[sdiy] Screwing with Square Waves

[cheater00 .]

On Sun, Nov 3, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Mattias Rickardsson <mr at analogue.org> wrote:
> On 3 November 2013 11:12, cheater00 . <cheater00 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 3 Nov 2013 00:21, "Mattias Rickardsson" <mr at analogue.org> wrote:
>>
>>> detuning two of them wouldn't give the flanging effect that we're used to,
>>> since the overtones aren't faded in/out in a specific order.
>>
>> Why wouldn't they be? Flanging is perfectly well explained in the time
>> domain. It has a specific transfer function given by the amount of delay and
>> the feedback, and nothing more. The transfer function does not depend AT ALL
>> on the program pushed through it. A perfect flanger sounds the same on two
>> waveforms that sound the same. An analog flanger might sound very different.
>
> I'm sorry - I wrote flanging, but was referring to adding two
> *differently* random-phased signals. Two signals with square-wave
> spectra, but with random phases on all the partials. And then flanging
> (in the most original meaning of the word) them against each other.
> That should sound quite different, right?
> It was after midnight and I should have gone to bed instead... :-)

Yes.

>>> Often it feels like we use synth waveforms near the limit where our
>>> hearing starts to sense the separate edges of the waveforms. In bass
>>> frequencies very much so. And I get the feeling that it can give a
>>> kind of listening fatigue, especially when hearing very dry synth
>>> sounds. Maybe the random-phase variants are the solution?
>>
>> I think this is a great idea.
>
> Does any synth use it?
>
> /mr

No.