Jump to content

Why is there only one TZF?


TheFloydian

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Originally posted by TheFloydian

Not suprisingly, I've never heard of any of those?


Do they suck?

 

 

The Alesis is a bit pants. DOes ome very odd noises but I didn't find it very musically inspiring.

 

The UD Stomp is a monster - if you have the patience it is a truly fantastic unit, but you do need to spend an hour or so running through the tutorials in the manual. Then it's surprisingly simple to use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Basically a normal flanger is a very short delay, where the delay time is modulated.

A through-zero flanger has two short delays, and only one is modulated. When the two delays are the same they cancel out and you get a moment of silence. So a through zero flanger sounds like a normal flanger, except that it "blips" and the flanger reverses direction for a bit.

It's hard to describe, but when you hear it it's clear what's happening - check Dave Fox's site for some very good clips. If you synchronise things just right it's a very cool effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by agentcooper2001

the difference being those units mentioned are digital emulations and the TZF is analog. Maybe the flanger hoax is analog, but I'm not sure.

 

 

They're not really emulations - it's the same process, but the flanging is in the digital domain. The TZF effect is just an emergent consequence of the process, whether it's digital or analogue. There's no great fundamental difference in how the effect comes about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by TheFloydian

Just seems like every other type of pedal has some kind of competition.


I guess FoxRox is the JC of guitar fx.



Long after we're gone - Dave Fox will be remembered and his chapter in the history of guitar effects will be well documented. I thought the TZF couldn't be anymore versatile - until I ordered a couple of expression pedals - one to use of course with the TZF. I can't imagine anything "out there" that comes close to what Dave Fox has come up with here. :eek:

:thu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by dot-dot-dot



They're not really emulations - it's the same process, but the flanging is in the digital domain. The TZF effect is just an emergent consequence of the process, whether it's digital or analogue. There's no great fundamental difference in how the effect comes about.

 

 

i don't agree with this.

Someone can take a sequence of 1's and 0's and manipulate it until it outputs as a file that sounds like through zero. This would be emulation. Analog means that the voltage signals created by the individual components cancel each other out to get that tzf. SO there is a difference imo. The final state may be similar but the paths getting there are completely different. Some would argue that the analog path sounds more superior because it has more of an unpredicatable character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by dot-dot-dot

Basically a normal flanger is a very short delay, where the delay time is modulated.


A through-zero flanger has two short delays, and only one is modulated. When the two delays are the same they cancel out and you get a moment of silence. So a through zero flanger sounds like a normal flanger, except that it "blips" and the flanger reverses direction for a bit.


It's hard to describe, but when you hear it it's clear what's happening - check Dave Fox's site for some very good clips. If you synchronise things just right it's a very cool effect.



Thanks. :thu: I listened to the clips and it makes perfect sense.

Can't say I'm particularly impressed by the effect. The zero crossings kinda sound like glitches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Cow4prez



i don't agree with this.

Someone can take a sequence of 1's and 0's and manipulate it until it outputs as a file that sounds like through zero. This would be emulation. Analog means that the voltage signals created by the individual components cancel each other out to get that tzf. SO there is a difference imo. The final state may be similar but the paths getting there are completely different. Some would argue that the analog path sounds more superior because it has more of an unpredicatable character.

 

 

No.

 

The UD Stomp, at least, creates two delay lines. They are digital, true, but they are distinct delay lines nevertheless. They are then mixed. The through-zero flanging in the UD Stomp is therefore just as "real" as in the TZF because it is generated in exactly the same way - the digital/analogue distinction is utterly irrelevant, because the only difference is that the signal is either represented as a voltage or as a number denoting the voltage level.

 

Through zero flanging is created by having two delay lines, one of which is modulated so that its delay goes longer and shorter than the other. Whether the delay lines are digital or analogue is not relevant.

 

It's possible that the Alesis and the Line6 do model the process rather than carry it out in the digital domain - I don't know enough about the internal architecture to comment (though my guess would be that the Line6 models it and the Alesis does it for real) but the UD Stomp does TZF "properly" - two entirely independent delay lines and the cancellation that results from the modulation of one of them. The proof of this is that if you turn the unmodulated line off you get "normal" flanging, and if you turn the modulated one off you get a static comb filter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Flanger Hoax can TZF much better than the Foxrox; by that I mean it can TZF for much longer intervals. But TZFing are the only thing those two flangers really have in common.

The Alesis Phlngr does an excellent usuable TZF, but the pedal is so noisy that it's almost a piece of junk. If someone made a less noisy version of the Phlngr, it would be the only I would really need.

I played the LiquaFlange last week at a noisy Guitar Center. My impression was that it was a cheap pedal that did it's thing. The plastic knobs just really turned me off about it. Granted that most knobs are plastic, but the knobs on the LiquaFlange were just offensively flimsy. It's probably the same for most of the ToneCore series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by grob-bucket



Thanks.
:thu:
I listened to the clips and it makes perfect sense.


Can't say I'm particularly impressed by the effect. The zero crossings kinda sound like glitches.


You need to understand the historical significance of this effect before you can properly judge.Please listen to Jimi Hendrix "House Burnin' Down" "And The Gods Made Love" from Electric Ladyland and the title track from "Axis Bold As Love".There are many other fine examples of TZF based on the "lean to" recording technique which is of course the reversal of a multi track tape head mechanism,with an assistant to the engineer leaning on the head against the tape rolling during recording.There were different monitor feed/delay/pan variations all discovered and perfected by Jimi and Producer Eddie Kramer.Nearly four decades later Dave Foxx had the genius to put this previously unavailable sound in a stomp sized box,he should sue Line 6 and bollocks to the rest of em' too!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by joegrant413



Hey dot-dot-dot, I have the Magic Stomp, which can do most (all?) UD Stomp patches. Which flanger patches do TZF?


-- Joe

 

 

None of the stock patches in the UD do. But all you have to do is set a pair or short delays, then modulate one of them and kill the dry signal. I think you have to phase-invert one band.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...