Inverted Clipping & Clipping From Inside

[RobC]

Not sure how much people like to experiment with "amplitude mapping" (as GoldWave calls it when it comes to dynamics processing), or I guess this exactly falls into wave-shaping category; but in general it's very flexible, bit-accurate amplitude processing.

One thing I got excited about, is that you can control what to do with peaks at a top range you specify. See, when it comes to peaks, it's common to limit, or clip / saturate them, but it either makes transients soft sounding, or ads some noisiness to them as it scatters frequencies.
While messing around, I tried setting peaks to zero, which created extreme gaps, instead of clipping the sound. In digital audio, this sort of creates a short click. Thus, instead of flattening a transient in case of regular dynamic reduction methods, this creates an illusion of an added transient.

Of course, no need to set the original peaks to zero, one could try catching everything around 75%, and since the ceiling will be at 75%, the peaks could be set to 50%, so that there's that 25% taken away, then let's make a 25% difference, thus creating a more subtle click.

~

The other one, 'clipping from the inside' where you clip everything that's say below 25% of the full range, or lower, cause that can get noisy. I think that probably is already a common thing, but it can bring out interesting things sometimes without touching the rest of the waveform. I always was interested in extracting what we can't hear - including what's happening at too low levels.

~

And a bonus that fascinates me, is brick-wall gating, where you can gate whatever range, and how you want. Sure it doesn't sound nice (though interesting distortion!), but it can be a great source of modulation!

In fact, if we extract peaks, we can use that to trigger an envelope, or whatever we like.

I can't believe I didn't dig into this earlier!

[Loque]

Interesting... Let's me think about a few ideas i should try with math...

[RobC]

Interesting... Let's me think about a few ideas i should try with math...

I still need to get to back that, too, though this is a lot easier.

Here, this takes every positive and negative wave above 75% full scale, and sets it to zero.

Untitled2.png (8.3 KiB) Viewed 1205 times

[FLVZ]

At the end there are you talking about amplitude based modulation? Kind of like a compressor GR triggering a sound when GR kicks in ? I've wanted to try this for a while for laying things with percussion

[RobC]

At the end there are you talking about amplitude based modulation? Kind of like a compressor GR triggering a sound when GR kicks in ? I've wanted to try this for a while for laying things with percussion

Pretty much. In this case, you draw what's gonna happen to the amplitude whenever it hits your given range.

[RobC]

I gotta say, clipping low levels really can bring out interesting things from some sounds.
Also, rejecting either positive or negative part of a waveform, or adding one to the other can yet again reveal some different characteristics.

These are exactly the type of "clean" effects I like to use in sound design, when generating sounds.

It's so simple! Useful for both effects, or modulators. Not just for AM and RM!

[Loque]

Sounds like a wave shaper and looks like the classic FOLDing.

waveshaper.jpg (243.19 KiB) Viewed 1120 times

[RobC]

Sounds like a wave shaper and looks like the classic FOLDing.
waveshaper.jpg

I'd think so, yes, pretty much a wave shaper. Though I don't know why people prefer to clip/saturate some huge peaks, when they can be brought back to the sound more creatively, instead of killing transients, resulting in a flat sound.

Takes experimentation. I actually made a fold effect with it, too, but it didn't sound nicer. Best results were when I left the peaks' waveform as they were, and instead just let them sink down. The more they sink, the louder clicks they create. Reminded me of some rhythmic vinyl crackle.

[Loque]

Sounds like a wave shaper and looks like the classic FOLDing.
waveshaper.jpg

I'd think so, yes, pretty much a wave shaper. Though I don't know why people prefer to clip/saturate some huge peaks, when they can be brought back to the sound more creatively, instead of killing transients, resulting in a flat sound.

Takes experimentation. I actually made a fold effect with it, too, but it didn't sound nicer. Best results were when I left the peaks' waveform as they were, and instead just let them sink down. The more they sink, the louder clicks they create. Reminded me of some rhythmic vinyl crackle.

I am curious how to achive some other simple fx. Its kind a weird, that its just a simple formula to get a FOLDing fx and ppl want to get a big bunch of money for that.

