|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 5, 2013 14:35:38 GMT -5
Technically speaking, if the Aphex realigns frequencies in time (and I am wondering, doesn't it then depend on how far away you are sitting from the speakers?) then that is distorting the original signal. I remember reading on the Linda Ronstadt album cover back in 1977 that they used one of those Aphex Aural Exciters (which I thought was a great name). James Taylor used it on one of his albums, too. I thought they both sounded great. I am not happy about the CD version of Simple Dreams, though. While I never directly compared the vinyl with the CD, I remember the vinyl sounding a lot better. The CD sounds lifeless. No, it does not "distort" the sound at all, it justs slows down and or speeds up certain frequencies smililar to a time alignment cabinet (think Thiel). High frequencies reach the listener sooner so a time aligned cabinet has their starting point further away. The thought is so they all get to your ear at the same time. The Aural Exciter goes one step futher and slows or increases certain high frequncies to emphisize that breathy sound and intelligibility. Barcus Berry makes some thing like that as well called the Sonic Maximizer www.bbesound.com/products/sonic-maximizers/882i.aspxWell then it undistorts it. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Feb 5, 2013 14:44:01 GMT -5
Technically speaking, if the Aphex realigns frequencies in time (and I am wondering, doesn't it then depend on how far away you are sitting from the speakers?) then that is distorting the original signal. I remember reading on the Linda Ronstadt album cover back in 1977 that they used one of those Aphex Aural Exciters (which I thought was a great name). James Taylor used it on one of his albums, too. I thought they both sounded great. I am not happy about the CD version of Simple Dreams, though. While I never directly compared the vinyl with the CD, I remember the vinyl sounding a lot better. The CD sounds lifeless. No, it does not "distort" the sound at all, it justs slows down and or speeds up certain frequencies smililar to a time alignment cabinet (think Thiel). High frequencies reach the listener sooner so a time aligned cabinet has their starting point further away. The thought is so they all get to your ear at the same time. The Aural Exciter goes one step futher and slows or increases certain high frequncies to emphisize that breathy sound and intelligibility. Barcus Berry makes some thing like that as well called the Sonic Maximizer www.bbesound.com/products/sonic-maximizers/882i.aspxBut if you compare the before and after waveforms, I'll bet the "after" will be distorted from the "before". |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 5, 2013 16:18:22 GMT -5
No, I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. The schematics of the original Aural Exciter were published (I believe you can get them from the patent office), and you can find copies of various newer versions if you Google enthusiastically. The signal is passed through a full-wave active rectifier, which, by definition, generates second harmonic distortion. They then filter this to remove all other harmonics, so ONLY the second harmonic remains, and add that back into the original. This added second harmonic content is what adds the "liveness" and "fullness". How they do it hasn't been a secret for a very long time. Aphex says that "their patented harmonic processing brings out the selected frequencies without adding gain". What that translates to in English is that, by adding second harmonics to a frequency, they make that frequency seem louder and clearer, without having to actually boost the level. In other words, ADDING SECOND HARMONIC DISTORTION to a voice, for example, makes the voice sound "more present" and more intelligible (and somewhat "warmer"), even if you don't boost the level. It's not a big deal, and it sounds very nice (if used in moderation), but make no mistake that it is a deliberate alteration of the original. (It also sounds very nice with voice, and with some instruments, but crummy with others, and the processor can only be optimized to target one frequency range at a time - which is why it works well in mastering, where it can be applied one track at a time, but not so well if you try to apply it to the entire mix.) It is also true that Aphex has been known to use language like "creates and restores missing harmonic information" - thereby claiming that the harmonic content it adds "should have been there to begin with... and we're just putting it back". I would assume that their distortion specs apply to the signal path itself (I'm not in any way suggesting that they're lying). Although, in all fairness, since the second harmonics they add are a desired result, they don't count as "distortion" anyway. If you actually have one, then try putting a sine wave through it, and put the result on a spectrum analyzer - you will clearly see extra harmonics being added to the output (in amounts directly proportional to how far you turn the mix-in knob.) Here is an article (and favorable review) that describes how the Aphex 204 (their latest model) works - in detail: www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_3/aphex-204-big-bottom-7-2004.htmlThey quote from the Aphex 204 manual, which is rather unabashed about its adding and changing things..... Actually, what the aural exciter does is to add distortion. The original Aphex Aural Exciter, which can be heard at its most distinctive on Linda Ronstadt's album with Blue Bayou, was designed to create and add controlled amounts of second harmonic distortion; the new