Flanger and Reverb

boingoman said:
Actually the converters on my MPX500 sound pretty good, God's help or not.
Click to expand...

God stopped helping Lexicon when they started outsourcing overseas. ;) Used to be all made in the good ole USA. They may have managed a hit with the MPX500. Even the lowly MPX100 is said to have good converters, but these units pass the dry signal as analog unless you select digital to use it as a converter.

So few people really understand how to transport the listener to another place these days. Everyone and their grandmothers can now setup home studios. However, people often don't understand the equipment, or acoustics, or music for that matter.

A lot of the factory programs in newer reverbs are overly bright just because they can be. That totally screws up the frequency cues that the brain picks up on to interpret the sound stage. You're not going to convince the listener that they're in a large hall if the reverb or echoes are as bright as or brighter than the initial sound. I've watched people misuse their reverbs to brighten up dull sound for years. It's a bass ackwards way of doing it.

In the old days you couldn't use plate or spring reverbs to brighten things up because they didn't brighten. Same with some early digital reverbs. Some describe the Lexicon PCM70 and LXP-1 as not bright enough. Could be they emulate a more natural sound.

:cool:
 
Beck said:
Ok,

To clarify - When I was referring to, "The ones" I meant the digital reverb units that convert both the effect and the dry signal into digital before passing it to the output. I wasn't referring to people who record digitally, although they do need some serious prayer as well.
Click to expand...
But of course, that digitization is no different from any other digitization. Hence, it MUST refer to everybody who records digitally as well.

It doesn't appear He's been answering any digital prayer lately.
Click to expand...
No of course not. I mean, nobody serious uses ProTools today for example.


Come on Beck. When you claim that something is impossible to do, although it is clearly done all over the world on a daily basis, don't you think this kinda distracts from your credibility just a little bit?
 
Another possibility not yet mentioned is that: Record a track on a multitrack machine, and then play it back by the record head and record it to another track of the machine! While doing that, put a finger on the reel! You can hear that effect on John Lennon´s "Mother" album.
 
The almost universal but misdirected habit of accentuating the higher frequencies in reverbs is possibly a result of people misunderstanding natural reverbs on those occasions that they have heard them.

If you are in a church or hall, etc., the lower frequencies nearly always have less perceived impact than the higher frequencies as sound reverberates around the room. This phenonema can lead to people to mistakenly presume or interpret that those longer reverbs are at a much higher frequency than they really are.


And Regebro...........just because you think something is right doesn't make it right for anyone apart from yourself.

:cool:
 
ausrock said:
And Regebro...........just because you think something is right doesn't make it right for anyone apart from yourself.
Click to expand...

Of course. What decides if something is correct is reality. Was that what you were trying to say?
 
No it wasn't............. and even this statement "What decides if something is correct is reality" has too many variables to be easily given a definitive answer.
 
themaddog said:
Also, I went to Guitar Center the other day looking for a reverb box to thicken some of my mix. I want subtle reverb on the snare drum, vocals, and maybe some guitar leads. I asked a worker there if they had any "analog" reverb effects or boxes. He looked at me like I had six heads, told me no, then asked me why. I explained to him that I'm using an older machine and want to stay with an older sound. He told me that everything had to be digital now. So I asked him this... "If it were 15 years ago, and I walked into Guitar Center (even if I were only 6 years old) and tried to buy a reverb chamber, would it be digital?" His answer was no. "Then what would it be?" I don't know.

-MD
Click to expand...


How about the old roland RE-201 (space echo) or RE-301 (echo & chorus). They were/are great old tape units that produced some interesting (and "warm") effects.


I guess that's showing my age. :eek:
 
OK, in simple terms I'll break it down to a two case scenario (kinda like digital's "1"s and "0"s)...........your "reality" and my "reality" are quite probably different, therefore what is "correct" for you is probably not "correct" for me..........in other words, even in this simplified situation, there is no definitive "correctness"...........start adding more people to the equation and you create even more variables.
 
Sorry but this has gone too far off topic and threatens to end up like some of the discussions with DJL in the Mic Forum, so I'll resist the temptation to "discuss" your (mis)interpretation.
 
regebro said:
But of course, that digitization is no different from any other digitization. Hence, it MUST refer to everybody who records digitally as well.


No of course not. I mean, nobody serious uses ProTools today for example.


Come on Beck. When you claim that something is impossible to do, although it is clearly done all over the world on a daily basis, don't you think this kinda distracts from your credibility just a little bit?
Click to expand...

Are you still here? Haven't checked the board for a while. Let me make this perfectly clear once and for all -- to my ear the current state of music recording SUCKS! Of course most everyone is doing it the digital way and then measuring it with a new and inferior standard. If you want to call that success....

