Syntrillium Backup Forums :: View topic

Jim Love · Posted - Tue Apr 03, 2001 9:57 am

Anybody know how to imitate an aphex aural exciter using existing effects in Cool Edit Pro?

Syntrillium M.D. · Location: USA

Hello. There are a couple of freebie dealies out there that replicate a similar sound. The question is though...why are you using this? This effect can be achieved (which much less potential artifacts) but simply applying some subtle EQ...maybe some distortion if you're going for the real thing. But again, Aural Exciter was designed to restore and brighten signals on analog tape, whose frequency range had diminished from repeat playback/overdub. You don't really have these issues in digital, so adding that actual effect can often make things sound more harsh than bright and natural (kinda like that early 80s digital sound...remember those original CDs, circa 1985-86...yikes!)

So, what you might consider is using a better microphone, or simply applying some better techniques to get a cleaner, brighter, less proximity-effected sound. Then, using some subtle EQ, give those vocals that heavenly sound!

Check out some of the posts here though, as you may find some info on presets and how to actually achieve the excited effect.

---Syntrillium Support

seanbaker · Posted - Tue Apr 03, 2001 12:38 pm

Speaking of that free HF stimulator (http://www.sonicvalley.com/plugs/Hfstim.zip) which claims to synthesize high frequencies, I have not noticed anything remarkable about this that I couldn't achieve by simply subtle eq as you say. I thought it was suppose to create lost high frequencies such as restoring 22kHz from a 11kHz recording. It doesn't do it. In fact there is little difference between what it does and the CEP treble boost preset in the FFT filter. Did anyone else get better results from this plug-in?

Edited by - seanbaker on 04/03/2001 12:43:05 PM

syneryder · Posted - Tue Apr 03, 2001 9:35 pm

I haven't had a lot of luck using DrowZ's plugin either. It's good, but I expected a bit much from it initially. Either that or I haven't learnt to use it properly yet. However it's shown me that my recordings deserve to be brighter and sweeter though - darn 22kHz samples! ;)

PSP has a new DX plugin which does something similar to HFStim, the Mix Treble plugin is available from http://www.pspaudioware.com/ But it can come out sounding too harsh at times.

Rod · Location: USA

True, an original recording made with CooLee doesn't need synthetic overtones added, as you can boost them with EQ. I only use my Aphex type III on old analog tapes to resynthesize lost upper harmonics. Great for that type of work no doubt! If you just want crispy audio, use a condensor microphone. Call me CrAzY, but I love those PZM types, very crisp! If you want brighter sound without the SSSSes blowing out your ears (sometimes a problem with simple EQ, then apply some compression only to the upper frequencies like 10-24kHz with the band limit function. Be sure to draw a gentle expansion curve below -50dB to prevent a noisy end result. Good luck, and have fun.

syneryder · Posted - Wed Apr 04, 2001 2:43 am

I think this question is slightly related to the topic: can anyone suggest a few tips for improving the sound of old 8/12/16-bit samples recorded at 16kHz? Has anyone out there used exciter plugins on recordings like this with any success? (after converting to 16-bit 44kHz of course!)

Jim Love · Posted - Wed Apr 04, 2001 8:48 am

I really asked the question because I noticed that using my BBE Sonic Maximizer( which I assume is very similar to the aphex) helps out the brass from my SR16 drum machine. It just seems to 'sweeten' them up a bit. It is kind of a hassle to record vocals through there and I prefer to add with software because it is easy to undo.

Syntrillium M.D. · Location: USA

hi Jim. I used a BBE sonic maximizer quite extensively back in the day...also on drum samples...but they were with the HR16 (predating the SR16) The reason it helped on those samples, was primarily (a) you're still using analog outs; (b) though the Alesis samples were, at the time, hi-fi, the outputs of those machines were always slightly noisy, and the EQ was rather flat...The BBE brought out the best in the samples, and I could see how it would really make the 'SR' sound great (it was slightly better than the HR anyway) But I sometimes felt that it was overkill, and wound up sounding a little 'too 80s'. I've still got my Aphex Type C sitting in a rack, unplugged, just waiting to be used on some analog transfers though. Those devices definitely had their purpose in the analog days...

---Syntrillium Support

Edited by - syntrillium support on 04/04/2001 09:25:12 AM

Rod · Location: USA

A Barcus Berry unit is actually quite different from an Aphex type C or III. The BBE can only boost frequncies that are present in the original. It combines dynamic range compression and expansion to level out bass, midrange, and treble. It also aligns the phase shifts in the audio spectrum to produce a "less smeared" sound (with frequency selective phase shift circuits). The Aphex brand on the other hand, creates harmonics that do not exist in the original. Very useful for old drum machines that use a low sample rate and thus have limited high end frequency response.