DSP versions do that plus a few other things. Now, a lot of people *perceive* the extra distortion as "extra warmth"; and there have been studies that show that, at least sometimes, adding second harmonic distortion actually *improves* intelligibility as well as adding "punch" to voice. Technical details aside, sometimes it sounds very nice. (And it may even make certain studio recordings sound more like a live performance.) However, it is *not* the job of *high-fidelity* equipment to change the sound - even for the better; that is the job of the recording engineer. (And, of course, it may *not* make *every* type of music, or even every song, sound better.) If a recording engineer wants to record on an AKG, then use post-processing to make it sound like a Neumann, well, that's his (or her) prerogative. But, as an audiophile, that isn't my goal (nor my decision to make). No. The aural exciter does not add distortion. It realigns frequencies in time so some arrive at your ear sooner than others. I have one and I know how it works. I believe the THD is .003% on the Exciter... Aphex would love to hear you saying that  |
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Feb 5, 2013 16:41:30 GMT -5
No, I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. The schematics of the original Aural Exciter were published (I believe you can get them from the patent office), and you can find copies of various newer versions if you Google enthusiastically. The signal is passed through a full-wave active rectifier, which, by definition, generates second harmonic distortion. They then filter this to remove all other harmonics, so ONLY the second harmonic remains, and add that back into the original. This added second harmonic content is what adds the "liveness" and "fullness". How they do it hasn't been a secret for a very long time. Aphex says that "their patented harmonic processing brings out the selected frequencies without adding gain". What that translates to in English is that, by adding second harmonics to a frequency, they make that frequency seem louder and clearer, without having to actually boost the level. In other words, ADDING SECOND HARMONIC DISTORTION to a voice, for example, makes the voice sound "more present" and more intelligible (and somewhat "warmer"), even if you don't boost the level. It's not a big deal, and it sounds very nice (if used in moderation), but make no mistake that it is a deliberate alteration of the original. (It also sounds very nice with voice, and with some instruments, but crummy with others, and the processor can only be optimized to target one frequency range at a time - which is why it works well in mastering, where it can be applied one track at a time, but not so well if you try to apply it to the entire mix.) It is also true that Aphex has been known to use language like "creates and restores missing harmonic information" - thereby claiming that the harmonic content it adds "should have been there to begin with... and we're just putting it back". I would assume that their distortion specs apply to the signal path itself (I'm not in any way suggesting that they're lying). Although, in all fairness, since the second harmonics they add are a desired result, they don't count as "distortion" anyway. If you actually have one, then try putting a sine wave through it, and put the result on a spectrum analyzer - you will clearly see extra harmonics being added to the output (in amounts directly proportional to how far you turn the mix-in knob.) Here is an article (and favorable review) that describes how the Aphex 204 (their latest model) works - in detail: www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_3/aphex-204-big-bottom-7-2004.htmlThey quote from the Aphex 204 manual, which is rather unabashed about its adding and changing things..... No. The aural exciter does not add distortion. It realigns frequencies in time so some arrive at your ear sooner than others. I have one and I know how it works. I believe the THD is .003% on the Exciter... Aphex would love to hear you saying that [/quote No. You're wrong. It creates no more than .0003% distortion according to their specs. Thats inaudible.... Inaudible is inaudible and you don't get extra brownie points for making it twice as inaudible as another solution. Props to Dyohn.. And stop arguing with me! I'm the customer and I have way more Emo gear than you do!! :-) |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Feb 5, 2013 17:11:05 GMT -5
No, I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. The schematics of the original Aural Exciter were published (I believe you can get them from the patent office), and you can find copies of various newer versions if you Google enthusiastically. The signal is passed through a full-wave active rectifier, which, by definition, generates second harmonic distortion. They then filter this to remove all other harmonics, so ONLY the second harmonic remains, and add that back into the original. This added second harmonic content is what adds the "liveness" and "fullness". How they do it hasn't been a secret for a very long time. Aphex says that "their patented harmonic processing brings out the selected frequencies without adding gain". What that translates to in English is that, by adding second harmonics to a frequency, they make that frequency seem louder and clearer, without having to actually boost the level. In other words, ADDING SECOND HARMONIC DISTORTION to a voice, for example, makes the voice sound "more present" and more intelligible (and somewhat "warmer"), even if you don't boost the level. It's not a big deal, and it sounds very nice (if used in