Doepfer

> I am considering buying a 4096 stage bbd module. Thought to ask what
> type of filter you suggest to reduce the hsvco's noise.
> I've seen demos with lowpass and wasp filters too. I might need more
> possiblities and I might need the vco noise sometimes so at this
> moment I'm hesitating between a standard lowpass and a wasp/sem type
> filter... I guess there is no major technical difference/difficulty
> between the filtered clock tracking between these two filters...
> 
> What are your experiences? Thanks!
> 
> András

I have a 4096 I think Doepfer's BBD is an interesting concept with a very makeshift exteral solution to noise rather than what I'd call a proper solution. 

Bakis is correct and Doepfer recommends the A108 as the best answer from what's out there but it's an expensive and partial answer.

 Basically, IMHO Doepfer's interesting concept is to skip the signal pre and post treatment every BBD I've encountered has offered (with varying quality) since the first BBD delays of the 70s. Basically Doepfer brings down the price point and gives you a delay with a great feedback shaping path that seems intended to only emphasize the BBD artifacts. If you want them this is the delay module to get. What's missing is anything near a comprehensive signal optimizing option either internal or in a separate module. 

Filtering the clock is only part of what pretty much every other BBD based unit does. Most everything also compands (compresses the dynamics in, expands out). You don't have a readymade module solution. It's not impossible to patch a some sort of compressor and expander, though I think few have tried. Well I guess Cwejman has a $725 compressor but that's not a realistic solution to make an affordable BBD device work in higher fidelity.

So basically, imho, the way to look at it is nothing simple or cheap will give the Doepfer BBD delays the fidelity of many other BBD delays. It's the module series to get if you want the artifacts.  Considering the cost and only partial solution of the A-108 you may wish to consider an entirely different delay module design that gets you a cleaner sound from the get go. The A-108 is only a step of improvement though you can use it for something else when you aren't using the delay module.

nick

That explains a lot, thanks!

I was considering eventually swapping out my 1024 BBD for a 4096 one in the hope that the clock would be ultrasonic (at least when having an audible delay length comparable to the 1024 at slower settings), and therefore cut off by my breakout box's internal filter.

At any rate, if you're recording into a DAW, then the cheapest and easiest way to cut out the clock while preserving the other high frequency goodness of the delay signal is to use a series of software notch filters with realtime display, such as Reaper's ReaEQ.  The clock signal seems to have a few harmonics, but a handful of very thin notch filters can take them all out.  This works well as long as you don't change the speed of the BBD in any given recording.  By comparison, whenever I try lowpass filtering the BBD, it takes out too much of the actual effect along with the clock signal.

Hope that helps,
Zoë.

Thanks for this thread. I had forgotten why I was never interested in these
BBD modules. Now I remember :D
Anyway, talking low-fi delay, last week I received my A189-1 bit crusher. I
find the delay functions in that module very amusing... Ultra low-fi but
very entertaining!



On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Zo� Blade <zoe@bytenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> **
>
>
> That explains a lot, thanks!
>
> I was considering eventually swapping out my 1024 BBD for a 4096 one in
> the hope that the clock would be ultrasonic (at least when having an
> audible delay length comparable to the 1024 at slower settings), and
> therefore cut off by my breakout box's internal filter.
>
> At any rate, if you're recording into a DAW, then the cheapest and easiest
> way to cut out the clock while preserving the other high frequency goodness
> of the delay signal is to use a series of software notch filters with
> realtime display, such as Reaper's ReaEQ. The clock signal seems to have a
> few harmonics, but a handful of very thin notch filters can take them all
> out. This works well as long as you don't change the speed of the BBD in
> any given recording. By comparison, whenever I try lowpass filtering the
> BBD, it takes out too much of the actual effect along with the clock signal.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Zo�.
>  
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for the useful and diverse answers!
I have a Carbon Copy mxr analog delay pedal - certainly there must be a kind of cheap lowpass in it to filter out the noise of the delay clock...
I guess it's a more complex kind of a problem. 
What do you think about the pittsburgh modular analog delay? 
http://www.schneidersladen.de/en/pittsburgh-modular-analog-delay-2

András

--- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com, achtung_999 <heinrich.himmelwasser@...> wrote:

