Disperser - Underrated?

[TritoneAddiction]

Nice track and thx for the example. I can hear Disperser on the pluck. Sounds a bit like a chorus with short delay, but a bit snappier.

I cannot hear much on the bass lead, so i think it has a bit more subtle setting.

Maybe i give Disperser some tries on short attacked samples, if i want a bit a smeared, snappy and frequency corrupted sound. And i am gonna try it on some kicks and other percussion. But actually i mostly create my own kicks and if i want it a bit more lazer like or snappier on top, i just add another oscilator. Maybe Disperser is here another option....i give it a shot.

Thanks.
Yes it's great on kicks but don't forget to try it on snares too.
I just made a comparison example. This is from an intro to one of my tracks.

Listen to the snare.

0:00-0:11 Disperser is off. Pretty flat sounding.
0:12-0:23 Set the way I want it to, like it is in the actual track. Amount at 12. Way more punch.
0:24-0:36 Max amount 32. Just way too much. Here the lazer zap is pretty obvious.

[Loque]

Nice track and thx for the example. I can hear Disperser on the pluck. Sounds a bit like a chorus with short delay, but a bit snappier.

I cannot hear much on the bass lead, so i think it has a bit more subtle setting.

Maybe i give Disperser some tries on short attacked samples, if i want a bit a smeared, snappy and frequency corrupted sound. And i am gonna try it on some kicks and other percussion. But actually i mostly create my own kicks and if i want it a bit more lazer like or snappier on top, i just add another oscilator. Maybe Disperser is here another option....i give it a shot.

Thanks.
Yes it's great on kicks but don't forget to try it on snares too.
I just made a comparison example. This is from an intro to one of my tracks.

Listen to the snare.

0:00-0:11 Disperser is off. Pretty flat sounding.
0:12-0:23 Set the way I want it to, like it is in the actual track. Amount at 12. Way more punch.
0:24-0:36 Max amount 32. Just way too much. Here the lazer zap is pretty obvious.

Weird "sample", but good stuff
As soon as the Disperser kicks in, i can hear a slight "hummm" in the background, but not something on top of the snare. Later it has more top-end, but sounds a bit smeared, not as snappy. Maybe combined with a snappy compressor, env shaper or eq it would be better, maybe hard driven and parallel injected. But i get a good feeling, what it can do now. Seem to be an "option" on short decay samples at all or maybe modulated on longer decay samples. I give it a shot and try some experiments as soon as i have some time. Thx for the examples.

[FLVZ]

To be honest, I don't see myself purchasing it anytime soon because in the last few months I've learned a trick to synthesise kicks in the same way Disperser would affect a sample, and I just prefer having that control.

What's the trick? Don't leave us in suspense!

I've been using resonance to make kicks in a synth then obviously apply a few effects or tricks to refine the sound. So the most important thing I identified is how the attack of the kick starts at a slightly higher frequency then shifts backwards into a lower spectral position. This gives the kick more headroom when there is a strong bass presence, but if you over do it your kick will sound flabby like an old techno bass WUMP kind of sound. I managed to do it in VK2 but and also in Kraft for the recent song challenge here:
Kick comes in at 40secs (gutted that i didn't export a trackout of the synthesised kick before my trial ran out, I'll have to wait till I get priority REs before Kraft)

[selig]

Nice track and thx for the example. I can hear Disperser on the pluck. Sounds a bit like a chorus with short delay, but a bit snappier.

I cannot hear much on the bass lead, so i think it has a bit more subtle setting.

Maybe i give Disperser some tries on short attacked samples, if i want a bit a smeared, snappy and frequency corrupted sound. And i am gonna try it on some kicks and other percussion. But actually i mostly create my own kicks and if i want it a bit more lazer like or snappier on top, i just add another oscilator. Maybe Disperser is here another option....i give it a shot.

Thanks.
Yes it's great on kicks but don't forget to try it on snares too.
I just made a comparison example. This is from an intro to one of my tracks.

Listen to the snare.

0:00-0:11 Disperser is off. Pretty flat sounding.
0:12-0:23 Set the way I want it to, like it is in the actual track. Amount at 12. Way more punch.
0:24-0:36 Max amount 32. Just way too much. Here the lazer zap is pretty obvious.

I guess this is a "punchier is in the ear of the beholder" type of thing.
My favorite is the snare at the top, but TBH the second section doesn't sound any better or worse to my ears. Probably would need to hear the snare in isolation to know for sure if I liked what it was doing. Judging by the last section, I can't see myself wanting even a little of that effect on drums - still, will withhold final opinion until I get the time to give it a fair trial on my own.

Loving your tracks BTW, even your test tracks!

[TritoneAddiction]

I guess this is a "punchier is in the ear of the beholder" type of thing.
My favorite is the snare at the top, but TBH the second section doesn't sound any better or worse to my ears. Probably would need to hear the snare in isolation to know for sure if I liked what it was doing. Judging by the last section, I can't see myself wanting even a little of that effect on drums - still, will withhold final opinion until I get the time to give it a fair trial on my own.

