‘Aphex exciter’ effect: the hidden “holy grail” of audiophilism?

[Philbo King]

Being around as an audio enthusiast for a while I noticed a few things.

1) Besides some general regulations on electronics and a company’s own definition of looks and quality, it does not seem that there are any regulations on what an amp should be or how it should measure etc.

2. Audiophiles like to mention that everything should be as 'direct' and flat as possible. Given that; an outsider would think.. “fine, an amp is an amp and now all equipment should sound the same”. But that is not what keeps the world going round. Amp X can sound like Amp Y with the bass dial 1 click ahead. Marketed by reviewers as ‘Amp X seems to be made for music genre x and y for genre y). As long as it is baked in, everything is fine.

3. Audiophiles seem to embrace the tube sound and like it when equipment stands out from the rest and has a bit of sparkle.

It was on this forum in another topic that I posted about that descriptions of measurements of the enhancer effect of class D Yamaha amps matches the description of the valve sound. That “sparkle in the midrange” and extra groove in the bass range. And Yamaha’s description came down to what is described in the link below.

Exciter (effect) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

• Making vocals sound more "breathy". This is why the original product was called an Aural Exciter
• Enhancing dull recordings, especially analog reel-to-reel tape recordings that have lost their "sparkle" due to repeated overdubs
• Restoring old recordings by simulating lost spectral content

And another source, a must-read in my opinion

Behind The Aphex Aural Exciter (Sound On Sound, Aug 1993)

Marvin Caesar: The Aphex Story

www.muzines.co.uk

I didn’t know tube amps were utilising a variation of this effect, but it seems it is what historically set the standard for ‘the valve sound’.

Now audiophiles seem to hate physical or digital switches due to the “everything should be direct” opinion.

But… when a variation of that same effect is ‘baked into’ the amp without emphasising it is; and if they don’t have to toggle a switch, that amp certainly seems to get an own identity and emotional value to audiophiles.

When I read descriptions of some vintage class A-B that “sound like valves” or have “a distinct sound” that are sought after, I now suggest the chances are high they utilise a variation of the Aphex exciter effect.

Bit like the metaphor of an illusionist telling how the trick works, versus a wonder healer that claims “this is magic”.

Disclaimer: This is to create a foundation to a myth of magic, not to trash the effect. I personally really like applied variations of this effect. My Yamaha Wxa50 has it and the vintage Sansui AU101 I bought recently might also have one (‘baked in’). I mainly bought the latter because it is a perfect design match to my Denton 85th loudspeakers. It is now in revision

Opinions? Or do you have gear utilising this effect in some way and do you like it or dislike it?

As I recall, this effect delayed bass slightly so the highs became clearer due to precedence effect. It was briefly popular in the 80s / 90s in recording studios. But like any effect, if used to excess it causes listening fatigue.

 

[voodooless]

an outsider would think.. “fine, an amp is an amp and now all equipment should sound the same”. But that is not what keeps the world going round.

So it’s all about the money then…

 

[AJM1981]

The holy grail reference was by the way a blink to the praise and market prices of historical amplifiers with their own "character in sound" as an amp should not add harmonic distortion in theory, but in reality spicing up things up is quite ok in my opinion.

So it’s all about the money then…

Obviously

Only difference is that the "hi-fi world" has loads of space for applying these marginal illusions and price tag value on emotional judgement.

When entering the reference monitor market, it is a different ball game. The fact that one can buy a monitor of a similar hi-fi loudspeaker (JBL for example) for 1/3rd or less of the price gives a hint. Also the reference monitor world is not written in stone but often it seems audiophiles confuse the "guidelines" of these two worlds.

 

[AdVis]

Ugh, I remember that abomination. It was touted as the best thing ever happening to studio's and IIRC you couldn't actually buy the unit, you had to rent it and it had a horrid price tag.

And of course some very nice albums were recorded using it in that time, which ruined them completely as there is no way to get rid of that over-bright raspy sound.

They did proudly list it on the album cover if it was used.

 

[AJM1981]

Ugh, I remember that abomination. It was touted as the best thing ever happening to studio's and IIRC you couldn't actually buy the unit, you had to rent it and it had a horrid price tag.

And of course some very nice albums were recorded using it in that time, which ruined them completely as there is no way to get rid of that over-bright raspy sound.

