DSP Robotics Support

Ooh yes I’d forgotten all about valve microphony!

I remember tapping EL34s, 6V6s and EF80s, and being fascinated by the sound.
I seem to recall that pentodes gave more of that weird metallic, short, and gated reverb tail kinda sound than triodes, probably due to having more mesh-type electrodes to vibrate.

Now I feel really old…

Valve microphony is my stripper name.

k brown wrote:Valve microphony is my stripper name.

I'll have to confer with Spogg about this - it's not the kind of advertising that we usually allow here!
(However, the post of "raunchy dancer" is still vacant in our "FS All Stars" 60's tribute band! )

trogluddite wrote:I'll have to confer with Spogg about this - it's not the kind of advertising that we usually allow here!

I sincerely hope, this poor guy gets a pass. I mean, he's a stripper with the word "micro" in his name. Life must be very tough for him.

tulamide wrote:I sincerely hope, this poor guy gets a pass. I mean, he's a stripper with the word "micro" in his name. Life must be very tough for him.

It’s also phony don’t forget. It’s not even real.

I thought it was 'euphony'

The best method to achieve this is a five band naive crossover, followed by a parabolic saturation module (personally I'd use it three times over [one channel:mono,two channels:varying stereo widths] employing optional high pass and low pass so as to be able to control the amount of affect to the audio signal. That way you can bring the mids out well.). Next I'd apply mean averaging to make the sound a little "crispy" sounding.

I don't think there could be a more realistic sounding tube. I made such a naive filter using Martin Vicanek filters, I use it as a de-harshing algorithm. That naive assembly is called an NEDF. The parabolic saturation code is an older code example that can likely be re-created using green float math (which then affects a few stream multiply/divide primitives). Likely that would use less cpu; but You might argue that SSE might "sound" more like a tube due to the nature of the way it hyper-threads. Like in the case of a tube; there would be some collision and slight truncation due to the re-combination of signal dispersed through a complicated mass and then manipulated after the fact.

But, using mean averaging to affect volume is as simple as this:
Just find a way of generating a random number. There are some methods that use code or sse to achieve this.



That should sound good. Just make sure the random number is a range. The calculations will emulate the obfuscation of a tube fairly well. Ultimately though, like I'd said; it depends on how much damage you wish to do to the sound.

Tubes don't inherently 'obfuscate' anything - have you read the whole thread?

wlangfor@uoguelph.ca wrote:I'd apply mean averaging to make the sound a little "crispy" sounding

You are describing a form of low-pass filter - that's not something I would ever expect to sound "crispy"!

wlangfor@uoguelph.ca wrote:SSE might "sound" more like a tube due to the nature of the way it hyper-threads

Yes, but on the other hand, simulating purple transistors with green stripes might "sound" more like a fleeting taste of jalapeno chillies due to the habitual lunar alignment of the petulant, textural gases (more so on Wednesdays, of course, so long as you can keep the gorilla away from the custard).
[Your sentence makes no more sense than mine.]

wlangfor@uoguelph.ca wrote:there would be some collision and slight truncation due to the re-combination of signal dispersed through a complicated mass

Yes, it's one of the few silver linings of the "social distancing" measures that I'm not suffering this problem quite so badly lately.

wlangfor@uoguelph.ca wrote:But, using mean averaging to affect volume is as simple as this...

...inefficiently factorised equation which seems to implement a noisy, distorted form of full-wave rectification - and can't possibly average anything because it only uses the value of the current sample.

[moderator note: @wlangfor@uoguelph.ca]
You have been warned about posting factually inaccurate or plainly nonsensical technical advice on many occasions. Please desist, or double-check your facts with a more knowledgable member before posting (or start a new "nonsense poetry" thread expressly for your delightfully surreal use of technical terminology).

Well, this is a naive filter that sounds quite nice. It's why it's reffered to as a "naive" filter. They're non-scientific and they sound nice.

Probably one of the smoother things I've heard, but then again; it's not science. But if it sounds smooth, who cares?
Flowstone is not only for making scientific filters but naive ones too.

the new version is available as a download to subscribers of My youtube channel found here:
[moderator edit]
Link removed. This forum is NOT a clickbait farm for personal or commercial YouTube channels.
[/moderator edit]

I was just going to post it, but then again; I don't like being bothered about making a naive filter. Sometimes they sound nice. I make both naive and scientific schematics depending on how much CPU they use and how nice they sound defines whether or not I use them. Like, in the realization that after it's all said and done, it will be the end user that uses all and any means to make their music sound good. In fact; they'll likely go against every rule in the business; yet likely, people will enjoy the sound.

Whether or not the filter is scientific, by the time they are done with it; whether or not they are scientists, the effect will not be - only a roughed approximation. However, I am intending to add auto makeup to ensure that there's no less gain then the original, but I ran out of time. I added the mean averging algorithm to add a tube like crispiness using some sines to produce a polar 0.997-1 variation at 20kHZ, it could be improved.

But, nonetheless I will make some lengthly videos showing plainly why things work a certain way or not.