One Dimension

Talk about music gear for noise music

Moderator: xome

MKULTRA
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:04 am

Post by MKULTRA » Fri Mar 29, 2013 3:45 pm

A mixer is not an effect. Your argument is invalid.

Echoplex.

Image

User avatar
EATyourGuitar
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:22 am
Location: Providence, RI
Contact:

Post by EATyourGuitar » Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:01 pm

behringer mixer with 99 multifx lol

honest answer = eventide time factor

and really dude? even without fx the mixer will distort if your doing it right. where did you steal that echoplex?

User avatar
Sleep Of Ages
Posts: 5951
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:55 am
Location: SÃO PAULO HARSH NOISE CITY

Post by Sleep Of Ages » Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:10 pm

All wrong, the right answer is:

Flanger
Image
SLEEP OF AGES (Industrial, Harsh Noise, PE)
CARRION BLACK PIT (HNW)
EXU (Industrial)

MKULTRA
Posts: 2520
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:04 am

Post by MKULTRA » Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:31 pm

EATyourGuitar wrote:and really dude? even without fx the mixer will distort if your doing it right. where did you steal that echoplex?


I always thought Scully 280 tape machines distorted WONDERFULLY. Personal opinion about mixers is all. Maybe I'm a bit pendantic with the word effect.

I've had that EP-3 since 1983. The obvious feature is the echo and it does that extremely well, but the sound on sound is where you can bring the stupid. Soft decay, with the benefit of sweet, smooth tape distortion. This unit really has to be cranked gain wise but holy shit when you are there it is a radiant glory. At times I use an old tape to push things down into the hiss
.

User avatar
EATyourGuitar
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:22 am
Location: Providence, RI
Contact:

Post by EATyourGuitar » Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:41 pm

that echoplex has a good home with you. sounds like you really appreciate the stuff it can do more than the collector market that just wants to suck jimmi page cock. I would love to hear some of what you described. the only reason I said steal is that %99 of your gear is pulled out of the dumpster or craigslist. I just noticed that echoplex prices have crashed down from $1200 to $200. I might want to get one now.

User avatar
xdugef
Posts: 12856
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:26 am
Location: 噪声æº￾
Contact:

Post by xdugef » Fri Mar 29, 2013 4:51 pm

MKULTRA wrote:A mixer is not an effect.


There are lots of mixers with effects plus it solves the whole what is the source problem as well.

I'm changing my answer to "your mother"

Image

User avatar
amishrobots
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:08 pm
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Contact:

Post by amishrobots » Sat Mar 30, 2013 5:20 am

xdugef wrote:
MKULTRA wrote:A mixer is not an effect.


There are lots of mixers with effects plus it solves the whole what is the source problem as well.

I'm changing my answer to "your mother"

Image


but a mixer with effects is not an individual "effect".
nor is a multi fx unit; it is a collection of effects, not the effect(s) itself. Even a single pedal with a single effect on it is not "the effect"; but certainly the effect of one distortion pedal can sound entirely different than the distortion effect of a different (even multi-fx) pedal.

But hey, who cares? carry on with your opinions of different effects and why.

As for me I enjoy some good wah, not sure if I could call it my favourite.
Also I like one or two certain sounds on the zoom 505, but overall, most of the effects on it are kinda cheesy sounding to my ears.

Echo/Delay is a good choice I think.

Nobody has mentioned time-stretch?

User avatar
crochambeau
Posts: 2612
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:48 pm
Location: earth.
Contact:

Post by crochambeau » Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:34 am

amishrobots wrote:but a mixer with effects is not an individual "effect"
Clarification time: what do you mean by "effect"?

I read this as a device built for the specific function of altering a signal. Hence, I reached for compression (tape echo is a really good choice, but, I think I'd stick to my guns if I could only use a single effect from now on).

But, I make my choice in full knowledge that application of the tools can applied to manipulate signal... example: I can harvest distortion out of damn near anything, so I automatically struck distortion from the list.

Given that you posited the original inquiry: does my interpretation of the criteria miss your point? ie: is harvesting distortion from mixer channels a cheat?