[RobC]

I'd think so, yes, pretty much a wave shaper. Though I don't know why people prefer to clip/saturate some huge peaks, when they can be brought back to the sound more creatively, instead of killing transients, resulting in a flat sound.

Takes experimentation. I actually made a fold effect with it, too, but it didn't sound nicer. Best results were when I left the peaks' waveform as they were, and instead just let them sink down. The more they sink, the louder clicks they create. Reminded me of some rhythmic vinyl crackle.

I am curious how to achive some other simple fx. Its kind a weird, that its just a simple formula to get a FOLDing fx and ppl want to get a big bunch of money for that.

Good business I guess. xD

And sure! Like I said, removing the negative waveforms, like in the example pics below (or the positive ones ~ can have different sound); or adding them to the top, sort of flipping them up can do various weirdnesses.

1.png (84.69 KiB) Viewed 1105 times

2.png (13.47 KiB) Viewed 1105 times

[RobC]

Of course, doing a 20 Hz low cut is a good idea here, resulting in this (after the previous flip):

3.png (51.56 KiB) Viewed 1103 times

[selig]

And sure! Like I said, removing the negative waveforms, like in the example pics below (or the positive ones ~ can have different sound); or adding them to the top, sort of flipping them up can do various weirdnesses.

Sound like full and half rectifying?

As for the overall subject, and though you’re probably tired of hearing me say stuff like this, I’ve been exploring “level mapping” (didn’t know anyone else used the term) in Reaktor for many years now. That’s partly where the Selig Leveler came from, mapping lower levels to a target level (up to a point).

It’s indeed fun to take the peak levels down to zero, producing what I call the “hole puncher” effect.

LOTS of fun stuff can happen, and my explorations will eventually become a new RE.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[RobC]

And sure! Like I said, removing the negative waveforms, like in the example pics below (or the positive ones ~ can have different sound); or adding them to the top, sort of flipping them up can do various weirdnesses.

Sound like full and half rectifying?

As for the overall subject, and though you’re probably tired of hearing me say stuff like this, I’ve been exploring “level mapping” (didn’t know anyone else used the term) in Reaktor for many years now. That’s partly where the Selig Leveler came from, mapping lower levels to a target level (up to a point).

It’s indeed fun to take the peak levels down to zero, producing what I call the “hole puncher” effect.

LOTS of fun stuff can happen, and my explorations will eventually become a new RE.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

I think so. It's also interesting that say, we have a pure positive waveform ~ nothing happening in the negative region. Then we invert that, and it yet again can sound slightly different.

I didn't complain once! Always interesting to hear the back story of devices. I'll probably stick to just Reaktor though.

There are so many things that can be squeezed out with just seemingly basic mathematical processes, from the most basic waveforms.

Also, either bug, or I got kicked from the other topic (can't reply there); but when it comes to inaudible frequencies, I was thinking about using them as modulation sources; or to create interesting noises with the help of the wave shaping tricks we discuss here. Of course, changing pitch is the primary use. But I'm still thinking what else we could do.

Also, in the other topic, Mattias brought up that the 192 kHz support would be just some forced thing. And another user started questioning the use of it, too. Now that's where audiophile fans came to my mind where some say they hear the difference (just the plain ultra detailed sound, without any special uses). People often think that I use 192 kHz for nothing, yet I don't.

Also (3rd "also" xD), so I replied to Mattias' thought, then people replied to me, and I replied to their question. Thus I didn't necessarily go off topic on purpose, heh.

[selig]

Inverted waveforms shouldn’t sound different. Or rather, there is no reason for them to sound different unless the system is not symmetric (DC offset, for one example).

As for going off topic, I was right there with you, since anything in that thread not relating to the beta being open (how to join, where to find more info, etc) was going to be off topic.

Like you, I can’t resist an interesting discussion…


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[RobC]

Inverted waveforms shouldn’t sound different. Or rather, there is no reason for them to sound different unless the system is not symmetric (DC offset, for one example).

