Acoustic enhancers/Exciters

[Hamptonguitar]

Can anyone explain what these are all about? As I understand it, this is not the same as regular EQ everybody is used to but something else. Perhaps it is EQ plus compression or perhaps not.
-
This keeps coming up on searches and the sound examples do appear stunning.

https://reverb.com/uk/item/4696763-a...-aural-exciter

https://youtu.be/hGVhw1KpZT0

But it’s been delisted. Does the bodyrez do the same thing? Are there other examples. How useful are they?

Perhaps someone can explain.

[Gordon Currie]

The Aphex aural exciter adds a small amount of distortion at certain frequencies (the mid-treble range IIRC). This has the psycho-acoustic effect of enhancing the top end without actually raising the level. I believe other exciters work the same way.

Back in the 80s I built a circuit (might have been from Craig Anderton) that used this technique to create a "poor man's Aphex." It worked pretty well for the time and I used it a lot on final mixes.

All these exciter devices work OK if you don't overuse them. If you do, then the sound starts getting artificial rapidly.

Wikipedia link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exciter_(effect)

[SpruceTop]

Originally Posted by Gordon Currie

The Aphex aural exciter adds a small amount of distortion at certain frequencies (the mid-treble range IIRC). This has the psycho-acoustic effect of enhancing the top end without actually raising the level. I believe other exciters work the same way.

Back in the 80s I built a circuit (might have been from Craig Anderton) that used this technique to create a "poor man's Aphex." It worked pretty well for the time and I used it a lot on final mixes.

All these exciter devices work OK if you don't overuse them. If you do, then the sound starts getting artificial rapidly.

Gordon, if you have any experience with it, please comment on the LR Baggs Acoustic Session DI. I have one and it seems to enhance the amplified tone--if not overly used--of an acoustic guitar. This device looks like it incorporates the desired parameters of acoustic-guitar recording/amplification. The ToneDexter is the other best device for acoustic-guitar recording/amplification that I've come across. I haven't used both these devices together yet but will do so soon. Thanks.

[Gordon Currie]

I haven't used the Acoustic Session DI. It appears to use EQ and a little bit of saturation (i.e. distortion). Might have a little overlap with exciter technology.

The Tonedexter (which I am using) is a different technology altogether. My understanding is that it creates a representation of the difference between a miked signal and a transducer signal. This representation (WaveMap) is used to reconstruct the signal in real time.

There are a couple of long threads on Tonedexter where a member named Cuki gives a lot of information on his understanding of how Tonedexter works its magic, and how the same fundamental technology (but much cruder) is used in products like Fishman Aura.

[Doug Young]

The general idea of an exciter as Gordon says is to introduce some distortion in a way that adds some "excitement" to the sound. Our ears like a little complexity. I used to use an exciter back when I recorded to tape on Tascam machines, it tended to make up for the loss in fidelity from the low end tape machines. It did tend to present a bit of a challenge - you think a little sounds good, then you get used to it, so you add more, untill you get use to that, etc. Then the next day you wonder why the mix sounds so bright. The first thing I think of when I hear exciter is add high-end, which can make an acoustic sparkle a bit, lifting it out of the mud, but the idea can be done for any frequencies. The Aphex "Big Bottom" (discontinued) adds some low end, presumably using the same techniques, as well as highs. I have an old one, and it works well. I never thought that Bresh video was particularly impressive, tho. It still sounds like a pickup sound when he's done.

The Session Di also uses a similar idea, tho the saturation on the Session seems to be focused on the mids, adding warmth, not brightness or bass, so it's almost the opposite of the Aphex. The "EQ" actually comes from a multi-band compressor, which tends to boost the bass and trebles and cut the mids, but does it with compression. This is similar to a "loudness" control that we used to have on some stereos, which boosted the highs and lows to counter the Fletcher-Munson curve of our ears at lower volumes. So the Session gives you a "smiley" curve thru compression, while also evening out the levels and adding some smoothness, while the saturation adds warmth. It works well, and can make a pickup sound better, tho the effect is subtle, unless you pile it on to the point of audible distortion. It's more subtle than the Aphex.

ToneDexter is totally different, using Impulse Responses to transform a pickup sound into a mic'd sound. It's a whole different approach, and in general is a major leap ahead in terms of what it can do. It lets you sound like a real acoustic guitar - not just a pickup with some added "excitement".

[shufflebeat]

Hi HG

I have the Aphex box in my mending drawer at the minute. I used it for a few years, gradually dialling in less and less of it's effect until it eventually became a glorified DI box. I'm not sure when, or if, I'll ever get round to fixing it.

