Riptide Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 No opamp does not make a pedal digital. An example of a classic opamp pedal (which is analog) would be a ProCo Rat. It uses a chip but it's analog. Analog delays and modulation use chips as well but they don't convert your signal to 0s and 1s. Cool, than a lot of Boss pedals (all the distortion ones I believe) are analog. If you look at the circuit all they have is resisters, capacitors, transistors, and on certain ones opamps. EDIT:: I was just looking at some more schematics and it's pretty easy to tell which is which... like if you look at the Boss DD-2 it has an "IC" and "D-RAM" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Rocketman what is Nyquist's Limit? Let's say I have a sinusoidal signal at a frequency of 1 Hz (i.e, it repeats itself every 1 second). Let's say I sample (digitize) the signal at a rate of 1 Hz too. At the initial time the signal is zero (sine of zero is zero). At 1 second the signal is also zero (sine of 2 pi is also zero). So if I'm sampling at that rate, it's not good because I can't "see" the signal. This is called aliasing. Nyquist basically said that you must sample at a rate of at least twice the highest frequency you want to see to be able to reconstruct it. So in this case we'll need to sample at a rate of at least 2 Hz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ne14t? Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Thanks! And I did it without putting up an equation (that ain't easy for us geeks!). I have a Line 6 Vetta II which is a POD on steroids. The boundary between analog and digital sound is getting smaller. I can still tell the difference (I love Fender amps). But I like to have multiple sounds at my disposal. Plus the amp comes with every effect out there, all in one unit. I had the POD XT Live so the upside is it was the board and had the wah/volume pedal on it, I will probably get a newer version later on down the road for studio use or just keeping around to hook into a PA I really enjoyed how great it was for that. I have wondered if there is legalities against making a perfect model of another companies amp? Cause I had a little Fender modeling amp (Mustang III) and it had a couple of the same amp models as my POD, and for some reason at least to my ears, the Fender modeler Fender amps sounded better I could very well be wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy R Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Just so I can add my 2 C's. Concerning Digital versus Analog I think there are a few things at play. The digital realm is obviously getting better but at the same time we are getting more and more used to hearing digital as well. So while the digital world improves we are also hearing/seeing analog less and less. I think the main difference is analog is not a "Cloned" signal and with variances in component tolerances and drift over time a lot of analog stuff was a bit unique. Digital is pretty much a clone of a sound so you lose that randomness. I liked in the old days the things that people would do to get some extra gain or add some tone. Richie Blackmore runs through a Tape Deck... To me these are the things we will lose as digital inevitably takes over. The first HD movie I saw about blinded me and it took me a while to adjust to my 52" LCD HD Television. My eyes were used to seeing blunted softer colors and edges.... In time you get used to it and forget. You already have younger generations that have never actually heard an album... It won't be long before there are generations that have never heard or seen much that hasn't been digitized. Not really any point here just a bit of a rambling of thought... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dub-T-123 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Let's say I have a sinusoidal signal at a frequency of 1 Hz (i.e, it repeats itself every 1 second). Let's say I sample (digitize) the signal at a rate of 1 Hz too. At the initial time the signal is zero (sine of zero is zero). At 1 second the signal is also zero (sine of 2 pi is also zero). So if I'm sampling at that rate, it's not good because I can't "see" the signal. This is called aliasing. Nyquist basically said that you must sample at a rate of at least twice the highest frequency you want to see to be able to reconstruct it. So in this case we'll need to sample at a rate of at least 2 Hz. O_O You lost me.. Haha I'm pretty good at using digital effects but that is way beyond me.. My highest level of math education is math 100 aka intermediate algebra. Math isn't really my thing. I learn it easily but I don't like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Fantastic stuff.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dub-T-123 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I think the main difference is analog is not a "Cloned" signal and with variances in component tolerances and drift over time a lot of analog stuff was a bit unique. Digital is pretty much a clone of a sound so you lose that randomness. I liked in the old days the things that people would do to get some extra gain or add some tone. Richie Blackmore runs through a Tape Deck... What I love about my Strymon El Capistan (which is a digital delay that emulates tape) is that they made it so you can add in all of the quirks and randomness of tape echo. Ok... So it may not be a perfect emulation.. But I really don't care I like what I hear and if I close my eyes this thing sounds like an old analog mechanical contraption. It's quirky and has a sound of it's own for sure. The "wow & flutter" and "tape crinkle" are totally random effects you can only adjust the intensity and