What does Waves Vitamin *actually* do? It ain't no saturator...

[aciddose]

Well clipping (like an opamp) and overdrive is actually exactly the same thing if you think of clipping as a sudden overdrive that only occurs on values above a certain magnitude.

So say our opamp "clips" at +/- 12v, if you zoom in to what actually happens between 11v and 12v you'll see it looks like "overdrive" that is pushed really hard. The more you zoom in the more it'll look like "overdrive" until the point it is exactly identical.

As I described, a rectifier (like abs(x)) is also just a special type of clipping, which is a special type of "overdrive".

So it actually makes things easier to understand rather than difficult because all the different parts suddenly fit snugly together and "make sense".

That's the difference between speculating about effects you observe and coming up with an ad hoc hypothesis as an explanation vs. actually understanding what is going on by fitting together all the parts at play.

The ad hoc explanation will always be far too complex, it will rely upon a fiat assertion "that's just how it is" at some point and it will always break down outside the very limited scope in which it was constructed.

[aciddose]

Well clipping (like an opamp) and overdrive is actually exactly the same thing if you think of clipping as a sudden overdrive that only occurs on values above a certain magnitude.

The way that works by the way is that an opamp has something called a "long tailed pair" as an input. This measures the difference between the two inputs and so the saturation that occurs is due to where the difference value (x - y) saturates ("overdrives") rather than the value (x) itself.

Most opamp circuits use feedback where the opamp ensures the difference = zero. Where the voltage goes high enough that the feedback can no longer compensate to keep x = y, (x - y) begins to saturate which creates the "overdrive from 11v to 12v" effect.

[aciddose]

Back on topic: I lack the interest to investigate on my own, but I would be willing to bet that a Fourier transform may be involved in this plug-in and that the effect is actually applied via the correlation, cepstrum or some other transform of the signal.

That would explain why "only harmonics and transients" could be affected while pure tones, even when modulated are left untouched.

In order to prove that, you should aim to perform more advanced measurements until you can measure any effect being applied to the input. Until such time that the effect can be measured and reproduced, the "null hypothesis" should be applied which is that the plug-in actually has no measurable effect on a signal whatsoever.

AKA

[simon.a.billington]

When choosing a type of distortion or a guitar pedal or another device no-one is going to think to themselves “Well the maths behind this is the same so it doesn’t matter”. They’re not going to think well “hey clipping is just the same as overdrive so if I grab this clipper plugin it will give me th same results”. They will just be bitterly disappointed.

You can achieve a lot of different results using the same maths or the same science.

Look at buildings, just a bit of simple geometry that can be described with a small subset of equations, but each building looks different and has different features. Vehicles are the same. Using the same methods you could create a car or a truck.

How about the Fourier Transform how many different types of effects have been created with just that. But we don’t refer to them all as being the “same” because they achieve different things

So in short, it’s not what is being used, but it’s HOW it gets used that defines differences.

How many styles of music have guitar in it?? We can’t say that all guitar based genres sound the same either. There are different ways can you play or use a guitar that constitutes to how the different genres are defined.

Again it’s how you use things that matters. It’s how this same maths is getting used and how it achieves different sounding results that can be used for varying types of circumstances that really matters.

Those are the terms that people in the real world deal with. Even architects and car manufacturers. Classification is a human thing

[aciddose]

So what though? My point was that thinking of them as distinct is something only an uneducated fool would do.

Any moron can easily identify how something "sounds" and yes creating such very rough classifications can help in that sense.

From a technical perspective however, there is no proper classification for "fuzz". You yourself should be able to admit that. You don't have any idea what "fuzz" might be but you're still perfectly willing to use the term and I suspect you believe it may be a valid classification.

In fact "fuzz" could be defined as taking any non-linear processor with a bias ("DC offset") applied to it, then filtering the result before mixing it back with the input.

So the reason "fuzz" doesn't have a well known definition is because it isn't really a separate classification at all. It's rather just a different way to use "overdrive", "clipping", "rectification", ... should I continue to list every possible nonsense sub-type? Or could I have just said "distortion" ?

Now which is more useful vs. confusing?

Understanding what they share in common and how the distinctions are made (the same thing with slightly varied application) is much easier to understand because it is actually possible to understand, while simply "believing" in these nonsense subclasses without having a clue about what would make them distinct is really the same as knowing nothing at all.

So using such classifications without understanding them is in fact more of a waste of time and will lead you to make worse decisions rather than better.

[simon.a.billington]

So what though? My point was that thinking of them as distinct is something only an uneducated fool would do.

Any moron can easily identify how something "sounds" and yes creating such very rough classifications can help in that sense.

From a technical perspective however, there is no proper classification for "fuzz". You yourself should be able to admit that. You don't have any idea what "fuzz" might be but you're still perfectly willing to use the term and I suspect you believe it may be a valid classification.

In fact "fuzz" could be defined as taking any non-linear processor with a bias ("DC offset") applied to it, then filtering the result before mixing it back with the input.

So the reason "fuzz" doesn't have a well known definition is because it isn't really a separate classification at all. It's rather just a different way to use "overdrive", "clipping", "rectification", ... should I continue to list every possible nonsense sub-type? Or could I have just said "distortion" ?

Now which is more useful vs. confusing?