I currently use either:

1) a pedal board with the Electro Harmonics "freeze" pedal in front of the original Fishman Aura Blender which is my go-to solution having spent a long time auditioning "images" til I found the right ones for my guitars and mandola

2) If I'm travelling light I use the Yamaha AG stomp (more old tech) for a single box solution which is also very good.

[Hamptonguitar]

Originally Posted by Gordon Currie

The Aphex aural exciter adds a small amount of distortion at certain frequencies (the mid-treble range IIRC). This has the psycho-acoustic effect of enhancing the top end without actually raising the level. I believe other exciters work the same way.

Back in the 80s I built a circuit (might have been from Craig Anderton) that used this technique to create a "poor man's Aphex." It worked pretty well for the time and I used it a lot on final mixes.

All these exciter devices work OK if you don't overuse them. If you do, then the sound starts getting artificial rapidly.

Wikipedia link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exciter_(effect)

Thankyou Gordon.

What gadgets are available today that do what the Aphex did? What would be the closest?

Thanks again.

[Hamptonguitar]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

The general idea of an exciter as Gordon says is to introduce some distortion in a way that adds some "excitement" to the sound. Our ears like a little complexity. I used to use an exciter back when I recorded to tape on Tascam machines, it tended to make up for the loss in fidelity from the low end tape machines. It did tend to present a bit of a challenge - you think a little sounds good, then you get used to it, so you add more, untill you get use to that, etc. Then the next day you wonder why the mix sounds so bright. The first thing I think of when I hear exciter is add high-end, which can make an acoustic sparkle a bit, lifting it out of the mud, but the idea can be done for any frequencies. The Aphex "Big Bottom" (discontinued) adds some low end, presumably using the same techniques, as well as highs. I have an old one, and it works well. I never thought that Bresh video was particularly impressive, tho. It still sounds like a pickup sound when he's done.

The Session Di also uses a similar idea, tho the saturation on the Session seems to be focused on the mids, adding warmth, not brightness or bass, so it's almost the opposite of the Aphex. The "EQ" actually comes from a multi-band compressor, which tends to boost the bass and trebles and cut the mids, but does it with compression. This is similar to a "loudness" control that we used to have on some stereos, which boosted the highs and lows to counter the Fletcher-Munson curve of our ears at lower volumes. So the Session gives you a "smiley" curve thru compression, while also evening out the levels and adding some smoothness, while the saturation adds warmth. It works well, and can make a pickup sound better, tho the effect is subtle, unless you pile it on to the point of audible distortion. It's more subtle than the Aphex.

ToneDexter is totally different, using Impulse Responses to transform a pickup sound into a mic'd sound. It's a whole different approach, and in general is a major leap ahead in terms of what it can do. It lets you sound like a real acoustic guitar - not just a pickup with some added "excitement".

Thanks Doug.

In your opinion is the ToneDexter the best available device for shaping acoustic guitar sound - towards the goal of making the amplified sound as “true” as the unamplifed sound? Or is it more complex, requiring the interplay of pickups/mics active or passive, etc with an outboard device?

What is the “rig” and set up you’d favour. Apologies if you’ve answered this elsewhere. I imagine you have tried more combinations than most others on AGF.

Rob

[Gordon Currie]

Originally Posted by Hamptonguitar

Thankyou Gordon.

What gadgets are available today that do what the Aphex did? What would be the closest?

Thanks again.

Since a lot of issues the Aphex was able to "fix" don't exists anymore, there is less reason to use it (or similar). So I don't.

The Tonedexter is not an effect in the same way at all.

[atticus1019]

I use the aphex aural exciter/big bottom pedal in one of my live rigs. They are discontinued but can be found for next to nothing used. I can’t imagine playing without one in a full band setting. It gives me control over the high end sparkle that cuts through a full mix and the big bottom definitely lives up to its name. As Doug mentioned, the harmonic distortion adds a perceived frequency emphasis without increasing actual volume. It is definitely most noticeable in the low end. This thing really adds a nice almost exaggerated low end punch without muddying up the frequency spectrum. It makes my d35 sound like a dreadnought again. As was mentioned, it is easy to over do it, but as a final polishing touch I wouldn’t travel without it. Only drawback is it’s ugly as sin.

[jparis51]

BBE Sonic Maximizers, available as pedals, preamps, rack units and software, use a different technology that I've found useful in small doses. It's a time-based effect where sounds in different frequency ranges are passed through slightly ahead of or behind one another. The basic idea is for speakers to not have to deal with all sounds simultaneously, so each part of the frequency spectrum gains a little more definition.

As examples, it helps to more clearly define the individual strings in a strummed chord when applied to a guitar, and improves the separation of individual instruments in a mix. As with a lot of technology, things can go south in a hurry if overused, but I like using one just a touch on my guitar and in a mix. I don't know how good the pedals are as I just use one of their rack units that has pro audio specs.