from there it does it's own thing (which sounds amazing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Going along with the current conversation, one of the reasons I like analog is for the Imperfections and the weirdness. Especially fuzz. I'm not a tone snob, if I like it, I like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dub-T-123 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Wouldn't you say my El Cap sounds imperfect and weird though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 There is and will always be a difference, but being aware of it and measuring the difference is not something we tend to do and we have a tendency to take too much for granted. Digital has it's advantages, but it will always be a clone. Say you replaced some speaker cable with some super high dollor, XLO laboratory grade copper constructed nitrogen charged $1500 speaker cables. You would hear a difference, and more detail. They didn't ADD anything, but revealed how much the cables you were using was taking away from the signal. Pass your signal through anything, and it will change it. When we pass it through 6 switches, 40 capacitors, 60 resisters, connecters, ect. we WILL loose some of the signal. We USUALLY hear it as reduced treble or bass when we listen for it. Converting to 1's and 0's gives the impression to most the signal is preserved perfectly, but it isn't. The binary code is still an electrical signal subject to degradation same as analog. Regardless of the computing power, if you have a binary code going though crappy components, it will still degrade it and change it. When the signal is reconstructed, it may be putting it back into a proper frequency, and this is what we may be listening for when judging the quality of it. On the whole, analog will degrade the signal by shifting or altering the sound, and digital will degrade the signal by omitting parts of the sound we didn't know were there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Wouldn't you say my El Cap sounds imperfect and weird though? That's why I'm saying why I'm not a tone snob, I like the weirdness of analog, but the El Cap sounds amazing, didn't know it was digital until you told me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy R Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 What I love about my Strymon El Capistan (which is a digital delay that emulates tape) is that they made it so you can add in all of the quirks and randomness of tape echo. Ok... So it may not be a perfect emulation.. But I really don't care I like what I hear and if I close my eyes this thing sounds like an old analog mechanical contraption. It's quirky and has a sound of it's own for sure. The "wow & flutter" and "tape crinkle" are totally random effects you can only adjust the intensity and from there it does it's own thing (which sounds amazing). Sonds cool I have an old chandler rack mount analog delay that is similar . Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy R Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 There is and will always be a difference, but being aware of it and measuring the difference is not something we tend to do and we have a tendency to take too much for granted. Digital has it's advantages, but it will always be a clone. Say you replaced some speaker cable with some super high dollor, XLO laboratory grade copper constructed nitrogen charged $1500 speaker cables. You would hear a difference, and more detail. They didn't ADD anything, but revealed how much the cables you were using was taking away from the signal. Pass your signal through anything, and it will change it. When we pass it through 6 switches, 40 capacitors, 60 resisters, connecters, ect. we WILL loose some of the signal. We USUALLY hear it as reduced treble or bass when we listen for it. Converting to 1's and 0's gives the impression to most the signal is preserved perfectly, but it isn't. The binary code is still an electrical signal subject to degradation same as analog. Regardless of the computing power, if you have a binary code going though crappy components, it will still degrade it and change it. When the signal is reconstructed, it may be putting it back into a proper frequency, and this is what we may be listening for when judging the quality of it. On the whole, analog will degrade the signal by shifting or altering the sound, and digital will degrade the signal by omitting parts of the sound we didn't know were there. I find that corn passes through me with very little degradation. I am using an Anal Log processor with a very tight gate for the output and a little bit of ambient small room reverb. Maybe we should look at corn products for connectivity.... [lol] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 What did the digital delay say to the analog chorus ??? "100110111, 1011000, 0110110000001101, 0011, 100011111010101000111 ??????? " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy R Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 What did the digital delay say to the analog chorus ??? "100110111, 1011000, 0110110000001101, 0011, 100011111010101000111 ??????? " I think you got it backwards... the digital delay would have said...... 100011111010101000111, 0110110000001101, 100110111, 1011000, 0011, 001, 01, 1, 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 you two are almost as bad as me and Dub... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 I think you got it backwards... the digital delay would have said...... 100011111010101000111, 0110110000001101, 100110111, 1011000, 0011, 001, 01, 1, 0 HA HA HA!!! Oh man, Andy, you can always get me going... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.