dbran

I went down the rabbit hole on this topic about a year ago and stumbled upon this site: https://mvsep.com/en You upload your track into a queue for processing, and it lets you choose from a menu of different algorithms to do the separation, and after a time (maybe 10 to 30 minutes) you get another page with links to your separated tracks. All for free. There is also information there about which algorithms do better at certain kinds of processing. I don't understand all of it, but I find it very interesting. There are competitions that these algorithms get entered into, and scored based on how well they separate a standard set of test tracks into their component parts. The scores have been creeping up over the years. Many of the apps out there, like Moises and so forth, are just different wrappers with the same handful of underlying algorithms. And some of them are better than others at certain tasks -- for example, the ones that are best at separating out the vocals may not be the best at distinguishing keyboards from guitars, and so forth. However, they all seem to be getting better and better, so it may be that these differences matter less and less as time goes on. In order to be able to use .wav files (which I believe should give better results than using mp3's although I have no evidence for that) I went ahead and made an account there and have suffered no ill consequences as a result (no spam or other malware). I've used it to isolate certain sounds and sound effects for a tribute band that I play in, and also, to hear the vocal arrangements and guitar/keyboard arrangements more clearly. I really like listening to music and doing this kind of separation with my own ears, but there are certain things that the machines are better at, and also, when you want to convince your bandmates (or yourself) that "this is what that instrument is doing," it's a big help.

I also had a KBR-3D for many years, and never had a good experience with those XLR outputs. They were too hot for mic levels, so you couldn't run them into the mic preamps at a board, but they were very low for "line level" signals. To the OP: I don't think a standard DI box will help you because the step-down transformers will give you a weak mic signal as the output, derived from the weak line-level signal that you have now. If you had a couple of mic preamp inputs to spare on your board, you could go into those after attenuating the signal somewhat, to get it down to normal mic levels, with something like the Radial Trim Two. I think you would want something with variable attenuation. However, with only line-level inputs to work with, I guess you would need some kind of a preamp instead, to boost the signal to a healthy line level. Unfortunately, this complicates the setup. I wish you luck!

I can confirm that lawman's method in the previous post works great, have been doing it for years. You can get "Slow/Fast" switching (and nothing else, no stop or bypass) with a simple footswitch this way. I stumbled across the method in this thread: https://organforum.com/forums/forum/electronic-organs-midi/hammond-organs/33638-diy-swtch-for-neo-vent-2?32998-DIY-swtch-for-neo-vent-2= You do have to put the Ventilator II into the correct switching mode for it to work. In my case, using a Boss FS-5L latching switch, I set switching to mode 4 (what the ventilator manual calls "momentary," but actually is appropriate for a LATCHING remote switch), and then set remote switch mode to "Switch 1" (secondary knob function to 7:00) which is again described as "momentary" but actually is correct for LATCHING switches -- the Vent's response is what's "momentary," so the switch itself needs to be latched so that the connection stays on or off. For these switching modes, the manual describes the connections as: "Ring to Sleeve: Slow/Fast Tip to Sleeve: stop" And that's exactly what you get when using the "ring" half of a TRS insert cable. Because no tip-to-sleeve connection is ever being made, the stop command never happens, and the ring-to-sleeve connection (or lack thereof) switches you back and forth from slow to fast. For an unlatching switch as in lawman's post above, I would guess that you need to put the ventilator into "latching" switch mode, so that its response "latches" to a momentary command sent by an unlatched switch.

Reezekeys, thanks for the reply. Coming back to this thread a few months later just to report that I solved the problem described above, in case it ever vexes anyone else. The whistling sound was a result of inadvertently sending the organ sound through two leslie emulations, one after the other, in the AUM host. The first rotary, in vB3m, I had disabled (setting the rotary effect to "none") so that it could be sent out over AUM into the GSI rotary app. However, I finally figured out that when changing patches on my control keyboard, a MIDI patch change command was getting sent to the vB3m app as well, sending it back to the "default" patch with its own rotary engaged. Therefore, two rotaries were being used in series. I am not an expert, but I believe part of the characteristic Leslie sound includes some narrowband peaks at certain frequencies. I guess that at least one of these peaks lined up on the same frequencies in both rotary apps, so that any noise in those narrow bands would be hugely amplified. That does fit with the feedback-like sound I was hearing. I am now having AUM filter out patch changes to the vB3m app, and the problem has not recurred.

I am still fairly new to the vB3m and GSi rotary app. I love the sound of the vB3m rotary, but I wanted to get control over the ramp up/down times, so I bought the standalone GSI rotary app and route the dry vB3m into it using AUM as a host. I can't get the standalone to sound as good (to my ears) as the vB3m rotary, but I am still experimenting. The vB3m has a kind of grittiness to it, while the standalone sounds "cleaner" (and therefore less exciting to listen to for what I'm trying to do). Also having a strange problem that occurs maybe every ten minutes of playing or so, where a painfully loud whistling sound will start and become self-sustaining through this combination and last for about ten seconds before dying out. It seems to be triggered by the percussion on a certain key or two, near the G above middle C. Still trying to figure it out.

