[sdiy] Flanger???

[Happy Harry]

The Effectron and Effectron II are very similar in the
Analog Audio path... but use drastically different
memory and addressing schemes.  The Effectron is VERY
obsolete... the Effectron II is only 'obsolete'

H^) harry


>From: Gene Stopp <gene at ixiacom.com>
>To: synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
>Subject: RE: [sdiy] Flanger???
>Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:53:13 -0700
>
>I want the effect bad (as you can probably tell). I figger that tape-tape
>flanging is the real deal, and once I get that going I can work backwards 
>to
>a less mechanical solution. I know it's kinda crazy but the true fun in 
>this
>for me is really the process of doing it, not the elegance of the solution!
>
>(how about one of those Eventide Harmonizer type boxes? anybody?)
>
>Sometimes I get the feeling that this is a deep dark secret within the
>recording community and there really is some $5K box out there like a
>Lexicon or Klark-Tekni-something and whoever leaks out the secret will get
>kilt... naaaahhh...
>
>The pair of Effectrons doing the trick reinforces my "similar fidelity in
>both delay paths" theory. But wait - is not the difference between 
>Effectron
>and Effectron II the audio quality? Both are PCM single-bit, right?
>
>Best Regards,
>
>- Gene
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Happy Harry [mailto:paia2720 at hotmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 12:54 PM
>To: gene at ixiacom.com; synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
>Subject: RE: [sdiy] Flanger???
>
>
>a pair of effectrons did the trick for me... one was an
>Effectron, one an Effectron II.
>
>I just didn't want the effect bad enough to dedicate two units...
>but it really was through zero.
>
>I'm sad to hear the Studio 100 won't do it. I have one and was planning on
>giving it a try...
>
>H^) harry
>
>




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx