Technically yes, but does it really matter ? #method_of_creating_distortion

[Vivek]

Since last 20 years or more, the great Elmers have been writing articles with sentences similar to

"The EQ before and after the distortion have more influence on the final sound than the actual method of distortion"


We have had erudite posts regarding knee characteristics of Ge versus Si versus Zeners and they end up with with the general feeling that, though technically different, it is extremely difficult for the human ear to make out the difference of sounds of these different clipping methods WHEN NORMALISED


And in a recent post, a Grand Elmer of the group said that he tried many different clipping functions on a waveshaper software and the difference in sound of radically different looking wave functions was surprisingly very little. He said just stick with a simple diode clipper since the difference is not worth the complication of ladders or hardware Waveshaper functions.

And we have discussions on FET clipping stages versus Opamp/diodes, and mention Square law transfer function as the reason why FET based Amp emulations are technically different than Opamp based Amp emulations.


Technically yes, but does it really matter ?

[FiveseveN]

but does it really matter ?

Well, sometimes.

Don't forget that the goal of all these signal torturing devices is entirely aesthetic. We're not designing analog ballistic computers, there is no objective measure of a dirt box's effectiveness: some people might like it, some may not.
Some people dedicate a lot of time trying to emulate various minutiae of triodes or poweramps or output transformers etc. Meanwhile, the Tube Screamer is arguably still the most popular pedal of any kind, and I don't think anyone would mistake its sound for a tube amp, even though that was sort of Susumu Tamura's goal.

Do you have a breadboard? Some friends to jam with? Or are you strictly interested in the academic aspects of distortion? There's nothing wrong with the latter, just don't expect any semblance of finality.

[iainpunk]

Vivek, i don't know if you noticed, but you are the one starting all those threads discussing the subject. most of us don't feel the need to discuss but we are baited in to the discussions... (not that i'm complaining tho, i like those threads)

And in a recent post, a Grand Elmer of the group said that he tried many different clipping functions on a waveshaper software and the difference in sound of radically different looking wave functions was surprisingly very little. He said just stick with a simple diode clipper since the difference is not worth the complication of ladders or hardware Waveshaper functions.

can you freshen our memory with an actual quote?

cheers, Iain

[Vivek]

Back in the 90's I has this waveform editing software called "Cooledit 96" that allowed to process the waveforms with user adjustable transfer functions. (You could draw one yourself too). IME, there was very little difference between "S" curve of traditional clipping and "zig zag", all distortions sounded remarkably alike.
Why make stuff complicated when there's not much to benefit? Clipping and crossover are easiest schemes to introduce distortion.

[Vivek]

Brother Iain, I ask a lot of questions because I am in the learning stage. I want to eventually design an Amp in A Box with wide range of flexibility.

And you are one of the brothers from whom I learn a lot.

Thanks!

[teemuk]

Are you seeking confirmation to something perceived subjectively? Instead of focusing on discussion you can easily test how much difference YOU perceive in effects of various transfer functions, asymmetric vs. asymmetric, soft vs. hard, peak clipping vs. non-linearity throughout the whole transfer function (e.g. "zig zag") etc. How audibly they are different from each other, and in what magnitude you perceive the distortion.

Test setup is extremely easy to arrange with several waveform editing softwares. (Not to mention, they are a great platform to experiment with various concepts of signal processing. Much faster than SPICE or designing and building circuits that would perform such processing).

Complex clipping circuits, IMO, have more effect in overall dynamics and touch sensitivity ("feel") than in sounding extremely different than the simple ones. I believe thst we can probably more readily distinct a small dynamic change in timbre than just small difference of two timbres in A/B comparison.

[marcelomd]

Sometimes I fall into this trap that I call "paint by the numbers design". I'm not sure I can express the feeling correctly. It's when you use "hard data" to design something that will have a subjective effect. Or trying to hear the shapes you see in the simulation. It's related to analysis paralysis.

It is super fun in a nerdy-geeky way, but, and this is my opinion, not the best use of the time. I know because I'm super guilty.

For example. When designing an overdrive I want some kind of mid boost. Then I go research what is the perfect frequency for that. Is it 723Hz? 640Hz? Low Q? High Q? I gather 3-4 circuits and spend a week simulating them to see how they look, how they compare to classic units. A month later I'm super frustrated because there's no conclusion and no pedal. There is no right answer.

In my defense, if I want to play with the breadboard I have to use the living room table, which is not always available. So I design and simulate as much as I can before picking up the components.

In my experience it's more fulfilling to build something quickly, a prototype, and tweak that using my ears, instead of trying to hear the difference between Ge and Si by looking at the transfer functions.

Again, nothing wrong about geeking over Bode plots. I just think the numbers don't always tell the whole story.

