Analog vs. Digital | Episode 1: Delay 

also that ross thing sounds so good, it kinda almost ring mods on longer repeats

Yea, it does that "thing" .. what can a poor boy do? Save up for a Bellepoch deluxe? Likely. The unholy wave of money tossed at delay pedals...damn. I always regret buying a delay pedal because the appetite for another is still unresolved.

Nuthin like tape echo

@Andrew Hoppe Thanks dude. He's been gone for quite awhile now and yeah, he was a bit of a character. I was a big Yes nut in the 70's (still am) and he turned me on to the Mahavishnu Orchestra. Seems like only yesterday that we were sitting in his basement/rehearsal studio smoking a bowl and listening to The Inner Mounting Flame. I'm hanging in there - getting old and I've got some pains but at least I can still play guitar.

And it has some serious aliasing going on.

Sounds like bitcrushing

@@trentkraemer7109 It's called aliasing.

@@trentkraemer7109 For sure.

@@HenritheHorse yeah I know, bit crushing/sample rate reduction causes aliasing.

I actually tend to prefer the opposite - analog delays work really well with high-gain tones imo as it tames the high end and blends very well, while with warmer and cleaner tones digital delays feel very balanced.

Thanks Mark, that’s very true about the lowpass filter in my experience with analog and digital. Always nice to hear from you!

@@AndyDemos A pleasure and honour to get a nod from you, Andy. Thanks. Keep up the good work.

Mark THE hammer?

That’s such a good idea, might pick up that mini AD to do just this on my board

I'm a harp player & guitarist and that Maxon is the best all round analogue delay for 70s sounds on both amped harmonica & guitar, the tonal quality of the delayed notes has a great blend of pleasing overtones

Somewhere in a dim lit studio, the magic words are spoken, "well we could add some delay.." It is only then that the intrepid realize the intricate vastness of the ambient rabbit hole.

This analog-vs-digital diatribe has much in common with what I hear in my professional field of digital imaging. In imaging you get banding in 8-bit environments, but, if you work in 16 bits all the way, the added steps eliminate the banding. It's up to you, the user, to understand that. Often with a prejudiced attitude, many people reluctantly looked at "digital" (loosely defined) decades ago, judged it lacking, then never bothered to update their judgment, heedless to how much the technology has advanced since then. Like so much else, these differences of opinion, instead of opening to debate, harden and take on the flavor and smell of religious dogma. Myself, I stick to facts and evidence. In music, what SOUNDS good IS good. Just as, with images, what LOOKS good IS good. I wish that many more people saw it that way, instead of wasting so much energy chasing dragons.

@@raimondo3178 Agree. I suspect the people making decent music adopt the same approach as yourself, using whatever complements the overall sound they are working towards, regardless of its actual technical underpinnings, rather than cork-sniffing individual devices based on specs. There was a seminal column (at least for me) in Stereo Review magazine in the early-to-mid-80s, by one of the then-deans of audio, either Julian Hirsch or Len Feldman, I forget which. At the time, there were several vinyl discs available, that were recorded on digital gear (Ry Cooder's "Bop 'Til You Drop" being one of the very first), but the benchmark was considered to be so-called "direct-to-disc" recordings where the musicians essentially "cut" the master plate as they played. Already there were complaints that digital sounded harsh and sterile, "brittle". The author noted that he himself was not always satisfied by the tone on such recordings, but felt that it resulted from misplaced engineering and mic-ing techniques. He contended that traditional engineering and mic-ing techniques strove to overcome what recording to mag tape, mixdown, and pressing onto vinyl from a copy of a copy of a copy of the mix did, and that mic-ing techniques were intended to let slected instruments "cut through", in spite of all that bandwidth loss, and problematic noise floor. His feeling was that, once recording engineers got used to the increased bandwidth, and much lower noise floor of digital recording, they would adapt their mic-ing techniques to this new medium and things would sound pleasing again to the purists. In other words, growing pains. I feel the same way about digital delay. The idea that one didn't have to "suffer" the limited bandwidth of analog or tape delay, especially once higher-resolution A/D and D/A became available, seduced manufacturers into aiming for as much bandwidth in the wet signal as was technically possible. Specs-wise, that's great, but it's not at ALL what reflected sound sounds like. Sound reflected off surfaces, even off glass or polished marble, always has less top end than the dry sound. Eventually pedal-makers started removing top end, or providing controls for the end-user to do so, such that digital delay began to sound more natural. Personally, I always insert a bit of shallow lowpass filtering in the feedback path, of any analog or digital delay that provides access, such that successive repeats always have a bit less top end than the previous repeat. Sounds more natural, and in the case of analog delay also cleans up the audio grunge that builds up over multiple repeats.

