Michele Verità

Dear all..here is an example for a stutter/drill fx,first comb based and then stutter based..the first works perfectly while the second not really, what am i missing here?..i would like use stutter so i can control speed too..any hints..

stutter-fx

> Dear all..here is an example for a stutter/drill fx,first comb based

> and then stutter based..the first works perfectly while the second

> not really, what am i missing here?..i would like use stutter so i

They work both for me, they don't sound identical, but very close. I 

mic wrote:
> Dear all..here is an example for a stutter/drill fx,first comb based
> and then stutter based..the first works perfectly while the second
> not really, what am i missing here?..i would like use stutter so i
> can control speed too..any hints.. 

They work both for me, they don't sound identical, but very close. I 
prefer the stutter version...

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com


Hi Stefan, well yes they both work but not in the same way..that was the problem for me!i mean,i though they should sound the same way since they both work similar..i made a tapin-tapout version too and it sounds like the comb one..

the comb version (i personally prefer it) seems to me to be more "tight" and precise..but i can't understand why..

Hi Stefan, well yes they both work but not in the same way..that was the problem for me!i mean,i though they should sound the same way since they both work similar..i made a tapin-tapout version too and it sounds like the comb one..
the comb version (i personally prefer it) seems to me to be more "tight" and precise..but i can't understand why..
thanks
michele


From what I can tell from the way they sound, the comb version has 

more pronounced attack transients and slightly lower overall 

(average) amplitude than the stutter version. To my ear, this results 

in a more percussive yet thinner overall sound for the comb than the 

stutter version. I actually prefer the stutter version, myself, but 

it really depends on the context in which you'll be using it, and 

As for why there's a difference, I'd guess that the stutter object 

has some sort of internal windowing/ramping on the amplitude which is 

smoothing the attack transients a bit. This would account for the 

relative lower degree of 'tightness' you mentioned. Also, you're 

scaling the output of the comb version to 80%, probably accounting 

for the amplitude difference and therefor the relative thickness/ 

thinness (fletcher-munson curves, and all that...).

> Hi Stefan, well yes they both work but not in the same way..that 

> was the problem for me!i mean,i though they should sound the same 

> way since they both work similar..i made a tapin-tapout version too 

> the comb version (i personally prefer it) seems to me to be more 

> "tight" and precise..but i can't understand why..

Associate Professor of Contemporary Music

*opportunities for composers & sound artists*

From what I can tell from the way they sound, the comb version has  
more pronounced attack transients and slightly lower overall  
(average) amplitude than the stutter version. To my ear, this results  
in a more percussive yet thinner overall sound for the comb than the  
stutter version. I actually prefer the stutter version, myself, but  
it really depends on the context in which you'll be using it, and  
what else it needs to co-exist with.

As for why there's a difference, I'd guess that the stutter object  
has some sort of internal windowing/ramping on the amplitude which is  
smoothing the attack transients a bit. This would account for the  
relative lower degree of 'tightness' you mentioned.  Also, you're  
scaling the output of the comb version to 80%, probably accounting  
for the amplitude difference and therefor the relative thickness/ 
thinness (fletcher-munson curves, and all that...).

>
> Hi Stefan, well yes they both work but not in the same way..that  
> was the problem for me!i mean,i though they should sound the same  
> way since they both work similar..i made a tapin-tapout version too  
> and it sounds like the comb one..
> the comb version (i personally prefer it) seems to me to be more  
> "tight" and precise..but i can't understand why..
> thanks
> michele

Associate Professor of Contemporary Music
College of Santa Fe
Contemporary Music Program
1600 St. Michaels Drive
Santa Fe NM 87505
http://pubweb.csf.edu/~smill
(505) 473-6197

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SFIFEM
Atrium Sound Space
OVOS
*opportunities for composers & sound artists*

Thanks for the reply..well to my ear comb version has not only a more pronounced attack, it's a lot tighter: with drum-rythmic loops it seems to me that comb triggered perfectly at time (1/16, 1/4 etc..) is rock solid while stutter sometimes seems to miss a beat(!)..i can't figure why and that's not acceptable in rythmic contexts..

Thanks for the reply..well to my ear comb version has not only a more pronounced attack, it's a lot tighter: with drum-rythmic loops it seems to me that comb triggered perfectly at time (1/16, 1/4 etc..) is rock solid while stutter sometimes seems to miss a beat(!)..i can't figure why and that's not acceptable in rythmic contexts..
thanks again
michele


Ahh, yes, I wasn't really listening to the rhythmic aspect, more for 

timbre as that's what I understood you to be referring to. My 

mistake. I've no clue why stutter would miss beats. Good luck!

> Thanks for the reply..well to my ear comb version has not only a 

> more pronounced attack, it's a lot tighter: with drum-rythmic loops 

> it seems to me that comb triggered perfectly at time (1/16, 1/4 

> etc..) is rock solid while stutter sometimes seems to miss a beat 

> (!)..i can't figure why and that's not acceptable in rythmic 

Ahh, yes, I wasn't really listening to the rhythmic aspect, more for  
timbre as that's what I understood you to be referring to. My  
mistake. I've no clue why stutter would miss beats. Good luck!

>
> Thanks for the reply..well to my ear comb version has not only a  
> more pronounced attack, it's a lot tighter: with drum-rythmic loops  
> it seems to me that comb triggered perfectly at time (1/16, 1/4  
> etc..) is rock solid while stutter sometimes seems to miss a beat 
> (!)..i can't figure why and that's not acceptable in rythmic  
> contexts..
> thanks again
> michele

stutter fx