They did proudly list it on the album cover if it was used.

Interesting. I came across a couple of albums. With the disclaimer that applying an effect slightly on the hi-fi side to a degree that it is only barely noticeable is another thing compared to being able to go wild in turning knobs on a module.

For producers that time it sounds like "The best thing" before gated reverb : P

 

[dzerig]

Being around as an audio enthusiast for a while I noticed a few things.

1) Besides some general regulations on electronics and a company’s own definition of looks and quality, it does not seem that there are any regulations on what an amp should be or how it should measure etc.

The problem is there is only one definition for the performance of gear here: sinad. 123 sinads is better than 116 sinads yet most people reading the sinad information have zero idea how many sinads they can hear?

It's like saying to get to the moon we need 116 sinad, and saying a 123 sinad rocket is superior because it can go to mars. If we are going to the moon, why is more than 116 sinad better?

If the human limits of hearing is 116 sinad (at the theoretical level) why is 123 sinad 'better engineered" and not 'over engineered'?

 

[Anton S]

It's a studio effect and anything goes in the creative process.

...

The implication here being that the creative process ends - or should end - at this point? That playback should be a passive experience confined to reproducing as faithfully as possible exactly what's been recorded onto the commercial product? Hogwash!

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Having worked (as an EE) on a lot of pre-digital studio enhancement kit, the issue was that they all added noise and had imperfect transfer functions even when effects were set to zero. The more effects, the more the impact. Of course this may still have been lower than tape noise, but in those days, we couldn't see noise spectra, so it's quite likely the noise was additive, not masked.

 

[Jaxjax]

 

[phoenixdogfan]

View attachment 357981
source: https://www.worldradiohistory.com/A...iFI-Stereo/70s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1977-12.pdf pg. 99 of the magazine

Full disclosure: I do like the way this album sounds -- but it's got an undeniable late-70s/southern California sheen to it.

EDIT: Dang, that was a stupid review!
Carmelita is one of my favorite-est Warren Zevon songs of all of his oeuvre -- and I'd consider myself a significant fan, even at this late date.

Utter idiocy. Everybody knows about the Pioneer Chicken Shack even if you've never lived in LA. And that album holds your attention because it's sung by Linda Ronstadt at her artistic peak ('nuff ced) not because of the crap in the production chain.

 

[mhardy6647]

Utter idiocy. Everybody knows about the Pioneer Chicken Shack even if you've never lived in LA. And that album holds your attention because it's sung by Linda Ronstadt at her artistic peak ('nuff ced) not because of the crap in the production chain.

Told ya!
Yes, I remember Pioneer Chicken even in northern CA when we lived there -- and, yes, it's a very, very good pop record, Aphex notwithstanding. Sold a zillion copies. Mrs. H & I both have copies on LP from way back when -- and there's not a lot of overlap in our record collections.

 

[AJM1981]

My 70s Sansui Au101 solid state also seems to have some of the “up-spicing”. Lots of emphasis on the “byproducts” of instruments and vocals (air flow, timbre, scratches etc) that “sweet” sound that was projected on valves as well. Not too surprising as it was produced shortly Sansui’s valve amps.

This is all kind of sketchy in quotes, but I remember a quote about filmsound (paraphrased) that sound is tailored to not be realistic but to amplify its realism. I get the idea that this on another level is also kind of going on and what the Yamaha Wxa50 does with its digital enhancer switch.

Another quote recently is that “valve amps these days don’t really sound like valve amps anymore”.

If it is really true that to a margin the exciter effect is somehow applied. Then I wonder what made that shift happen from applying a sense of extra realism on one side to “as it is recorded” on the other one. As a signature sound might have nothing to do with the kind of amp in the first place (an integrated amp and a class D can sound like a valve amp).

Was it a user-opinion shift? (Everything should be flat, no aides etc) or was it that the exciter effect would be reserved for top-end lines only in order to not only create a difference in the amount of bells and whistles in switches, but rather to mark a line of audible difference between models.

A weird but probably useful parallel as a metaphor I would like to make is with photography. That Adobe RGB always seemed to make colours more pronounced, maybe even a bit eye candy to a minor margin, while some might argue that a “flat” color scheme is more appropriate.

Perhaps above applies more to the saturation, but an enhancement of “structure” seems quite applicable to what the exciter effect does.

Interesting phenomena none the less..