@@markhammer643 : Hi Mark. Thank you for your reply. One paradox that is not well understood in the "analog vs digital" controversy is that "digital" produces *higher and higher fidelity* as the sampling rate increases alongside with processing power. Our ears are used to what some like to call "warmth" but can be less charitably called "noise" or "distortion". When the signal passes through much more cleanly, with less noise or distortion, ears used to earlier standards will cry "foul", instead of understanding that the newer technology requires a change in techniques of "sound acquisition". When Cooder's "Bop" album came out in the 80s, I took notice immediately, and felt very interested in the new direction things were going. All this time later, we are still figuring out how to use miking, recording and other techniques to best effect in the "digital" realm. And there is still widespread, persistent and prejudicial hostility in the way. I understand that a number of people like the way things USED to sound: that is legitimate. But they make that a reason to dig in and declare war *on something they refuse to understand*, something that can be their friend if they make a minimum effort to expand their understanding. There is no reason to "hate" something that is demonstrably and objectively powerful and capable of great results. With a better understanding of the potentials of "digital", one can still admit that they themselves just feel more comfortable with the older ways, and also admit that the newer trends are something that they themselves will not use for *subjective* reasons, rather than expend energy attacking their objective value. That, to me, seems more respectful and honorable.

In modern times, you either want the repeats to be obvious or natural. Or the timing to be spot on or on it's own course with multiple taps The different ways of doing it is where the preference lies. All these delays have a good use in one form or another and repeat times and feedback levels just add to the flavor of choosing. Short stuff may favor the digital sometimes but on some guitars (like LP) not so much, it gets muddy or too obvious. For longer delay times a tape sounding delay is often a great choice. Or an analog BBD could be preferable for getting rid of the high frequencies in the repeat that might be in the way delivered from a tape delay which actually rolls off some bottom end, and that keeps the repeats from being muddy in the present. It can make or break a guitar tone played for effect. Bandwidth degeneration is easier on the ears to a perfect repeat fading out imho. Good thing there are choices! - Try the Adineko for some wild repeats, I love it. But when it has to be just so...Volante gets it done for me, mild or wild.

@@markhammer643 Howdy Mark Hammer. You're rather famous in my effects building and tinkering circles, it's a pleasure to join a conversation with you. I have a million questions for you but I will limit myself to only two! lol! - From your life long study, what was your personal favorite self invented or realized circuit/pedal for guitars? And, , did you ever build a piezo instrument pre-amp in your explorations?

I'm glad you enjoyed it, thanks!

they're manufacturing new versions of them.

What are you on about? Phil and Rob Scallon are some of the most genuine people on this shithole we call youtube

Twooba?

@@ileutur6863 Andy's got an uncolored, professional style. He has the classic demo man persona. A lot of those other guys are comparatively obnoxious or reliant on gimmicks. They're trying too hard to be "RU-vidrs". You don't see Andy watering down his brand with clickbait or drama.

Maxon is seriously overlooked, great company, top quality products. I use AD9 more than any other delays

I play with a Maxon AD900, I love it!

I have been thinking about those old combos for cheap springs

@@zeusapollo8688 yeah. I love the chorus on the Crate gx-30 etc.

Quite possibly the simplest and most useful way to go. I like the summary.

EVH and the Edge would disagree.

Thanks so much!

I recently got a delay for bass and I wonder how anyone gets anything done because just messing around with a delay is so much fun.

I’ve got a few DMM demos already 😉

Lol

@@AndyDemos I’ve seen them since PGS, DMM gang approved 👍

Hey Pierre, the modulation you hear on the Echofix is DSP, there is very little wow and flutter on the unit since it’s only a about a year old with just about the same hours as yours. Usually the pinch roller is the main cause for modulation in tape echoes and since they are really well made and brand new, I wouldn’t expect too much modulation naturally, hence the built in chorus. Thanks!

@@AndyDemos Thanks Andy ! That's more clear to me now. So the strong reliability of the EchoFix eliminate what most of us loves so much about real tape : The natural flutter ! It's still a crazy piece of gear which is a dream to play. Wish you the best.

@@PeterGuitarSound Yes but I’ve always found the Space Echo design to have less flutter anyway, it’s the EP and shorter loop machines that really get warbly. Happy to help, thanks 👍🏻

Yes it does! It's much cleaner and brighter with faster delay setting and it uses the famed Reticon BBDs.

More like Plastic Man 👍🏻

I was so close to buying that thing