>
> Thanks for this thread. I had forgotten why I was never interested in these
> BBD modules. Now I remember :D
> Anyway, talking low-fi delay, last week I received my A189-1 bit crusher. I
> find the delay functions in that module very amusing... Ultra low-fi but
> very entertaining!
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Zoë Blade <zoe@...> wrote:
> 
> > **
> >
> >
> > That explains a lot, thanks!
> >
> > I was considering eventually swapping out my 1024 BBD for a 4096 one in
> > the hope that the clock would be ultrasonic (at least when having an
> > audible delay length comparable to the 1024 at slower settings), and
> > therefore cut off by my breakout box's internal filter.
> >
> > At any rate, if you're recording into a DAW, then the cheapest and easiest
> > way to cut out the clock while preserving the other high frequency goodness
> > of the delay signal is to use a series of software notch filters with
> > realtime display, such as Reaper's ReaEQ. The clock signal seems to have a
> > few harmonics, but a handful of very thin notch filters can take them all
> > out. This works well as long as you don't change the speed of the BBD in
> > any given recording. By comparison, whenever I try lowpass filtering the
> > BBD, it takes out too much of the actual effect along with the clock signal.
> >
> > Hope that helps,
> > Zoë.
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> Thanks for this thread. I had forgotten why I was never interested in these
> BBD modules. Now I remember :D

Just to make sure I'm not giving off the wrong impression here, my Doepfer BBD module is one of my favourite modules.  It's especially great how you can put anything you like (such as a sweeping filter) in the feedback loop.  It just needs a little loving attention in the EQ department afterwards, is all, which is definitely worth it.  You get a wonderful mid-twentieth-century era vibe out of it that I can't imagine getting any other way, too.  Very Delia Derbyshire or Raymond Scott sounding.

I also love it for Karplus Strong synthesis.  It doesn't respond to 1v/octave but if you don't quantise the CV's you can tune it by hand.  I've never been that bothered by the clock noise as it adds a bit of grit.

From: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Zoë Blade
Sent: 18 June 2012 10:06
To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] 'best' filter for bbd

 

  

> Thanks for this thread. I had forgotten why I was never interested in these
> BBD modules. Now I remember :D

Just to make sure I'm not giving off the wrong impression here, my Doepfer BBD module is one of my favourite modules. It's especially great how you can put anything you like (such as a sweeping filter) in the feedback loop. It just needs a little loving attention in the EQ department afterwards, is all, which is definitely worth it. You get a wonderful mid-twentieth-century era vibe out of it that I can't imagine getting any other way, too. Very Delia Derbyshire or Raymond Scott sounding.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

i agree that the A188-1 and A188-2 are some of my favorite Doepfer modules...

they can make a broad range of sounds and the clock noise is also not a big problem for me.

a bit of filtering before/after can fix it, for most of my applications at least.


Bakis Sirros - Parallel Worlds / Interconnected / Memory Geist
[Doepfer_a100] group owner
www. parallel - worlds - music. com
www. facebook. com/ pages/Parallel-Worlds/192093934136476
www. myspace. com/ interconnectedmusic
www. myspace. com/ memorygeist
www. DiN. org. uk
www. vu-us. com


________________________________

 From: Gavin Pykerman <gavin.pykerman@claremore.co.uk>
To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2012 12:08 PM
Subject: RE: [Doepfer_a100] 'best' filter for bbd
 

  
I also love it for Karplus Strong synthesis.  It doesn't respond to 1v/octave but if you don't quantise the CV's you can tune it by hand.  I've never been that bothered by the clock noise as it adds a bit of grit.

From: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Zoë Blade
Sent: 18 June 2012 10:06
To: Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Doepfer_a100] 'best' filter for bbd

> Thanks for this thread. I had forgotten why I was never interested in these
> BBD modules. Now I remember :D

Just to make sure I'm not giving off the wrong impression here, my Doepfer BBD module is one of my favourite modules. It's especially great how you can put anything you like (such as a sweeping filter) in the feedback loop. It just needs a little loving attention in the EQ department afterwards, is all, which is definitely worth it. You get a wonderful mid-twentieth-century era vibe out of it that I can't imagine getting any other way, too. Very Delia Derbyshire or Raymond Scott sounding.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]