UC's demo archive! (Digital Flora FX - Draugen)

[Seance]

Hayo! Long time, no #content. Some quick clips of FORM by Pladask Elektrisk and BandOrg. Cheers!

Lots of chewy, nutty, spicy, tasty bits in this. Nice.

Cheers, guys!

Now, let's start teasing some stuff from the upcoming Pladask pedal, Fabrikat!

Color me intrigued.

[thesneakup]

Given the general description of the Fabrikat's functions, I suppose that it's what you were referring to in the Tensor thread:

There's also a pedal coming out early next year that will (in my opinion, which is based on currently testing the prototype), blow this thing out of the water. But I guess that depends on opinions and subjectivity and stuff like that.

Setting subjectivity aside (as much as possible) and if the circumstances of the Fabrikat's debut allow, can you compare/contrast it with the Tensor in any detail? In what ways is there overlap and in what ways might the Fabrikat exceed the Tensor?

Another question, UC, if you have a minute – I'm going to appear obtuse regarding this subject, so considering your broad view of the Spin Chip world, I think your opinion might hit the right point between informed and unbiased. In programming an FV-1 to produce audio effects, how far can one programmer or another really stretch the platform and make something unique (as far as the processor might allow)?

As Spin Chip-based effects proliferate, it seems as though their sonic signature becomes more recognizable – I don't think it takes a golden ear to identify them, especially when they reach for relatively complex processes like time stretching and pitch shifting. Given that such DSP programming surely must be a deep dive, I suppose that some amount of "individuality" might be possible in the coding of various instructions, but if that is so, I can't say that I personally hear a lot of variation in the end products - I know Spin Chip pitch shifting when I hear it, for example. And not only do I know it, but I'm not really impressed by it. 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.

[UglyCasanova]

You sure live up to your username, haha! I did not expect that when I mearly dropped in on ILF for a 2 min break. I'm gonna have to read that again and reply to you later today. Looks like some great questions and a fundament for a fruitful discussion, so thanks for that!

[Seance]

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.

[UglyCasanova]

I think Seance pretty much covered what I may have possibly thought of writing, if doing a different analogy. Tensor is very diffferent, I've come of realize as more clips have emerged, so I'll have to excuse my somewhat cocky outburst. I still think I'd personally find more pragmatic use for Fabrikat (and I really like how it sounds), but this is when subjectivity jumps back into the mix and makes is difficult to discuss at all. As mentioned, the FV-1, like all other DSP and mechanical forms of altering sounds, will have a sonic characteristic that is somehow bound to sound familiar in a lot of cases. That being said, there are many ways to skin a cat, and there's a smart and a less smart way to program and your code, along with everything else that does into making a pedal. I have nothing to gain for convincing you to like X FV-1 pedal over Y FV-1 pedal, if any FV-1 pedal at all. If there's anything I skipped, misunderstood or whatever, feel free to ask me again and I'll try to answer it.

Anywhos, here's another tease:

[Seance]

I think Seance pretty much covered what I may have possibly thought of writing, if doing a different analogy.

Other pedal analogies could include questions about whether something new is offered by variations on any theme.
Do these pedalsy really sound all that different from each other? Each seems to sit within the spectrum slice that
their "competitors" also inhabit.

Why are there so many Tubescreamer variants with JRC4558 chips?
Why are there so many distortions with some variant of the LM308 chip?
Why are there so many analog delays that use a MN3005 chip?

Ideally how each pedal handles those chips and topologies brings something different. But... not always for everyone.

[Pladask]

In programming an FV-1 to produce audio effects, how far can one programmer or another really stretch the platform and make something unique (as far as the processor might allow)?

The FV-1 platform has many limitations that sets boundaries for what's possible and not to code (possible at least with my proficiency). You're limited to 128 lines of code, 32 variable storage units and 1000 ms of delay memory. That quickly becomes claustrophobic when attempting complex synthesis. For instance I don't think you'll ever see a FV-1 pedal utilizing FFT (e.g. convolution) or complex/dense granular synthesis (like the HADRON vst http://www.partikkelaudio.com/). When developing FABRIKAT one of the biggest struggles has been to find room for my code. A lot of time is spent optimizing code blocks to free up program space. Though it can be frustrating when you feel the tech is restraining you I also thinks it can help the creative process to work within set boundaries. I'm trailing off topic... Hope that was somewhat informative!

[UglyCasanova]

[damnableman]

xo

[adm307]

God dang, that last teaser has me feeling a way. Gonna pinch my pennies and make sure I don’t miss this guy.

[UglyCasanova]

Cheers! This was made with the mix at 100% wet with the function stomp grabbing samples and an expression pedal controlling the speed for both real time time stretching and grabbed sample stretching. Glad you guys enjoyed it!

[smallsnd/bigsnd]

yes pls

[publicfig]

I'm going to cry, I want this so much

[lumena]

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.

I am totally with you on this way of thinking. with a twist.


It is in the dust and scratches of this type of digital programming that portions of experience that are in actuality seldom encountered in daily life are revealed as being always there. Like looking for grain in a film as a way to acknowledge that you are experiencing a film and not reality, this technology speaks to me of the limits of digital resolution and positions them in such a way that they can be exploited to draw attention to actual experiences.
Familiar moments of Disruption in daily life.
It id the one little glitch that you experience playing back a bit of music - when you are concentrating on the song it is quickly overlooked and you rejoin the song suppressing the momentary break in the seamless experience. When tools like this emerge which allow me to examine and build from such suppressed experiences of discontinuity I feel like there is a chance to examine subtle emotions that might have otherwise been forgotten. By combining the familiar experience of the glitches and bringing them up out of the memories that have been suppressed a new language of expression is formed a language not only unique but of it's time. Sounds that come from the Spin chip are both contemporary and historical as they represent not only this time but will become fixed in time as technology moves forward.
Changes in time fixed in time.

This thread makes me sad that I cannot attend on of the workshops for the Form 2. I personally can't wait for fabricat and actually would love to get a Form 2. I have totally recognized the great things that come out of the spin chip. I pretty much ordered the folktek resonant garden so that I could get 3 spin devices in a shot with lots of knobs. The demos I have seen of the Pladask programming make me want to also add these flavors. If anyone attends a workshop and wants to part with their Form Pedal... let me know.

or in twitter speak
Familiar moments of Disruption in daily life.
Changes in time fixed in time.
sad

[lumena]

dumb double post
all gone.