Conference napalm::commusic_v1

Exactly what does this unit do? I know I've heard the end results on a
couple of albums (Linda Ronstadt, Olivia Neutron-Bomb) but that precluded
any A/b comparisons. I liked the sound of the recordings, but have no idea
what the unit added/modified/subtracted.

It also seems to have possibly fallen out of favor, as it is no longer
listed among the album notes on recent recordings. Or is it just so
commonplace...?

Edd

Re;-1

	I listened to one a few months ago.  I remember wondering
what the big deal was - can't eq do the same thing?

						- Karl

Re: .1

    I think the reason you haven't heard of them is partly that they're 
somewhat commonplace and partly that reviewers used to make fun of records 
that touted this.  I particularly remember one snide remark about a Linda 
Ronstadt album that was not in very good taste (in The Village Voice or 
Rolling Stone perhaps).

Re: .2

    The Aphex approach is slightly different that EQ.  EQ boosts the 
frequency range you want and can therefore make certain things louder.  If I 
remember correctly, the Aphex increases "apparent loudness".  Thus, it isn't 
really louder (i.e., your needles/leds don't read differently).  I think 
they use some sort of modulation around a frequency range to make more 
"alive" than a flat "raise the EQ at 12K.  Thus, it might be like a chorus 
unit isolated on a particular band.  Of course, I could be all wrong.

If I find out more in my future treks to the local music stores, I'll report
it here. Till then, I'll save my money and continue to use my EQ. 

Thanks for the replies,
- John -

Wow!  I didn't know that Aphex was still around.  Way back when,
(pre-DEC for me) I was their chief (and only) engineer.  I designed the
first "solid-state" Aphex unit about 8-9 years ago when they were
headquartered in Ashland, MA.  Before that, an Aphex consisted of 3
tubes (12AX7's, if memory serves) and associated circuitry.  The story 
of how the original "Aphex effect" was discovered gives new meaning to 
the phrase "good enough for Rock-and-Roll".

They didn't sell the box, only rented them for a fixed fee per month and
some charge per minute of "finished product", usually the time on the
record album.  Linda Rondstadt's _Hasten_Down_the_Wind_ album used it I
think; we got some sort of credit on the liner notes if anybody wants to 
look at the jacket (I don't have the album).

For those that would like to duplicate the effect, I think I can only
say that you would have trouble doing it with an EQ.  There is some
other stuff going on in the box that causes sounds processed through it
to sound louder without an actual increase in signal level. 

I will give some thought to describing how the effect is produced;
however you know how lawyers are; I don't want to get sued for
explaining obvious acoustic effects! ;-) (does their literature describe
how the effect is produced?  If so, I would be happy to "add detail".)

A former Pro-Audio engineer,

Bob D.

I have been using an Aphex type "B' for about a month now.  It's on loan
from a friend.  I use it on the stereo sends out of my board for mixing
tracks that have been recorded (I have a Tascam-38 8-track and a Tascam
M312 board now).  Some one told me it works by creating an harmonic distortion 
that is very pleasant to the ear.  It is especially noticable in the high end.
Cymbals really come alive and sizzle.  The clarity and brightness of all
instruments is noticable, but subtle.  I like it alot and my friend isn't
going to see it for a while (he used it for live sound anyway, and drunk
crowds in single's bars could really care anyway ;^).

Dave 

	I'VE OWNED A TYPE 'B' APHEX FOR APPROX. 1 YR., NOW. I'VE USED IT
	FOR PLAYBACK OF DUPLICATED TAPES IN A DISCO SITUATION, IN ADDITION
	TO USE AS AN AUDIO 'SWEETENER' FOR "LIVE " RECORDINGS IN MY STUDIO.

	ON THE DUPLICATED CASSETTES, I'VE FOUND THE HIGH-END 'KICK' THE 
	APHEX DELIVERS TO BE A HELP ON THE TAPES THAT HAVE BEEN PLAYED OFTEN,
	BUT A PAIN IN THE GLUT. ON THE 'NEW' RECORDINGS (BORN IN THE USA IS
	SO BRIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE, AS ARE MANY OF THE POST-'70'S RECORDINGS).

	THE BEST USAGE I'VE FOUND FOR THE UNIT HAS BEEN;
	
	A) ON 'BOUNCED' TRACKS (YES, EIGHT IS NOT ENOUGH), WHEN SENDING TO 
	   THE MIXDOWN UNIT. I USE THE UNIT WITH THE 'DRIVE' SET AT APPROX.
	   2:00 O'CLOCK POSITION, AND MIX AT ABOUT 7:00 O'CLOCK. THIS SEEMS
	   TO COMPENSATE FOR THE LOSS OF INTELLIGIBILITY ENCOUNTERED ON MOST
	   BOUNCES, AND REDUCES THE 'SMEARING' (FLANGING) EFFECT OF THE BOUNCE.