moderation), but make no mistake that it is a deliberate alteration of the original. (It also sounds very nice with voice, and with some instruments, but crummy with others, and the processor can only be optimized to target one frequency range at a time - which is why it works well in mastering, where it can be applied one track at a time, but not so well if you try to apply it to the entire mix.) It is also true that Aphex has been known to use language like "creates and restores missing harmonic information" - thereby claiming that the harmonic content it adds "should have been there to begin with... and we're just putting it back". I would assume that their distortion specs apply to the signal path itself (I'm not in any way suggesting that they're lying). Although, in all fairness, since the second harmonics they add are a desired result, they don't count as "distortion" anyway. If you actually have one, then try putting a sine wave through it, and put the result on a spectrum analyzer - you will clearly see extra harmonics being added to the output (in amounts directly proportional to how far you turn the mix-in knob.) Here is an article (and favorable review) that describes how the Aphex 204 (their latest model) works - in detail: www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_3/aphex-204-big-bottom-7-2004.htmlThey quote from the Aphex 204 manual, which is rather unabashed about its adding and changing things..... No. The aural exciter does not add distortion. It realigns frequencies in time so some arrive at your ear sooner than others. I have one and I know how it works. I believe the THD is .003% on the Exciter... Aphex would love to hear you saying that [/quote No. You're wrong. It creates no more than .0003% distortion according to their specs. Thats inaudible.... Inaudible is inaudible and you don't get extra brownie points for making it twice as inaudible as another solution. Props to Dyohn.. And stop arguing with me! I'm the customer and I have way more Emo gear than you do!! :-) Actually, Keith has 9 XPR-1s for the 9.4 system he has around his desk. It's why out lights dim here at work once in awhile. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Feb 5, 2013 17:12:20 GMT -5
No, I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. The schematics of the original Aural Exciter were published (I believe you can get them from the patent office), and you can find copies of various newer versions if you Google enthusiastically. The signal is passed through a full-wave active rectifier, which, by definition, generates second harmonic distortion. They then filter this to remove all other harmonics, so ONLY the second harmonic remains, and add that back into the original. This added second harmonic content is what adds the "liveness" and "fullness". How they do it hasn't been a secret for a very long time. Aphex says that "their patented harmonic processing brings out the selected frequencies without adding gain". What that translates to in English is that, by adding second harmonics to a frequency, they make that frequency seem louder and clearer, without having to actually boost the level. In other words, ADDING SECOND HARMONIC DISTORTION to a voice, for example, makes the voice sound "more present" and more intelligible (and somewhat "warmer"), even if you don't boost the level. It's not a big deal, and it sounds very nice (if used in moderation), but make no mistake that it is a deliberate alteration of the original. (It also sounds very nice with voice, and with some instruments, but crummy with others, and the processor can only be optimized to target one frequency range at a time - which is why it works well in mastering, where it can be applied one track at a time, but not so well if you try to apply it to the entire mix.) It is also true that Aphex has been known to use language like "creates and restores missing harmonic information" - thereby claiming that the harmonic content it adds "should have been there to begin with... and we're just putting it back". I would assume that their distortion specs apply to the signal path itself (I'm not in any way suggesting that they're lying). Although, in all fairness, since the second harmonics they add are a desired result, they don't count as "distortion" anyway. If you actually have one, then try putting a sine wave through it, and put the result on a spectrum analyzer - you will clearly see extra harmonics being added to the output (in amounts directly proportional to how far you turn the mix-in knob.) Here is an article (and favorable review) that describes how the Aphex 204 (their latest model) works - in detail: www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_3/aphex-204-big-bottom-7-2004.htmlThey quote from the Aphex 204 manual, which is rather unabashed about its adding and changing things..... No. The aural exciter does not add distortion. It realigns frequencies in time so some arrive at your ear sooner than others. I have one and I know how it works. I believe the THD is .003% on the Exciter... Aphex would love to hear you saying that [/quote No. You're wrong. It creates no more than .0003% distortion according to their specs. Thats inaudible.... Inaudible is inaudible and you don't get extra brownie points for making it twice as inaudible as another solution. Props to Dyohn.. And stop arguing with me! I'm the customer and I have way more Emo gear than you do!! :-) It seems to me you are arguing apples and oranges - the definition of "distortion" is not the same. I take "distortion" as used by Keith to mean the end product has been audibly modified from the original input signal. That's neither good or bad, it just means what was X has now been distorted to something that is no longer X, and done on purpose. Your "distortion" is a tolerance from what the manufacturer is trying to achieve and does not measure how different the end product signal is from the original. It is more like the difference between a perfect result of what Aphex was trying to achieve versus what they actually did achieve. At least that's how I read it. Those are two different measures of "distortion." |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Feb 5, 2013 17:34:05 GMT -5
