Ring Modulators - Roger Smalley - H&N

[Quarky]

A Ring Modulator seems to be quite an archaic gadget, even in the world of Electrical Engineering, and I was surprised at the comment that it is coming back into fashion.

Obviously, in this world of laptops and frequency synthesis, injecting a single sine wave into a sound signal, in order to modulate the signal and produce a broader signal spectrum, is just one possibility out of an infinity of signal processing possiblities.

If the purpose of the Ring Modulator is just to produce further colouration of the sound signal, then I would have thought that it is hardly worth specifying, other than that the signal is electronically processed.

Or have I missed something?

[Gordon]

No Oddball not really archaic at all, the RM is a very common item in electronics even today and especially in radio equipment. Takes its name from a set of 4 diodes arranged in a head to toe circular fashion that topologically looks like a circle or ring. An audio signal arranged to pass through them can be modified by using another signal that adjusts how the diodes conduct and so affects the audio passing through. In effect it multiplies the two signals together and that creates new frequency components that give it the character required. The archaic part might apply to the usual use of transformers [as shown in typical circuit diagrams] but these can be simulated in chips using transistors.

As you surmise, in audio its use is really as a another tool in the kit for "artistic" or "creative" sound processing, looking for new sounds, similar I suppose to the Wah Wah pedal and heavy distortion used by rock guitarists. Stockhausen comes to mind but there are many others eg Milton Babbitt etc etc and of couse Smalley himself.

[Quarky]

Thanks Gordon for your explanation of a ring modulator, which of course can be found in any elementary text.

My point was that I guess a composer would use a digital emulation of a ring modulator in his laptop to produce the required sound effects. But if so why stop at ring modulation, because there is any number of sound processing effects available.

In other words, why would a current composer regard ring modulation as especially significant in his compositions, as opposed to an infinite number of other types of modulation available?

[Serial_Apologist]

Thanks Gordon for your explanation of a ring modulator, which of course can be found in any elementary text.

My point was that I guess a composer would use a digital emulation of a ring modulator in his laptop to produce the required sound effects. But if so why stop at ring modulation, because there is any number of sound processing effects available.

In other words, why would a current composer regard ring modulation as especially significant in his compositions, as opposed to an infinite number of other types of modulation available?

It's a user-friendly tool for keyboard players wanting to produce the effects of which it is capable in jazz, rock or free improvisational contexts, I guess: I'm thinking here of tranforming perceptible clear pitches into noise, to blend with or approximate saxophone multiphonics and guitar feedback? Maybe doing this in a measurably graduated way in more pre-formalized contexts?

[Gordon]

Indeed Oddball - once you enter the realm of software very many processes that once would have been hardware based will be computed. The RM is very simple in that respect because it simply multiplies one signal by another and so a fast enough processor can calculate on the fly what is required. Once that is possible all sorts of computations can be made that perhaps would be impossible or difficult in hardware.

As to an "infinite number of modulations" there are only a few parameters that may be modulated in the old sense of the word - amplitude, frequency and phase - but your suggestion is that the word "modulation" takes on a richer meaning.

[MrGongGong]

In other words, why would a current composer regard ring modulation as especially significant in his compositions, as opposed to an infinite number of other types of modulation available?

One reason is that the ring modulator has a very significant place in musical history, it was and still is one of the best ways to create related textures as well as material that has a pitch relationship to the input signal.
There really aren't an "infinite" number of other types of modulation.
Many people like to use "real" as opposed to emulated Ring Modulators , virtualising everything in software isn't always a good idea.
And (maybe this is a bit esoteric? ) it's not about necessarily creating "sound effects" (unless that IS what you are doing ) but creating SOUNDS to compose/improvise with.

Mixtur : is a classic IMV

[Boilk]

A Ring Modulator seems to be quite an archaic gadget, even in the world of Electrical Engineering, and I was surprised at the comment that it is coming back into fashion.

With the New Grove stating...

