[LAU] Why does PHASEX sound so damn good?

[Ken Restivo]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 10:22:36AM +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 06:24:41PM -0700, Ken Restivo wrote:
>  
> > It sounds so... raw, uncontrolled, well, ANALOG. Most software simulations sound
> > more or less authentic, but all so much more "tame", for want of a better term.
> > But PHASEX always sounded to me (and felt, as I was playing with it) that at any
> > moment it could do something crazy like throw a DC offset, to into an uncontrollable
> > oscillation, or blow up my speakers, etc.
> 
> You have been lucky then. If your sound card and amp are DC coupled, 
> Phasex *will* blow up your speakers. On my first test it produced a
> DC offset 30 dB above the audio signal level. 
> 

Ah, thanks, I'd forgotten that! I did this peice years ago in PHASEX,
and tried to correct the DC offset, but wasn't able to completely:
http://www.restivo.org/blog/podpress_trac/web/317/0/airbrush-0.1.ogg
(WARNING: might blow your speakers as described above)

It looks like this:
 http://bace.s3.amazonaws.com/dcoffset.jpg

> Whatever qualities it may have, this is crappy.

I guess so. But maybe it's dangerousness is what gives it its sound.

Will Alexander once described Keith Emerson's Moog as having "no
padded cell technology". Meaning, it was capable of destroying amps,
PA systems, expensive mixing boards, huge stadium-sized house sound
systems, etc. He treated the thing like a loaded weapon when plugging
it into stuff. Maybe this is what he meant by that.

-ken