Re: expert modified the A/D signal chain

[Matthias Grob <matthias@grob.org>]

>  > andreas said
>  >
>>  >I had both my G-Force and the EDP modified in the A/D
>>  >signal chain by an expert tech last year and they are much better now,
>>  >clearer sounding and better dynamics for shure. He didn't promote 
>this to
>>  >me, only offered this after I kept complaining.
>>
>>  I think we talked about this privately, but you did not mention who
>>  did that and how.
>>  It seems like magic or cheating: How can anyone simply improve such
>>  elaborated stuff? For the EDP I could explain it with my own
>>  stupidity, but t.c. high end units??
>>
>>  >...he worked on the analog side of the
>>  >signal path both on the input and output. He has a copyright on this 
>(you
>>  >can buy it here as a pretty expensive stand alone, the 'Effects
>>  Legalizer')
>>
>>  Is that on the net somewhere? What copyright... a patent? So its 
>public?
>>  Can you describe what the improvement sounds like?


>Matthias,
>
>I just talked to the man about this and he mentioned that this is a new
>development (not his older somewhat similar product) and he is still in 
>the
>process of obtaining a patent for it, so we need to use a little 
>discretion
>at this point. I will get you more info on him by seperate mail.

I see, thank you!

>Ever since I started using digital rack effects I used a line mixer with
>them to preserve the tonal quality of my original signal. I was adding the
>effect signal of my delays, reverb etc. to the original dry/direct signal
>to keep loss of headroom, dynamics etc. to a minimum. The only effect I
>could rely on preserving my tone used to be the tc 2290, I went directly
>through it to add panning effetcs to the original as well as to the delay.

reasonable... although there are other units that dont digitalize the 
direct signal (like the EDP), so no degradation should be audible.
All the panning stuff in the 2290 is done in analog domain. There is 
no digital sound treatment in it, the processor (Z80, I think) only 
calculates the memory addresses for the delay and MIDI stuff.

>I must really say that tc, while still heavily promoting their high-end
>reputation, has made the sound quality of the G-force less prestine than
>that of the old 2290 (maybe for production cost reasons?).

Certainly! The converter in the 2290 is a big board of discrete 
analog and digital stuff. I built my first digital delay like that 
and hardly managed to get 12 bits out of it.
Now you just buy a Crystal chip for 5$ or so.
And through those chips they also feed the direct signal now, because 
it much simpler to level and mix it digitally than with the VCAs they 
had in the 2290.
And noone would want a machine as heavy and expensive as the 2290 any 
more, right?

>After repeated
>complaints to my technician about this he told me: in your guitar amps
>effect loop, try plugging in your effects device in bypass mode  and
>compare this to the sound that you get when you bridge the loop with a
>single patchchord. I did notice a difference, and with the mod he 
>performed
>to my g-force and the EDP, that difference is gone.
>
>Funny enaugh, the standard op amps in effect pedals (Digitech, Boss etc.)
>do not seem to be so bad. When I put a Boss pedal between guitar and amp,
>I'll notice a change, but it sounds rather different than worse. Go
>figure....

you have good ears, man!
Sure, standard op amps distort much less and dont have a steep low 
cut filter as the digital path needs, with possible aliasing and pass 
band ripple...

Its not that I would not agree about the complex situation in the 
high frequencies of a digital unit. I also imagine that quite some 
equipment is made according to measurement instead of listening... 
but not t.c.?
And i still wonder how such problems can be solved posteriorly, 
externally even!?

You also said in that mail:
>>>You just can't use compression, filters,
>>>pitch and other 'destructive' effects that way.

Andys post made me understand what you mean by 'destructive' effects, 
as opposed to the 'adding' effects, right?
It really is an interesting subject, lately because of the idea to 
use a portable computer. For most 'adding' effects, latency is not 
critical, so I seriously consider to do all the looping, reverb, 
added pitch shift and pitch shifted loops in the PowerBook, while 
continuing with analog distortion and compressor in the main path 
before it - and by this totally avoid digital treatment of the direct 
signal, as you suggest.
It calls for a simple (probably MIDI controllable) way to switch off 
the analog direct signal in case I want to totally "destruct" my 
sound with pitch shift or whatever crazy plug ins.
Its a pity for the filters though...
-- 


          ---> http://Matthias.Grob.org