Loving your tracks BTW, even your test tracks!

Thanks.
Wow I find it fascinating how different we all percieve things. To me the second section sounds so much better then the first one.
That's just another reminder to never trust anyones opinion on music or gear. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong by the way. In the end it's all about taste. I was just surprised.

Well I won't try to convince you to buy Disperser then. You're probably better off without it

Like you say we all put different meanings in these kind of words: "punchy", "warm", "fat", "vintage", "crispy", "muddy", "airy". All the typical buzzwords that gets thrown around in contexts like these
I still have no idea what the hell "crispy" means in music.

[selig]

I guess this is a "punchier is in the ear of the beholder" type of thing.
My favorite is the snare at the top, but TBH the second section doesn't sound any better or worse to my ears. Probably would need to hear the snare in isolation to know for sure if I liked what it was doing. Judging by the last section, I can't see myself wanting even a little of that effect on drums - still, will withhold final opinion until I get the time to give it a fair trial on my own.

Loving your tracks BTW, even your test tracks!

Thanks.
Wow I find it fascinating how different we all percieve things. To me the second section sounds so much better then the first one.
That's just another reminder to never trust anyones opinion on music or gear. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong by the way. In the end it's all about taste. I was just surprised.

Well I won't try to convince you to buy Disperser then. You're probably better off without it

Like you say we all put different meanings in these kind of words: "punchy", "warm", "fat", "vintage", "crispy", "muddy", "airy". All the typical buzzwords that gets thrown around in contexts like these
I still have no idea what the hell "crispy" means in music.

None of the following contradicts anything you've said, just expression my opinion and sharing my experiences…

That's why I said I might need to hear the snare in isolation to "learn" what the effect is doing, as you probably have already done. Also IMPORTANT to remember that YOU will hear things NO ONE ELSE will ever hear in your mixes, and to YOU the differences will be EXTREME! Once something is pointed out to a listener, they CAN 'learn' to hear it (if they are so inclined) - but it takes time, and in truth most listeners are listening to the MUSIC and not the SOUND.

Putting it another way…
Once I hear what you're hearing, I might even agree with you (or I might not) that I prefer the second section - but I FIRST have to make sure I'm focused on the exact same thing YOU are. For example, now that I know where the famous edit is in the Beatle's Strawberry Fields, it sounds SO obvious. BUT, I have to remind myself that I listened to that song 1000s of times before, even after I was editing analog and digital audio myself, and NEVER heard it! Something to remember when you're sweating the 'details'.

My take away was that you simply cannot un-hear things once heard, and therefore you'll probably never know exactly what your audience (who's not trained and has not heard your song before) will actually experience. But IMO it's extremely important that you don't make these things too "precious", and always try to understand when something will make a difference to your listeners and when it simply will not! Once can waste a LOT of time (I know I have) on things that will have zero effect on the end result, and ignore things (like the song itself) that are ESSENTIAL to the success of your art. I've spent my entire professional life trying to learn the difference, and have noted that all the pros I've observed are REALLY good at this sort of decision making process (probably why they are successful in the first place IMO).

[Exowildebeest]

Have faith Selig, the second section of Tritone's example definitely sounds better to me, but it's so subtle that I guess you need to have some experience with Disperser to hear it.

[TritoneAddiction]

None of the following contradicts anything you've said, just expression my opinion and sharing my experiences…

That's why I said I might need to hear the snare in isolation to "learn" what the effect is doing, as you probably have already done. Also IMPORTANT to remember that YOU will hear things NO ONE ELSE will ever hear in your mixes, and to YOU the differences will be EXTREME! Once something is pointed out to a listener, they CAN 'learn' to hear it (if they are so inclined) - but it takes time, and in truth most listeners are listening to the MUSIC and not the SOUND.

Putting it another way…
Once I hear what you're hearing, I might even agree with you (or I might not) that I prefer the second section - but I FIRST have to make sure I'm focused on the exact same thing YOU are. For example, now that I know where the famous edit is in the Beatle's Strawberry Fields, it sounds SO obvious. BUT, I have to remind myself that I listened to that song 1000s of times before, even after I was editing analog and digital audio myself, and NEVER heard it! Something to remember when you're sweating the 'details'.

My take away was that you simply cannot un-hear things once heard, and therefore you'll probably never know exactly what your audience (who's not trained and has not heard your song before) will actually experience. But IMO it's extremely important that you don't make these things too "precious", and always try to understand when something will make a difference to your listeners and when it simply will not! Once can waste a LOT of time (I know I have) on things that will have zero effect on the end result, and ignore things (like the song itself) that are ESSENTIAL to the success of your art. I've spent my entire professional life trying to learn the difference, and have noted that all the pros I've observed are REALLY good at this sort of decision making process (probably why they are successful in the first place IMO).

