ampage
Tube Amps / Music Electronics
For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum. The sunn still shines online!

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

Search for:  Mode:  

Re: Would you add Blumlein to that list?


 :
7/6/2000 10:03 AM
Stephen Conner
Re: Would you add Blumlein to that list?
I'll give it a go at the weekend and see how it works. I don't know about passing it through a chorus algorithm though, I think that might just be too much.  
 
Steve C.
 
7/6/2000 6:15 PM
dutch

>>>>  
Just out of curiousity, such units or algorithms usually have a fixed delay. Given that the reflecting surface at live venues fluctuates (i.e., moving people), I wonder if making the delay vary ever so slightly will give a "live-er" feel? So instead of processing it through a fixed delay, patch it through a chorus algorithm, tweaked for a bit of variation, say about +/- 1-2msec off whatever the basic value is (e.g., from 6-9msec, with basic delay of 8msec).  
>>>>  
 
Sounds like if it works you could max it out and make everyone run to the medicine cabinet for some Dramamine.... That would be fun! :^)  
 
I've seen people put chorus inline with the signal feeding a reverb send for a "swirling reverb effect", so who knows. I guess if you have a BBD device, you could put an LFO wobble on the speed on the clock to get the appropriate degree of bedspins..... :^) It's beginning to sound a lot like a flanger.  
 
 
C ya,  
Dutch
 
7/13/2000 1:59 AM
Pete

Mark,  
 
That sounds similar to what surround sound is isn't it?
 
7/13/2000 2:39 AM
Mark Hammer
Yes and no.  
 
You are correct in assuming that surround sound uses differences between channels to derive additional "channels".  
 
You are also correct in assuming that most surround sound systems use a brief delay for the extra channels (one of the reasons why short delay BBD's have survived until now, and why Mistubishi and others are producing brief delay all-in-one digital chips).  
 
You are also correct in assuming that one of the objectives of home theatre systems is to create a sense of space and source positioning.  
 
The differences, as far as I know, are that there is usually no deliberate attempt to create a "sound shadow". Rather, the intent is to separate signals into different channels by anticipating the way difference signals will work when the original stereo signal is mixed. It may work differently in products other than the ones I've seen, but generally the delay is applied in a blanket manner to the additional channels.  
 
Rest assured I am not suggesting that the earlier generation of imaging devices are somehow *better* than surround sound, either in terms of their inception, or ability to enhance localization of individual sound sources. After all, the point of surround sound is to make the truck going from screen left to screen right *sound* like it's moving that way, and the phasers behind you sound like they are coming from behind you.  
 
Surround sound of any flavour assumes more than two speakers, though, and also depends on a soundtrack being encoded in a deliberate manner. There is a good chance that some type of noise reduction circuitry is in there too. In contrast, the sonic imaging devices we've been speaking abut up until now assume only two speakers, and does not assume any special encoding of channel differences; it merely exploits whatever channel differences there are. And I've never seen one with integrated NR.  
 
I'd be curious to hear of anyone's experiences using surround sound decoders to listen to regular audio program material. It would be kind of nice if the money people sprang for their home theatre system also delivered more pleasing music in addition to really good gunfire effects.
 
7/1/2000 5:14 AM
Steve Ahola
Re: Some popular misconceptions
Mark:  
 
    Thanks for clearing things up! BTW a guy I work with seems to have a chronic case of hypochondriasis— he will hear about someone having a particular disease or illness with certain symptoms and damned if he doesn't come down with those symptoms within a day or two... :D  
 
Steve Ahola
 
6/7/2000 11:51 AM
Liam
Re: R.G., here's a test for you
Better test:  
 
Do mods to your amp, either of your own or someone elses idea.  
 
Play guitar through amp and see if it makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. If it does it's probably a good mod. Then stop worrying about whether your ears are a clever as everyone elses, because most of the really good mods are not so subtle that you can't hear them without special training.  
 
BTW, it's easy to tell when the shield's off the first preamp tube on most amps, and it's got nothing to do with harmonics.  
 
Grow up, Holger
 
6/7/2000 12:11 PM
Holger Notzel

Liam, I didn't find it easy to hear at first. It took me some time to be able to tell the difference.  
To me it's a difference in harmonic content. What do you hear?
 

<<First Page<PrevPage 9 of 15 Next> Last Page>>