	B) ON THE FINAL MIXES, JUST A TOUCH OF "APHEXING" IS ENOUGH TO MAKE
	   AN OBVIOUS DIFFERENCE IN THE CLARITY OF THE MIXED, STEREO TAPE.
	   I USE THE UNIT WITH 'DRIVE' SET AT APPROX. 12:00 O'CLOCK, AND 'MIX'
	   AT ABOUT 7:00-8:00 O'CLOCK.

	A WORD OF WARNING: THIS DEVICE IS ONE OF THOSE THAT PROVES YOU CAN 
	HAVE TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING! AFTER A CERTAIN POINT (USUALLY LONG
	HOURS OF LISTENING/MIXING OR SET TOO HIGH), LISTENER FATIGUE DUE TO
	FLETCHER-MUNSON EFFECTS IS READILY APPARENT. NOT A BAD TOY, THOUGH,
	IF YOU'VE GOT THE $ TO BLOW...  PROBABLY, YOU'D BE BETTER OFF 
	SPENDING THE MONEY ON SOMETHING ELSE (BETTER MICROPHONE?), UNLESS
	YOU WANT TO INCREASE THE PROCESSING GEAR YOU OWN.

FYI, this a review of the high-end Aphex by Bob Rose in the the "Hot Stuff"
column of the Jan. '86 issue of _Guitar (for the practicing musician)_ :

Aphex II Aural Exciter
List $2950.00 (!!)

A number of years ago (in ther late 70s)) you occasionally saw an album that
had the information on it that this album was mixed using the Aphex Aural
Exciter.  This meant that the final mix of the music was put through this
mysterious device that cost a lot to rent per hour and that nobody seemed
to own.  Every time I asked a producer of engineer what the Exciter did,
I got an unintelligible line of technical garbage, or a more honest "I don't
know."  I did notice, however, that the music seemed to be enhanced using
this device.

Today the Aural Ecviter is much less of a mystery.  They are in many studios
as well as in the racks of some players, and some sophisticated PA systems.
Not only do many people own these Exciters, but we even have a fairly good
understanding of what they do.

The Exciter adds to an original signal a "phase shifted signal that also
reinforces the harmonics" of a sound.  It does this in the frequency range
that is most noticable to the human ear.  This makes a tape seem to have
some of the "hotness" it ordinarily loses by passing thru the heads of the
machine many times.  It also seems to give sound more of the "live quality"
that you want.  With an Exciter, you can boost a certain aspect of a sound
(like the highs) without getting all the noise that would occur if you did
this using a equalizer.

Some of the controls on the Exciter are Timbre, Damping, Tuning, etc. The
device also includes a limiter which can be used for some of its functions.
The Aphex Aural Exciter is a device that provides sophisticated, subtle sound
reinforcement for the real professional.

----

In this column, there are also reviews of the following:

Lexicon Super Prime Time 	- List $2500.00
Orban 622B Parmetric Equalizer	- List $879.00
Eventide H969 Harmonizer	- List $4500.00   (now we're really dreamin'!)
                                                                            

						-Jeff

    sorry, i'm only learning replying 

    MUSIC SOUND & OUTPUT has a field test report on the new solid 
    state aural exciters.  Issue is from a couple months back.
                                   
    I guess the guys who invented the thing discovered it by accident,
    hooking amplifiers out of phase or something like that.
    
    A month or before I read the article I noticed the same thing
    on my cheapo stereo. I had four speakers hooked up, two of them
    were out of phase, all speakers were positioned near each other.
    See picture below.
    
    
       sp ch1 left              stereo                     sp ch1 right
      
                     sp ch 2 left       sp ch2 right
                                   ^
                                   |
                                   
                                 5 ft
                            
                                   |
                                   v
                            listening position   
    
    
    The extra speakers were just there temporarily.  Well one sunday
    morning I was just listening (at low levels) and I couldn't
    beleive how good the stereo sounded, it sounded real full
    almost live.  I passed it off as one of those days where everything
    sounds good.  Then a month later I read about these exciters and
    checked out the speakers and found the two hooked up to channel
    2 were out of phase with ch 1.  Now remember that this is a cheapo
    stereo so I never listen to it loud with lots of bass, generaly
    out of phase speakers will decrease the bass response.
    Anyway this is probably the same effect these exciter guys here.
    It was really pretty neat.

    Was the increased bass response across the whole bottom or just
    in a narrow band centered around n hz?
    
    While not doubting that you indeed heard what you stated, it puzzles
    me, as the positions of your speakers is as likely to put certain
    frequencies back *in phase* as the reversed polarity is to put
    them out.
    
    As an aside, have you tried hooking up your speakers in a Hafler
    circuit????
    