Understanding what they share in common and how the distinctions are made (the same thing with slightly varied application) is much easier to understand because it is possible to understand[/p], while simply "believing" in these nonsense subclasses without having a clue about what would make them distinct is really the same as knowing nothing at all.

So using such classifications without understanding them is in fact more of a waste of time and will lead you to make worse decisions rather than better.

You may believe they are nonsense on a personal level, but industry would disagree with you.

I’m not saying you can’t get a clipping sound from an overdrive effect, but there are a lot of overdrives that suck at clipping. Valve clips differently to tape which clips differently to transistors which sounds different to digital clipping.

Despite the maths they have different distinct sounds that are used in different applications and industry, not me, classifies them as such.

Yes there is some overlap. Some effects can be used to substitute for others. In some instances it works well, in other instances it works terrible. Therein lies your defining differences and your classifications.

It makes no sense to classify all Fourier Transform plugins to be the same. But If anybody would something tells me it would be you.

You may be educated on the math, but you’re certainly showing that you’re not really well informed on industrial classifications or your just choosing to believe you are more morally superior that’s every one.

I have read the definition of what industry things the fuzz to be. Look it up yourself, I just simply don’t recall what it was.

[aciddose]

Re: the topic of the thread:

"Strange powers indeed."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpvN_KjGuxw

[incubus]

Honestly, at this point in time, who cares.

[stromkraft]

So while this may seem like a useful distinction to a guitarist, like most things guitarists believe, it is 100% bullshit.

What's missing from your examples are complex interactions and combinations of different processes, especially in analog equipment. It makes musical sense to keep excitement, distortion, overdrive, fuzz and saturation as different, yet related, processing. It's about different strokes of expression. What makes sense musically is never bullshit. And I maintain that for me and many others all of those mentioned, as well as many more nuances of distortion, are simply different musical colors. Pretending different shades of blue doesn't make sense only mean you're limiting your palette for very little gain.

[aciddose]

Pretending there are "different shades of blue" when you're engineering a display system doesn't make sense. Would you rather have "red, green, blue" pixels or "red, orange, yellow, green, cyan, sky, blue, purple" pixels?

Once one realizes that all these in-between shades are possible to synthesize from the three primaries (red, green, blue) it greatly simplifies everything associated.

Likewise it is pointless to have a "fuzz pedal" where you already have an "overdrive" pedal because simply adding an offset to the overdrive makes it fuzz. A better pedal would have two extra parameters: "fuzz" and "tone". With fuzz = 0 and tone = 1/2 you'd have your ordinary "overdrive" and could adjust the "drive" parameter as usual. With fuzz and tone = 1 you'd have your ordinary "fuzz" and could adjust "drive" as usual.

So now you've eliminated a whole extra pedal by adding a couple knobs.

That said, I never suggested such a thing. I was only pointing out that the distinction between these effects is 100% bullshit and that it is essential to understand they are nothing but "presets" for the same set of parameters.

In other words you must understand that abstractly they are all the same, they're simply specialized sub-types of a greater class of "non-linear processor".

This is how intelligent people are able to think about such subjects. This is how "so much information" can be handled and understood intuitively, by breaking it down and forming abstractions which encompass and unify everything.

[aciddose]

Honestly, at this point in time, who cares.

[simon.a.billington]

But show me a fizz pedal that allows you to enter that offset

[simon.a.billington]

Yes all colours are available, but those colours have names and categorisations to help make the distinction.

We don't call them "red" and "less red" and "other red" and "not red" and "some other color thats not red" there is no real communication factor in a system like that. Colours have different distinct names that describe their core essence.

But like with things in sound there are those colours that and are on the cusp, they could be called this or that, it's debatable and mostly like subjective to the lighting it's being viewed under.

It's simply a system in which to delineate and communicate. It happens ALL the time in the real world.

it isn't just acar, there are several types of cars, it isn't just a building it is several types of buildings. Depite them all being fundamentally the same, names are used to describe functions and to decribe colours and there would seem that there is a hell of a lot of people in the world that share this opinion.

In fact, encyclopaedias, scientific journals, mainstream news and information all seem to share this same view.

[aciddose]

I have no idea what you're arguing or why.

My original post was an argument against the concept of considering unique sub-types in isolation, without the knowledge of their abstract relationships.

In other words it is better to start from the abstract and then work toward these specific parameterizations rather than try to make sense of every distinct parameterization.

That is because all of these sub-classes share 90% of themselves in common, so you only need to learn the extra 10% for each type in addition to the 90% you already know.

• Abstract = 100%
• Distortion = abstract + 10%
• Overdrive = abstract + 10%
• Fuzz = abstract + 10%
• Doubler = abstract + 10%
• ... = 140%

vs.

• Distortion = 100%
• Overdrive = 100%
• Fuzz = 100%
• Doubler = 100%
• ... = 400%

One method is more complicated and difficult than the other. One produces superior results with lesser complexity.

[simon.a.billington]

I have no idea what you're arguing or why.

I just simply used your example and explained that how even classification within color and giving color names is an important communication tool, despite the fact they can all be made from just 3 primaries.

But you don't have to believe me its easy to reference. You don't have to agree with how people categorise distortion/saturation/overdrive/fuzz/rectifying, but it exists for communication purposes. That's easy to reference too.

Imagine that a communication system that allows for the easy exchange of ideas to avoid confusion and ambiguity. What a brilliant idea.