[iainpunk]

i think its loads of fun sitting wit a breadboard and tweaking and changing the circuit until i have reached the perfect bad sounding pedal.
playing with the frequency response and the relationships between different diodes (i often use odd multiple clipping systems) is more effective that ''planning it out''
i think the knowledge is a good thing to have, but far form actually useful in practice! i often find that going off that beaten path makes the pedal better.

(no matter how special your distortion/overdrive is, they all sound similar in a full band context)

cheers, Iain

[garcho]

the big question is...

...what the hell is an Elmer? Do you mean elder? Or are you talking about some Clampett with a Winchester?

The other big question is, what do you want? Is the goal to recreate a beloved tone from your favorite record? Is there something missing in your sound that you're searching for? Are you going to gig with it, record with it, or noodle in your bedroom? Tube amp, audio interface, headphones, etc.? Is the goal to create something you hear in your head but don't have? Is the goal to build something you can't afford? Is the goal to have fun doing something interesting and rewarding like building pedals? If the answer to most of those questions is "i don't know", then I'd say either enjoy tinkering on a breadboard or build a well-known clone from a PCB, forget about "designing" anything.

[Vivek]

I come from the Ham radio and RF world

There, an Elmer means "An Elmer is the guy you go to, to ask questions about topics in Ham Radio that you don't understand."

- https://www.rfcafe.com/miscellany/humor/need-elmer.htm


The term "Elmer"–meaning someone who provides personal guidance and assistance to would-be hams–first appeared in QST in a March 1971 "How's DX" column by Rod Newkirk, W9BRD (now also VA3ZBB).

- https://www.hamfesters.org/main/hamfesters-elmer-list/#:~:text=The%20term%20%E2%80%9CElmer%E2%80%9C%E2%80%93meaning,W9BRD%20(now%20also%20VA3ZBB).


Its a respectful word for a mentor who knows more than you.

[11-90-an]

+1 on breadboard... loads of fun (and frustration, but hey...)

I managed to make a simple buffer/boost before, I didn't know what I was doing (ask Antonis lol...I don't claim to now know what I'm doing most of the time too).. It sounded great on a certain music/bluetooth speaker(not for guitar) colored the sound a bunch and added some lovely high end and twang... should've seen my face when I tried it on a "real guitar amp"... no variation in sound at all... I've still got to dig in the details of the music speaker... point is, you never know how it would *sound to you* unless you try it. Sims can only go so far...

[garcho]

Its a respectful word for a mentor who knows more than you.

Ha! well, then, I understand now

[Ben N]

the big question is...

...what the hell is an Elmer?

[Axldeziak]

In other fields, such as mechanics, machining, and construction, the Elmer is called the Gray Beard. They wield a screwdriver like a wand and are often known to not suffer fools lightly. However they are likely to accept bribes of beer and spare parts.

[GGBB]

[EBK]

Dutch Elmers:

[iainpunk]

Dutch Elmers:

am i missing something, im dutch but have no idea what i'm supposed to see.

cheers

[EBK]

Dutch Elmers:

am i missing something, im dutch but have no idea what i'm supposed to see.

cheers

It's a dutch elm tree surrounded by tree enthusiasts.  Sorry, I didn't give enough context. 

[Vivek]

More about this word :

https://www.onallbands.com/word-of-the-day-elmer-why-do-we-call-a-ham-radio-mentor-elmer/

[Fancy Lime]

Vivek, I think the question in the thread title sums it up quite nicely. However, this is a Zen question. It has no answer. Like, if a tree falls and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

I have been through an obsessive phase of several years, much like you seem to be now. It seems to be a normal stage of development in this hobby, as many here will attest. I came out the other side with the realization that I should stop worrying and just do what is fun and sounds good to me. With lots of help from our Elmers. I could tell you to stop obsessing too but that won't help. Obsess! It is part of the journey. In the end, others can advise you on the technical questions. But "does it really matter?" Is something only can answer for yourself and everyone else has to answer it for themselves.

I have always liked experimenting with diodes and yes they sound different in certain circuits. But if I am brutally honest with myself, I must admit that I probably would not be able to tell a difference between most diode clipping arrangements in a real-life context A-B-blind test. Even under favourable conditions such as only the guitar playing during soundcheck or with the guitar track soloed on a recording. So, to me experimenting with diodes matters on the breadboard because it is fun. Whenever I get serious and build something purely for the sound of it, I keep it radically simple, though. I sometimes like the elegance of simplicity. If I wanted to sell pedals, I would use MOSFET body diodes and Russian NOS Ge-diodes because they have 67% more mojo than competing brands and that matters for some reason if you want to sell a product to musicians. Only you can know what matters to you. Nothing ever really matters anyway, in the grand scheme of things. The universe does not care.

Sorry, that went off the rails a bit BTW love the Elmer thing. Although the only Elmer I know, knows nothing about radios and only wants to kill the wabbit. I feel like we should have our own term for our Elmers/Grey Beards/Sensei. Suggestions?

Cheers,
Andy