As for going off topic, I was right there with you, since anything in that thread not relating to the beta being open (how to join, where to find more info, etc) was going to be off topic.

Like you, I can’t resist an interesting discussion…


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

To be fair, I should have said that I tried that in stereo. I need to recreate it later.
However, there was a guy with a page, called TweakHeadz. Now, he mentioned that when it comes to kick drums, they should first punch 'out', in other words, start moving the speaker out. If I understood that correctly, it may make some sense, cause then the speaker can "dive" from a far bigger distance at the first bass transient, than if it would start going to the negative side from zero.
Also, there might be an extra psychoacoustic effect going on. I tried this with in-ears. I think with strictly positive waveform for left side, and same signal for the right side, only strictly negative. (Yes, totally out of phase.) Could be the differences between left and right ear. Or hopefully not "acceptable" imperfection between each speaker of the in-ears.
Technically there indeed might/should be no difference, but something bugged my mind there (what old Tweak blogged about).

[selig]

To be nice, this is BS.

When I sit behind the kick drum, I still hear a kick drum as intended. But, it’s pushing “in” first, right, at least from my perspective?

There is no greater “dive” one direction over the other. Plus, it’s the composite effect that we hear, not the first excursion - that’s what gives us the pitch.

Looking at a kick, you’ll also notice the first part is the attack, the “click”, which is a very high frequency. Yes, this rides on the lower frequencies too, but our ears integrate the sound over time so it really doesn’t make ANY difference in the end (on it’s own - when you combine more than one sound, it CAN make a difference when one of them is inverted).

There are been countless tests that prove at BEST, that only a very few trained ears MAY be able to hear absolute polarity.

No data to back up the assertion it makes any difference on it’s own.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[RobC]

To be nice, this is BS.

When I sit behind the kick drum, I still hear a kick drum as intended. But, it’s pushing “in” first, right, at least from my perspective?

There is no greater “dive” one direction over the other. Plus, it’s the composite effect that we hear, not the first excursion - that’s what gives us the pitch.

Looking at a kick, you’ll also notice the first part is the attack, the “click”, which is a very high frequency. Yes, this rides on the lower frequencies too, but our ears integrate the sound over time so it really doesn’t make ANY difference in the end (on it’s own - when you combine more than one sound, it CAN make a difference when one of them is inverted).

There are been countless tests that prove at BEST, that only a very few trained ears MAY be able to hear absolute polarity.

No data to back up the assertion it makes any difference on it’s own.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

So in other words, with in-ears, when it comes to audible differences, it means that the slight imperfections between the two speakers show.

Either I misread something back at TweakHeadz, all in all, or I just fell for something wrong or esoteric... Happens.

[selig]

To be nice, this is BS.

When I sit behind the kick drum, I still hear a kick drum as intended. But, it’s pushing “in” first, right, at least from my perspective?

There is no greater “dive” one direction over the other. Plus, it’s the composite effect that we hear, not the first excursion - that’s what gives us the pitch.

Looking at a kick, you’ll also notice the first part is the attack, the “click”, which is a very high frequency. Yes, this rides on the lower frequencies too, but our ears integrate the sound over time so it really doesn’t make ANY difference in the end (on it’s own - when you combine more than one sound, it CAN make a difference when one of them is inverted).

There are been countless tests that prove at BEST, that only a very few trained ears MAY be able to hear absolute polarity.

No data to back up the assertion it makes any difference on it’s own.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

So in other words, with in-ears, when it comes to audible differences, it means that the slight imperfections between the two speakers show.

Either I misread something back at TweakHeadz, all in all, or I just fell for something wrong or esoteric... Happens.

It just means that in a blind A/B test one cannot reliably tell the difference between a kick sample inverted and the same kick sample non-inverted.

It doesn't matter which direction it moves first. For example, look at a kick sample and tell me which zero crossing counts as the first crossing, and which direction should it go?