Credibility? What are you talking about? This is an analog forum for analog fans and interested parties.

I don't like the sound of digital. People in the industry that don't hear the difference have an auditory deficiency or are in denial because they've invested so much in the technology. The masses accept it because they don't know any better -- most young listeners have never heard anything else. There is something else wrong -- something bigger. Humans seem to be collectively regressing. The things that pass as music these days -- mental illness set to some semblance of a beat -- no soul, no life, and no form -- unbelievable!

I don't know what it is -- other than the obvious crack-baby syndrome, maybe something in the water, air pollution, NutraSweet, childhood vaccines gone bad... Popular music is mostly rage, lust and despair -- nothing higher than any animal could feel.

I suppose in the final analysis the "music" itself is so bad it really doesn't matter what it's recorded on.

I'm no one of consequence, certainly no one famous. However, the respected masters in the recording industry that share my analog views are highly regarded. They stand out even more against this cold digital no-talent backdrop.

I'm a radical, maybe even on this forum, but I'm right and I know it -- you read my posts, why are you surprised?

:cool:
 
Last edited:
>Popular music is mostly rage, lust and despair -- nothing higher than any animal could feel.

If it just was that! But music is dead.
 
Beck said:
Are you still here? Haven't checked the board for a while. Let me make this perfectly clear once and for all -- to my ear the current state of music recording SUCKS! Of course most everyone is doing it the digital way and then measuring it with a new and inferior standard. If you want to call that success....
Click to expand...

No, I call it *serious*. If it doesn't fit your taste is not soething that makes it less serious.

What are you talking about? This is an analog forum for analog fans and interested parties.
Click to expand...
That seems an odd reason to claim obvious falsehoods as the truth.

I don't like the sound of digital. People in the industry that don't hear the difference have an auditory deficiency
Click to expand...
No they don't. Maybe it's a matter of taste, maybe you have super-human hearing (as Fletcher obviously does) but the average person can not hear the difference, and when they can they would just as likely opt for digital as sounding better as for analog. If an average, helathy person can not hear a difference, then that is per definition not a deficiency.

I suppose in the final analysis the "music" itself is so bad it really doesn't matter what it's recorded on.
Click to expand...
And you don't think that your non-appreciation for todays chart-toppers have tainted your judgement a little? ;)

I'm a radical, maybe even on this forum, but I'm right and I know it -- you read my posts, why are you surprised?
Click to expand...

No, you are religious, and I'm obviouslt the radical in this forum. I'm surprised because your statement was immensly daft, something that is surprising from you. Claiming a preference for analog is noting strange. Being astonished that not everyone nderstands the benefits of analog is completely OK. Claiming that it is impossible to make serious music with digital equipment is just plain silly.
 
regebro said:
...blah, blah, blah, etc.
Click to expand...

You leave me no choice but to challenge you to a battle of wits -- to the death!

:mad:
 
Last edited:
The Ghost of FM said:
Both you guys need to take this to the cave where flaming, insulting, berating and general silliness is truly appreciated. :D

Cheers! :)
Click to expand...

You're probably right. But I don't go to the cave unless I really have lots of time to waste, and only then if it's late and the sound of the punching bag in my garage would wake the neighbors. :D

To think, this whole thing started with me answering a crucial part of the initial question with an elementary explanation of why and what to do about it -- basically handing the original poster the keys. I'm not sure anymore why some of us are still here wasting our time giving away our 20-30 years of experience only to be heckled by people who obviously have no real history or experience with the subject at hand.

It certainly reveals the disadvantages of trying to share information in this format. An informational website may be a better approach for those of use who really want to see the state of music improved. Seriously, I'm getting burnt out with the yahooliganesque dialog.

Some of the members with the biggest mouths have so little grasp of the fundamentals that they can't recognize even basic industry standards and terminology, so they literally don't speak the language. They miss subtle cues in the discussions. Ignorance seems to be the chief cause of most of tangents I've witnessed here.

It's a far cry from the old professional pre-www text bbs of years ago.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
Beck said:
It certainly reveals the disadvantages of trying to share information in this format.
Click to expand...
Why? Because somebody can point out when yu say obviously incorrect things?

Remember what this is about. It is about you implying that it is impossible to make serious music with digital technology. That is what it is about. You can wag around 30 years of experience as a big dick if it makes you feel better, but you are still claiming that nobody that is serious about music would use digital, while at the same time, people all around the world uses tons of digital equipment to make seriously serious recordings.

I fail to see how it is the format of discussion that makes you say that.

I DO think that the format, in evil combination with the average persons overblown sense of pride, stops them from simply saying "Eh, yeah, you are right, that was kindofa silly thing to say", and instead start spweing insults. That's what I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top