             L+   L-      <-- Speaker outputs -->   R-   R+
             |                                           |
             |                                           |
             |                                           |
        L. Spkr +                                    R. Spkr +
    
        L. Spkr - ___________________________________R. Spkr -
    
    The resultant cross-channel phase cancellation results in the 
    'Haflered' speakers producing only the stereo difference signal,
    (L+R)-(L-R). (Is that the right formulae?)
    
    A mono source to those speakers will cause them to go quiet.
    
    I had a smaller set of speakers connected this way and placed *behind*
    my listening position. They added an interesting (though false)
    sense of ambiance. The limited frequency response of the smaller
    speakers nicely complemented my EPI towers, by simulating the
    distorted frequency response of a reflected signal.
    
    Edd
    
    

    	
    		My wife "assembled" one of the first Aural exciters
    		when they were located on Cherry Street in Ashand MA.
    
    		I guess that the designer, Kurt Knoppell, got the idea
    	        by mis-wiring a stereo kit - thats why he would only
    		rent them - so no one would take it apart and see how
    	  	it worked.
    
    		My wife also said that a few "Rock Stars" came by to
    		see it.  One Day Bruce Springsteen came in with a case
    		of beer and asked my wife for a date. B.F.D.!
    
    
    		

    From a friend (start quote):
    	
    Aural Exciters work as follows:
    	
    	--------------      ---------------          -----------
        |   hi-pass  |      |  nonlinear  |   /----->|         |
 ------>|    filter  |----->| amp (diode) |--/    /->|  mixer  |--->
    \   --------------      ---------------      /   -----------
     \------------------------------------------/                   
    
    
    The overall method is to take the higher end (where the sizzle
    would normally be anyway) and subject it to a nonlinear distortion
    (like one side of a class-AB amp, or a diode, etc.)  This gives
    a whole flock of new frequencies at 2F, 3F, etc... These new
    frequencies are harmonically related to the incoming subject matter
    so they "sound right".  
    	
    Note that the lower frequencies (like below 4 KHz or so) don't get
    past the hi-pass filter, so they don't get sizzle-ized.  Voice doesn't
    have much out there, just a little.
    	
    Finally, the mixer puts a little of this extra signal back into
    the output.  Not much, or else you get a lot of listener fatigue...
    
    
    
    
    

    I have the Aphex type C aural exciter, which is the latest (i believe)
    of their models. It's a -10 db device, so it's aimed at the 
    home-recording market and that's why it's much cheaper than the
    "studio" versions. 
    
    However, mine's been modified here in Finland to give and take +4 db.
    I understood that it's a simple mod, so their policy is clearly
    to try and hit the home-market with a cheap device that big
    studios can't use. 
    
    I find it to be a very usable recording gadget. I use it on many
    applications ranging from vocal prosessing to improving some of the 
    Roland S-50 samples. In general where ever you'd normally want to add 
    a little high EQ boost you tend to get better results with the aphex.
    Mainly because high EQ boost will allmost allways add noise, but the 
    Aphex does not. Secondly, 'cause you don't allways have what to boost,
    and the Aphex can actually *generate* the sizzle where required. 
    
    However, on material where there's no high frequence information, 
    but hiss instead the Exciting process don't work very well.
    Reason being that it tries to generate the upper harmonics for
    the hiss as well and this results in even more hiss. The trick
    in this kind of situation is to route the signal through a lowpass
    filter and actually chock off (I'm not sure if that's an english
    expression) the high end to get rid of the Hf hiss and then use the 
    Aural Exciter to create a new synthetic top end to the material.
    This works like a champ when restoring old recordings.
    
    I highly recommend the Type C to anyone who wants the get a 
    "pro" sound into their home recordings. 
    
    Timo
    

    
    
    	I have an opportunity to pick up a used Aphex model "c" for
    $150. Anyone out there using em?. I intend to use it for live work.
    Is this recommended?.
    					Rich
    

    
    They were selling for $199 new a few months ago. Of the two popular
    processors, the Aphex Type C and the BBE Maxie, I like the sound of the
    Aphex better. But I believe that for live work, primarily vocals, that
    it's just a band aid. It does nothing that a good mic and a sharp ear
    on the eq can't do already.
    
    CdH
    

	Actually, I made one of the Harmonic Sweetners (schematic from
	Electronic Musician a while back) & It sounds an awful lot like    
	the Aphex unit that you are talking about. It really can crisp
	up a guitar or vocal & can add quite a bit of 'life' to a drum
	machine, in ways that no amount of EQ can do, however, it has
	some limitations & may not always be the right thing to use
	(as any effect can get overused). 

	You also can't use them more than one time in a recording session.
	The added harmonics (actually distortion) turn crispness into
	mush the second time that a sound is enhanced. By this I mean,
	If you record your voice using one, you can't run the mixdown 
	including your already enhanced voice, thru it (your voice will 
	sound very distorted).

							Jens