I must agree that in my perception, mixers are not effects, they are functional appliances.
I have no suggestion for software.
http://www.rochambeau.net/

User avatar
Sleep Of Ages
Posts: 5951
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 2:55 am
Location: SÃO PAULO HARSH NOISE CITY

Post by Sleep Of Ages » Sat Mar 30, 2013 7:47 am

If I was restricted to a single effect I would refuse to play and post a bunch of shit on a forum trolling the people who made me choose just one pedal.
Image
SLEEP OF AGES (Industrial, Harsh Noise, PE)
CARRION BLACK PIT (HNW)
EXU (Industrial)

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by jliat » Sat Mar 30, 2013 10:11 am

crochambeau wrote:
amishrobots wrote:but a mixer with effects is not an individual "effect"
Clarification time: what do you mean by "effect"?

I read this as a device built for the specific function of altering a signal.
....
An amplifier....

or should that be

An amplifier....

User avatar
amishrobots
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:08 pm
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Contact:

Post by amishrobots » Sun Mar 31, 2013 12:04 am

crochambeau wrote: Clarification time: what do you mean by "effect"?

I read this as a device built for the specific function of altering a signal. Hence, I reached for compression (tape echo is a really good choice, but, I think I'd stick to my guns if I could only use a single effect from now on).

But, I make my choice in full knowledge that application of the tools can applied to manipulate signal... example: I can harvest distortion out of damn near anything, so I automatically struck distortion from the list.

Given that you posited the original inquiry: does my interpretation of the criteria miss your point? ie: is harvesting distortion from mixer channels a cheat?

I must agree that in my perception, mixers are not effects, they are functional appliances.
If I were going to be strict with interpretation of my original intent, it would be:

Not "one pedal" , not the "device" but the actual type of signal alteration. So, where you say you can get signal distortion out of anything, your specific "effect" would be distortion, regardless of the device used to get it.
And someone who said "mixer" would be using the effect of being able to mix audio signals together. So mixing would sort of be an "effect"

There is no "cheating" really; its just a sort of discussion as to who values most which ability to do what with a signal, and why. Whether you do it with a mixer, a distortion pedal, or your neighbour's cat is irrelevant; only the effect it has on the signal, and why it is most important to you.

But having said all that, I'm sure a discussion of which particular pedals give what particular flavour to a certain effect may be almost as interesting.

User avatar
jliat
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:34 am
Contact:

Post by jliat » Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:24 am

Then amplification has to be the most important- imagine a noise show without it? Or any rock/pop…

And from amplification comes distortion - add tone control and you get other effects such as wa-wa… the other effects like echo, phasing and flange had origins in tape manipulation…..

User avatar
amishrobots
Posts: 1798
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:08 pm
Location: Cincinnati Ohio
Contact:

Post by amishrobots » Sun Mar 31, 2013 6:00 am

I suppose thats true enough. but i was sorta more asking which flavour is your favourite kinda thing. Assuming that the signal is already amplified to at least a reasonable level. Besides which some signals may start out strong enough that they need no amplification. Well, depending on what you assume to be the "source" Even human speech is acoustically amplified somewhere in the body i guess.

User avatar
xdugef
Posts: 12856
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:26 am
Location: 噪声æº￾
Contact:

Post by xdugef » Sun Mar 31, 2013 8:04 am

amishrobots wrote: Nobody has mentioned time-stretch?
It wouldn't be a stretch to say that Clemon would choose that as an effect.

Historically speaking I have been a fan of slowing down sounds whether via turntable speed, tape speed, via the computer or messing with the speed on a delay pedal.

Another long time favorite has been scrambling the memory indexes via circuit bending on digital delays. I don't know what you'd call the effect. At times it can sound like a variety of effects.

User avatar
crochambeau
Posts: 2612
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:48 pm
Location: earth.
Contact:

Post by crochambeau » Sun Mar 31, 2013 8:27 am

jliat wrote:Then amplification has to be the most important-
Yeah, if amplification is considered an effect then all other "effects" are useless. Nearly every single one of them (with the exception of passive tuned circuits)
have amplification as a fundamental building block, even if it's just a gain recovery stage. Hell, I even consider buffers amplifiers.

In my world view, functional blocks which are intended to preserve the original signal intact as possible are not effects. Preamps, mixers, amplifiers, etc are not effects in my opinionated definition.

So, let's say ignoring amplification & mixing as a given..

If it's the application of tools, ie: the resulting artifact that is considered an effect, I'll change my answer to distortion....

Then realize that such a limitation is impossible, because simply placing a speaker in a room is EQ & reverb. Hanging a mic in front of a speaker, then shifting it off axis is EQ. etc, etc, etc.

So I really feel that the only way for me to answer this question honestly rolls back to my original interpretation.
I have no suggestion for software.
http://www.rochambeau.net/

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests