thesneakup wrote:It seems to me as though the makers of FV-1-based effects have claimed and embraced terms such as "granular" and "lo-fi" not just as appropriate descriptions but as kinds of "excuses" for what they're able to make – the limitations of the platform allow for only so much, and even if a programmer wanted something "high-res," it just wouldn't be possible. Taken further, heretofore undesirable audio artifacts such as clicks and pops have become "features" that are "built-in" to some effects instead of problems to fix. Maybe the inherent nature of Spin Chip DSP is such that they can't be fixed, so they're just accepted. I don't know – the utility of such sounds definitely is a more subjective area. (Some or all of this might have been covered in UC's "love the Spin Chip" thread, but I haven't sorted through it. Also, if this isn't the right place to address such subjects, please say so, or let's take it somewhere else if it's worth pursuing.)
In any case, I'm rooting for the Fabrikat and hoping it comes out swinging. Tell more as you can.
Not being a Spin-chip expert, I can only say that each tool leaves its sonic fingerprints on that which is made with that tool.
A series of devices all using actual magnetic tape to create echoes and loops would all have a sonic fingerprint in common.
The quirks and "glitches" of the devices form part of that fingerprint and in fact become what people seek.
I am a filmmaker. For some filmmakers in the past visible grain was a failure—a glitch. They wanted better low-light performance
without visible grain. The cheapness of video made it a competitor to actual film, but it has been decades before digital video
could approach the resolution of film. But now many people find the crisp clarity of digital too... artificial, not human enough,
and so they seek a little softness, a little blur, or grain or some artifact to blend the colors or make the motion of objects more
organically seamless. Grain, and the way film emulsion reacts chemically to light, is now seen as something worth emulating.
As a technology presents itself the "glitches" or signatures of that technology can become a highlight. That highlight can become
a cliché as it is overused due to its wide appeal and effectiveness. And then time can pass and that technology becomes obsolete
and then aspects of it become fetishized.
Modern letterpress printers press the living shit out of the paper until they create a 3-D embossed image on the paper. This is what
is known as "shitty printing" by most old-school printers. It shows a lack of finesse and technique. But for those who have grown
up with digital printing or computer screens, the "quirks" are appealing. The noise has become signal. Meaning is found. This is
a
real object. Not computer output.
Each tool is a compromise. A set of decisions that impart a signature to that which is made with the tool. If the way Spin chips
are being used is too matchy-matchy, then at some point some one is going to integrate it into a more robust device whereby
the chip's capabilities are used in a new way. A look at a '80s/'90s time-based rack effect from Lexicon shows that the architecture within
a device can allow for a high degree of user interaction with the signal, and a high level of device interaction with various parameters
of the signal. If there is interest in this round of Spin-chip usage, perhaps designers will delve into more complex and new iterations
of Spin-chip usage in unforeseen ways?
Just some random thoughts from an only semi-informed person.