Screen Shot 2019-03-21 at 1.28.39 PM.png (27.52 KiB) Viewed 930 times

BTW, this is from the Bob Clearmountain Drums library, so one would assume he knows how a kick sample should sound…

[RobC]

So in other words, with in-ears, when it comes to audible differences, it means that the slight imperfections between the two speakers show.

Either I misread something back at TweakHeadz, all in all, or I just fell for something wrong or esoteric... Happens.

It just means that in a blind A/B test one cannot reliably tell the difference between a kick sample inverted and the same kick sample non-inverted.

It doesn't matter which direction it moves first. For example, look at a kick sample and tell me which zero crossing counts as the first crossing, and which direction should it go?
Screen Shot 2019-03-21 at 1.28.39 PM.png

BTW, this is from the Bob Clearmountain Drums library, so one would assume he knows how a kick sample should sound…

I understand that by now, I just didn't know if it would make a difference if the sub woofer first sucks the air in, or pushes it out.

[MarkTarlton]

unless i am misunderstanding...in isolation it might not matter, but if you start mixing multiple sources it does. jack joesph puig uses a quarter on an ns10 to make sure the kick drum bounces up, it's the very first thing he does.

[selig]

It just means that in a blind A/B test one cannot reliably tell the difference between a kick sample inverted and the same kick sample non-inverted.

It doesn't matter which direction it moves first. For example, look at a kick sample and tell me which zero crossing counts as the first crossing, and which direction should it go?
Screen Shot 2019-03-21 at 1.28.39 PM.png

BTW, this is from the Bob Clearmountain Drums library, so one would assume he knows how a kick sample should sound…

I understand that by now, I just didn't know if it would make a difference if the sub woofer first sucks the air in, or pushes it out.

Nope, because we don't hear phase we hear changes in air pressure - and we don't distinguish between negative or positive changes. We need BOTH in order to hear a sound.

For example, what if a woofer just pushes out and stays there: what frequency is the sound? All we would hear is a click. In a theoretically perfect world that click would have infinite frequency response (would contain all frequencies). But in order to achieve that it would need to move infinitely fast from one position to the next. Laws of physics prevent that from happening! More of what we would hear would be due to the non-linearities of the speaker, as it tries to defy physics and instantly move from one point in space to another.

Interestingly, and more to the point, if we do the inverse, have the woofer push IN, we would hear EXACTLY the same thing. How could it sound any different?

And assuming there's no difference in the sound of a push out vs a push in, how can it sound any different oscillating in and out?

[MarkTarlton]

selig did you read my post?

[selig]

unless i am misunderstanding...in isolation it might not matter, but if you start mixing multiple sources it does. jack joesph puig uses a quarter on an ns10 to make sure the kick drum bounces up, it's the very first thing he does.

Yes, that's my point.

Also, the quarter would move with an impulse in either direction. Wonder if he still does this (not finding anything about it via Google). In context of all tracks, this would only matter for the other drum mics that are "open" when the kick hits, and the mics would have to not be gate and not have low end removed - does that even leave another mic?

I've found more problems with tom mics and overheads with regards to polarity (and sometimes snare). With kick, it only matters when using more than one microphone on the kick, and 99% of the time they are in phase from the start (unless you have an odd vintage microphone or a badly wired patch bay!).

Consider two examples of one half cycle of a wave, one that moves from the center out and back to center vs one that moves from center in and back to center. They both produce one cycle of a wave. Our ears experience a "wave" of sound in both cases.

Finally, perform a blind test, single blind would do. Have someone play you ten kick drums hits. Have them randomly flip polarity for each, or not. If you can accurately identify

[selig]

selig did you read my post?

Was typing my above response when you wrote this!

[MarkTarlton]

And assuming there's no difference in the sound of a push out vs a push in, how can it sound any different oscillating in and out?

by itself you can't, but than add low end of other instruments and you bet you will. the bob clearmountain sample might have had an entire kit mic'd up and it could have been the outside mic, or he could have made up for the sloshy phase/polarity by inverting on the board. it's impossible to tell, and I wouldn't assume because it's in his sample pack that all of his bass drums do this....if it's from a drumkit sample bank where multiple sources are used...would need more info to make that call.