BBds, was Re: [sdiy] digital delay

[harrybissell]

john mahoney wrote: <snipt>

> I will say the naughty word, now: "Digital." A digital delay line can
> produce high fidelity sound, and pretty cheaply these days. Normally, hi-fi
> is a great thing! (Except when you want a lo-fi sound ;-) But seriously,
> some people will say the DDL sounds dry or cold or sterile, whereas a BBD is
> warm or has character or something.

Digital is NOT a naughty word at s-diy. You must be thinking of Analogue Heaven
perhaps ???   :^P

>
>
> In other words, DDLs do not change the sound in a noticable way, aside from
> the intentional, delay-based effects. Again, that is normally a good thing.
> However, some people like the way a BBD messes up the sound. Can't these
> sound effects be replicated in a digital system, and with greater control? I
> am not talking about digital modeling (leave that to Line 6, Roland, etc.).
>
> I'm talking, for example, about bandwidth controls on the inputs. Go wild
> and use a tube-based input preamp with tone controls! Even more can be done
> by playing with the signal in the feedback (regeneration) loop. Again, some
> bandwidth limiting controls, normally known as "EQ."  :-) How about
> controllable distortion, using tubes if you like? Or a way to mix in some
> noise (or another sound, like fake clock noise, ha ha!), and you could use
> an envelope follower to dynamically add an amount proportional to the signal
> level.
>
Yes, you can do all of that. I bet a touch of white noise (band limited to avoid

aliasing) added in the regen path will simulate tape echo nicely. And DDLs are
quite cheap in the used market

> A DDL provides many more options for control than a BBD, such as multiple
> taps without redundant circuitry, ultra-long delay times if that's your
> game, and much, Much MORE! (Oops! I've heard too many adverts on TV.) So
> there is a lot to like about digital delays.
>
> I know the analog vs. digital debate will rage on (I still have a working
> turntable, thank you very much), and I don't mean this to be part of that.
> Besides, this is different from the argument that analog is more accurate
> than digital. It's more like the tubes vs solid state thing.
>
> It all comes down to this:
> Can we reasonably replicate the desirable BBD distortions in other ways? If
> so, we don't need a delay line that adds its own sound; instead, we can use
> a clean, hi-fi delay that will do what *we* want it to. This is much more
> flexible because you are not stuck with that certain sound.
>
> Using science, I am sure that we can figure out those qualities that we like
> about BBDs. Then we can say goodbye to their bad side effects.

I really like DISSING bbds... so I guess their terrible side effects are
actually
a virtue :^P

H^) harry

>
> --
> john
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harry Bissell Jr" <harrybissell at prodigy.net>
>
> > Ahhh this is excellent !!! This is my main complaint
> > with the BBD in the first place... It doesn't stand
> > a "snowflake's chance in hell unless it has a ton of
> > refrigeration equipment alongside it".
> > (from "The Subways of Tazoo" by Colin Capp - 1965)