Aural Exciter modification

N

noground

New member
I want to modify my Aphex 204 Aural Exciter so that the output consists of only the effect (not the direct signal +effect). I realize this requires the knowledge of someone who knows how this particular circuit board is put together, I also realize it may be impossible. If any of you know anything about this or could suggest someone that might, I would be grateful. But, I'm not expecting much...
 
The effect (as I understand it) involves not only high frequency "rebirth" (adding a small amount of the input signal pitched up to reinforce certain harmonics and frequency doubling and/or halving within certain frequency bands) but also introducing delay between bass and treble portions of the signal.

So perhaps it isn't really technically feasible to separate the effect from the source.
 
Massive- to answer your question: The aural exciter is "primarily designed as an in-line device".Though it can be used in an effects loop, "the signal being received back into the console is not pure effects". I have a few songs which, though performed excellently and recorded on high-quality mikes, have instruments which lack a large amount of high-frequency content. After trying eq, I found that this box did the trick just perfectly (if used correctly). Since I don't want to pass these digital tracks (on my Roland 16-track) through another DA-AD conversion, it would be good to have only the effect sent back in to mix with the original signal. Since the Aphex 204 is two channels and I only ever need one at a time, I can afford to alter one channel to use in an effects loop situation.

lumbago- I have found a "simplified block diagram" in the manual since I posted this, and it seems that Massive is right. It shows the original signal being summed with the Aural exciter sidechain right before the output. So I think it should be possible to simply interrupt the signal path of the direct signal right before the sum.
I just need to figure out where that occurs.

Does anyone else know which component I would need to remove, and whether doing that would cause the other circuitry to fail?
 
Stupid counter-question to your question..... but uhhh... isn't that what the "MIX" knob does?? ... controls the ratio of wet to dry effect?

If the knob is turned fully clockwise, it should be maybe almost 100 percent wet (as a guess... probably not... but maybe close). Why bypass then?
 
Industrial... that's a fine thought. If the mix knob is all the way up there is a lot of effect. But you must consider that the volume of the unprocessed signal is NOT reduced as the effect volume is increased. So it's as wet as it gets, but the effect still comprises a very small portion of the sound. So to do what I had stated earlier, with the best sound quality possible, would still require seperating the processed signal (which I still haven't accomplished :( )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top