Yeah you're probably right. It's like when you first try to hear what compression does. That took time to learn for sure. In the beginning you don't know what to listen for. Now I can often hear compression in songs/commercials/radio etc.

As a creator or mixer it's very easy to get hung up on details like you said.

[selig]

OK, tried it, will definitely pass. I don't like that it feels like it adds another sound, like a filter sweep or similar. It doesn't sound better to me, just sounds more processed and so less direct and less in my face. Can't think of any time I'd want to have that sweep effect on drums. By the time I turn it down enough to not hear it "working", it's not doing anything!

Maybe it works better on other things besides drums?

I don't get the "transient shaping" effect either, at least not without ALSO hearing the filter sweep effect. Would rather use transient shaping if I want transient shaping.

To answer the OP, IMO it's overrated, not underrated - would be happy to find I'm using it totally wrong though. And pretty sure I'll start hearing it now on peoples mixes (for better or for worse)!

[TritoneAddiction]

OK, tried it, will definitely pass. I don't like that it feels like it adds another sound, like a filter sweep or similar. It doesn't sound better to me, just sounds more processed and so less direct and less in my face. Can't think of any time I'd want to have that sweep effect on drums. By the time I turn it down enough to not hear it "working", it's not doing anything!

Maybe it works better on other things besides drums?

I don't get the "transient shaping" effect either, at least not without ALSO hearing the filter sweep effect. Would rather use transient shaping if I want transient shaping.

To answer the OP, IMO it's overrated, not underrated - would be happy to find I'm using it totally wrong though. And pretty sure I'll start hearing it now on peoples mixes (for better or for worse)!

Well you gave it a fair shot. At least now you know what you think about it.

Yeah you'll probably hear it in my mixes all the time now, or will you?

[selig]

OK, tried it, will definitely pass. I don't like that it feels like it adds another sound, like a filter sweep or similar. It doesn't sound better to me, just sounds more processed and so less direct and less in my face. Can't think of any time I'd want to have that sweep effect on drums. By the time I turn it down enough to not hear it "working", it's not doing anything!

Maybe it works better on other things besides drums?

I don't get the "transient shaping" effect either, at least not without ALSO hearing the filter sweep effect. Would rather use transient shaping if I want transient shaping.

To answer the OP, IMO it's overrated, not underrated - would be happy to find I'm using it totally wrong though. And pretty sure I'll start hearing it now on peoples mixes (for better or for worse)!

Well you gave it a fair shot. At least now you know what you think about it.

Yeah you'll probably hear it in my mixes all the time now, or will you?

Good point - don't know if I want to hear it, and it would be wise of me to not claim I CAN hear it (at least not until I've passed some sort of test!). Sometimes ignorance is bliss…

It's all just opinions, btw, I should be more clear I'm not saying the effect sucks - just can find a use for it myself.

Reminds me once again there's no free lunch!


Sent from my crappy device using Tapatalk

[zero01101]

god, i adore disperser.

I don't like that it feels like it adds another sound, like a filter sweep or similar.

i don't think it's quite a sweep, per se; to the best of my knowledge, it's just 32 allpass filters in series, and each filter has an inherent 1-sample delay post-cutoff where the phase inverts, making a very distinct not-quite-phased-but-not-really-filtered-but-kinda-both-ish tonality. i personally love using it on bare fundamental waves, particularly saws.

Reminds me once again there's no free lunch!

well, now that you mention it...
if anyone around here uses reaktor 6, i cobbled up a sort of bootleg version of disperser a while ago and it costs a hell of a lot less than the Officially Licensed Product

it's, uh, a little less refined and a LOT more CPU-hungry, but what do you want for zero dollars cmon now

[doctecazoid]

It's a niche product to be sure, but has come in handy for me especially in situations where simple EQ isn't getting me to the sound I'm looking for. One definitely needs to spend time with it, play with the controls and listen to what it does to the sound, in order to (a) understand how to use it and (b) know when to use it in a signal chain.

[jam-s]

To me the sound disperser generates sounds very much to be fitting for psy trance tracks.

[teddymcw]

After this vid you'll have a hard time not associating the thought of Disperser with Speo's riff at about 4:00

[Loque]

After reading here that Disperser is some kind of all-pass-filter, i experimented with using it on only one channel. The results were not that bad, but not exactly that i wanted to achieve. I played around with giving plug-type sounds or short shots a bit more "ping" or "boing" sound, and i think it can be usefull from time to time. But still Disperser is not a big weapon, more of bread knife, that can work from time to time imo.

But tbh, if i want more "ping" or "pong" in a sound, i would try a ring modulator, mix another sound into it, use a normal resonance filter, saturation or shaper mixed in, envelope shaper or whatever. Disperser would not be my first choice.

[aeox]

disperser is sonic cheat codes in my book. just waiting for it to go on sale again...

[alex]

Among all the use cases mentioned here, I also use Disperser inside the echo feedback loop:

It gives a "springy" and "bouncy" character to delay taps, and this is something that I really like!