[/quote No. You're wrong. It creates no more than .0003% distortion according to their specs. Thats inaudible.... Inaudible is inaudible and you don't get extra brownie points for making it twice as inaudible as another solution. Props to Dyohn.. And stop arguing with me! I'm the customer and I have way more Emo gear than you do!! :-) It seems to me you are arguing apples and oranges - the definition of "distortion" is not the same. I take "distortion" as used by Keith to mean the end product has been audibly modified from the original input signal. That's neither good or bad, it just means what was X has now been distorted to something that is no longer X, and done on purpose. Your "distortion" is a tolerance from what the manufacturer is trying to achieve and does not measure how different the end product signal is from the original. It is more like the difference between a perfect result of what Aphex was trying to achieve versus what they actually did achieve. At least that's how I read it. Those are two different measures of "distortion." I thought that as well. They don't count the intentional distortion. |
|
|
|
Post by Porscheguy on Feb 5, 2013 20:17:20 GMT -5
Stop distorting the facts George!! :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Feb 5, 2013 20:33:31 GMT -5
Stop distorting the facts George!! :-) Wha? Who me? Wouldn't think of it!  |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 5, 2013 21:20:57 GMT -5
Exactly. The Aphex is intended to modify the sound. The modification they perform is "to create additional harmonic content and add it to the original". This happens to be (and, I think, you can hardly call it a coincidence) the same type of distortion that is the predominant form of distortion present in tube amplifiers when they are slightly overloaded. In other words, it would be fair to say that the Aphex, by design, "adds tube-like sound" to whatever you process with it. When this happens by accident, it is distortion; when it's deliberate, it's "an effect". And, either way, it most certainly is *not* "high-fidelity" or "accurate". I suspect that the 0.03% THD they specify is for the rest of the signal chain in the unit. In other words they measure and rate the part that doesn't make the changes, and, since the changes by definition are intentional, they are excluded from that measurement; this seems entirely fair and honest to me. Clearly, if the entire effect it produced was inaudible, then there wouldn't be much point in it, now would there? It seems to me you are arguing apples and oranges - the definition of "distortion" is not the same. I take "distortion" as used by Keith to mean the end product has been audibly modified from the original input signal. That's neither good or bad, it just means what was X has now been distorted to something that is no longer X, and done on purpose. Your "distortion" is a tolerance from what the manufacturer is trying to achieve and does not measure how different the end product signal is from the original. It is more like the difference between a perfect result of what Aphex was trying to achieve versus what they actually did achieve. At least that's how I read it. Those are two different measures of "distortion." I thought that as well. They don't count the intentional distortion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 12:27:11 GMT -5
And stop arguing with me! I'm the customer and I have way more Emo gear than you do!! :-) With Keith's employee discount that won't be true for long! ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 13:09:07 GMT -5
Hey guys, can I ask you politely to start your own thread about the Aural Exciter and stop trashing my thread?
-RW-
|
|
|
|
Post by weird23 on Feb 6, 2013 13:16:31 GMT -5
Hey guys, can I ask you politely to start your own thread about the Aural Exciter and stop trashing my thread? -RW- Have you noticed any improvement now that your a little more used to the sound of the XPA-5? I'm starting to get used to mine after a couple of weeks, not a huge change form the XPA-1's though. I find the XPA-1's have a quieter noise floor and obviously have the ability to play louder. Going to give the XPA-5 another couple of weeks of play time before hooking up the monos again. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2013 17:04:35 GMT -5
The XPA-5 is sounding good to me especially on movies and such. And it is dead quiet. I do miss the Butler, but the XPA-5 will do quite well for me until my financial situation is sorted out...
-RW-
PS: The XPA-5 plays *plenty* loud enough for me.
|
|
tz
Minor Hero
Posts: 14
|
Post by tz on Feb 8, 2013 9:17:28 GMT -5
Hey, come on, exciter adds distortion, but calls it effect. It modifies the original signal mixing it with second harmonic (and some other things) in the higher frequencies. On the low end it adds compression then mixes it with the original. KeithL is right and quite open to share some technical details here. BTW, similar devices to Aphex's and BBE's are produced by Behringer which is a company having similar strategy to Emotiva, but in the professional audio field.
|
|
