mostly very deep math and technical stuff that makes my brain hurt.

crochambeau wrote:it's mostly very deep math and technical stuff that makes my brain hurt.

you and me both brother

dunbine wrote:http://vfepedals.com/rup.html

It ain't small.....

Actually, Peter's three effect units aren't as big as they look. I have one from his early days that has a ts clone, rat clone and pt2399 delay and though it is too big too put on my board, what I need wouldn't actually go on my board. Thanks for reminding me of this though not many were made so will probably take awhile for one to come on the used market.



What I've been researching today is mini computers. If I could have one with only Fabfilter Saturn on it with latency low enough for real time, that would be ideal.

EQ before the OD to boost the frequencies that you want to distort, then another EQ after the OD to mix the level back to normal.

Would not be small, but I can do this on the GT-100 by setting one channel clean, one with gain+excessive EQ sculpting, then recombine.

Similarly, could do my para EQs rackmounts run into a parallel setup with the ES-8 switcher and whatever dirtbox I wanted....but even more large and expensive.

The RUP and the GT-100 you just described are the closest yet to doing what I have in mind . . .

Anyone explored using a mini-computer with VST effects in their live setup yet?

Saw a thing like this just now in a video, 11:19 in:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6Y0spCZ2RY[/youtube]

The pedal can be found here: https://www.guitarwash.de/pedals-made-i ... -machines/

KMA - TYLER frequency splitter / FX loop / crossover
Tyler provides an innovative approach in the pedal area and is KMA's first complete self-development. Tyler splits the input signal into two parallel signal paths. Signal path 1 has a high pass with a subsequent foot-switchable FX loop and a phaser. Signal path 2 has a low pass with a subsequent foot-switchable FX loop. The two signal paths are recombined by the mix controller. Where left-hand stop the pure low-pass signal, 12 o'clock a 50/50 ratio and right stop the pure high-pass signal supplies. Finally, there is an active volume control, which is at 12 o'clock at unitygain and fully upturned up to 14dB boost.

The filters are active, steep-edge filters, which can be regulated independently of each other in the cut-off frequency, with a drop of 12 dB / octave. Advantages are a clear signal separation. The mixing of the signals is frequency-linear / -neutral, which means that due to the corrected phase position there is neither an extinction nor a frequency increase, at identical cut-off frequencies and thus a clean output signal.

The idea behind this is to give the player the possibility to edit the deep and high frequencies independently of each other with different effects / effect chains and in the mix no complete overlay of both signals as this sounds artificial and does not provide a natural sound, especially when a signal path remains clean.

Thanks for this. I would need to put it into a blend pedal of some sort to so I could still get the clean signals below the LP and above the HP, if I'm reading the description right. But this is definitely closer than anything I've seen yet.

Still wish I could have Fabfilter Saturn in a box. It's a fuck yes tonal shaping saturation/overdrive/distortion plugin. Been wanting to try Unfiltered Audio Dent too.

jrfox92 wrote:Boneshaker kinda does this in a much more crude manner (as noted by DR's Tele Terror).

this was my first thought since the boneshaker's EQ controls work so that if you boost the bass control you are overdriving that frequency. When I use my Boneshaker the actually distortion knob is set to zero and I just create distortion by overdriving the EQ frequencies.

manymanyhaha wrote:Thanks for this. I would need to put it into a blend pedal of some sort to so I could still get the clean signals below the LP and above the HP, if I'm reading the description right. But this is definitely closer than anything I've seen yet.

Still wish I could have Fabfilter Saturn in a box. It's a fuck yes tonal shaping saturation/overdrive/distortion plugin. Been wanting to try Unfiltered Audio Dent too.

I think that description was auto-translated, but from what I understand you still get the clean signal at the main output between the HP and LP you set. Since the pedal has three footswitches you can turn on/off the clean/HP/LP independently to mix them into the output (unless you are sending those frequencies out through pedals to other amps, not sending them back into the splitter, or maybe do that with just the lows, which is what I might use it for). In that case the main output I guess will be a more or less narrow chunk of midrange, and turning off the frequency cut on either side will bring those back, depending on how you routed the send/returns.