"It is referred to as "ring" modulation because the analog circuit of diodes originally used to implement this technique took the shape of a ring"

...I think the term could be improved upon, considering how the output signal sounds vis-a-vis the input signal, and quite apart from the fact that we are now in a digital age of sound processing making the physical circuit "ring" redundant in the majority of live and studio applications. Perhaps Yamaha's term 'FM synthesis' is more meaningful in many instances?

[Parry1912]

They retain a certain amount of popularity with guitarists (see here)

No self-respecting guitar multi-effects unit would omit one (for example)

[Serial_Apologist]

And of course, a Ring modulator could also be a person who oversees discussions on a certain series of operatic works by a certain 19th century composer, on forums such as this, to try and ensure civilised interchanges of views.

[MrGongGong]

Perhaps Yamaha's term 'FM synthesis' is more meaningful in many instances?

Except that FM synthesis isn't Yamaha's
and is not the same thing at all

just listening to this ........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkmevd68_io

(4:38 ish is where it comes in ........... (shame it's not 5 seconds earlier though )

[hedgehog]

Except that FM synthesis isn't Yamaha's
and is not the same thing at all

Well yes and no.... in the sense that iirc John Chowning 'defined' FM synthesis ( a bit like Rameau- cohesively and plausibly, but still after the event ) & Stanford University sold Chowning's good work to Yamaha? ( Oh I remember all too wel the blood sweat and tears applied to a DX7 having finally mastered a Moog )

Of course a totally different beast to ring modulation - though I guess the idea of two different signals inter-reacting could be interpreted as a relationship similar to FM synthesis, but it isn't really.

[MrGongGong]

Well yes and no.... in the sense that iirc John Chowning 'defined' FM synthesis ( a bit like Rameau- cohesively and plausibly, but still after the event ) & Stanford University sold Chowning's good work to Yamaha? ( Oh I remember all too wel the blood sweat and tears applied to a DX7 having finally mastered a Moog )

Of course a totally different beast to ring modulation - though I guess the idea of two different signals inter-reacting could be interpreted as a relationship similar to FM synthesis, but it isn't really.

Indeed

I had the same experience in the 1980's with the DX9 & 7
not something that one could use to imagine a sound then make it unless you had a few months to spare getting familiar with it
BUT what I did like about FM synthesis was the unpredictable nature so that you would get the unexpected
but so much FM rich music from that time sounds very dated these days

[Richard Barrett]

what I did like about FM synthesis was the unpredictable nature

- yes, like for example taking an age to set up something that "worked", and then just pressing one button to change the "algorithm" and turn it into something completely different, which would often be a lot more interesting.

I wonder about electronic sounds sounding "dated". I think what's meant by "dated" is often something more like "superficial", that is to say a use of a particular technology which hasn't involved mastering it to the point of being able to think musically through it, like the electronic/concrete composers of the 1950s and 1960s had to, because before mass-production of electronic music devices the concept of user-(ie. consumer-)friendliness hadn't entered anyone's mind, so superficiality was less of an option. To my mind there's still much that could be done with the FM synthesis principle - and indeed also with ring modulation and the various developments of it (like spectral stretching and so forth) that only become possible in the digital domain.

[Quarky]

Interesting. It seems musicians are to an extent locked in to the electronic products that are, or have been, commercially available. There may be good musical reasons for this - if most people are happy with the situation, why change it?

Clearly it is too much to expect a musican to develop his own sound-processing software, but a bit of rooting around shows there are other products available:

http://www.ircam.fr/projets.html?&L=1

[MrGongGong]

Clearly it is too much to expect a musican to develop his own sound-processing software, but a bit of rooting around shows there are other products available:

That's what many people do
which is why MAX MSP etc is so widespread

What is exciting about what happens now is that if one has an idea for something that doesn't exist then it's fairly straightforward to either make it yourself OR find someone to do it for you. I've been using a piece of software that was created for a recent project that uses a Midi keyboard to trigger a sound and image for each note that is played, there is nothing commercially available to do this BUT my geekwizard mate knocked it up in an afternoon