The "In The Cage" medley from Three Sides Live immediately came to mind. Definite "wow factor" there. Also, Second Home By The Sea is just awesome.

Wow, thanks Viv. Incredibly useful if I can get that to work! Much appreciated!

Hey Viv, not to derail this thread too much I hope, but... could elaborate as to how exactly you are making the MIDI connections you describe here? As I understand it, the MODX7 cannot use MIDI on both the 5-pin DIN port and the USB port at the same time, you have to choose one or the other. So.. how are you wiring these three things together? I ask because I'm interested in doing something similar with my MODX7 and another lower board, and an iPad Pro (which has a USB-C port). Thanks!

Thank you!

I grew up with piano lessons and started playing synths in bands in the late 80s. Always thought the guitar was a cool, mysterious thing but just never took the plunge to try to learn it. I remember hearing Zeppelin's "Over The Hills and Far Away" on my car radio one day in high school and thinking, "what a cool riff... and you know, it doesn't sound THAT hard..." Finally one summer I decided to give it a try. I heard Edgar Winter's "Free Ride" on the radio, and that was it -- that riff was so cool, I just had to see if I could learn to play this instrument. Started with a Mel Bay book of chords and an acoustic guitar... that was hard as heck to play, so a friend helped me pick out an electric, a Squier Strat, and the first guitar song I played in front of people was Jumpin' Jack Flash. From that point on, I've always played both keys and guitars in most of the bands I've been in -- as the Real MC says, it's really handy to not have to force keys into a song where only guitars are required. I love playing the guitar. So many cool sounds, pedals, amps, modelers, the whole thing... I'll never be a hot lead player, but I've become a pretty good rhythm player by learning from the (way better) guitarists in the bands. Actually I've had this dream for a long time of just being the rhythm guitarist -- life would be so simple at the rehearsals and gigs! -- but of course the keys are what get my foot in the door with bands to begin with, so I doubt it will ever happen. So I'm always schlepping twice the gear everywhere, to maintain this flexibility. It's gotten better over the years as guitar modeling has improved and allowed me to play both instruments through the same amps, so the load is lighter than it used to be. 30 years later, I'm still working on "Free Ride!" What a fiendishly difficult little riff that is... but I've gotten to play both that one and the Zeppelin in various cover bands, and it's quite a thrill!

There are three bands whose albums have been like constant friends to me throughout my life -- Genesis, Boston, and Rush. I've gotten to see the latter two several times each, so I'm good. But for whatever reason, I've never been able to see Genesis, and thought that ship had sailed. If they come anywhere near me this time, I'm going! And I may drag my family along with me. Even if Phil is not anywhere near his peak, I'm still going to get to hear those huge Tony Banks keyboard sounds, and watch Mike Rutherford play those parts that are so deeply burned into my brain. Duke and Abacab were the albums that turned me on to them, though I like and appreciate their whole catalog. I like Peter Gabriel as a solo performer (agree completely about Secret World, it's amazing), but I prefer the Collins-fronted Genesis by far. I hope this tour really happens!

double ditto!

I have to agree, the low end on these is really surprising, in a good way! I've done some low synth drones for one song with them, and they sound plenty deep and full... people in the band looking around, and at me, like, "whoa, that is cool!" I'm sure a sub would take it up to "ridiculously cool" in that situation, but for everything else, I think a sub would be overkill. In fact, in one of my bands I've had cut some of the bass response, because our bass player said I was putting out too much low end on pianos, EP's, etc. I think he was right. I made this cut using the "Monitor 2" DSP setting. But I've just noticed that there are some other settings where you can engage a high-pass filter at various low frequencies, so I might try those as well. By the way Chuck, it was your early advocacy for these K8.2's (and detailed descriptions) that put me onto them, and I've never once regretted it. Thank you!

Points very well taken. Absolutely. The Vent is worth every penny! I just wish I had enough pennies for a couple more of them!

Ayup. This is why I'm perpetually on the hunt for a cheaper solution with almost-as-good results -- because I could really use several of these pedals, installed at different rehearsal spaces, but can't shell out that kind of money repeatedly for them. So far, I think the best "bang for the buck" rotary emulator has been the Lester K -- not as complex as the Vent to my ears, but it has a real warmth and charm and "aliveness" that just works, particularly with electric pianos, but also with organ. At $140, they're a steal. The only issue for me is that it can't be controlled via an external footswitch, and I can't keep looking down at the floor to be sure I'm hitting the little switch on the face properly, so it's unworkable for me in a real playing situation.

Glad to see some love for the Crowded House! I just got to see Neil Finn with Fleetwood Mac last week, it was great to see him up there on stage, and they played "Don't Dream It's Over" with Stevie Nicks singing along. Very nice. Jon, I'm VERY curious to hear your recorded comparison of the HX3 rotary with the Vent, because the HX3 is the next upgrade I'm considering for my organ tones overall, and I'm really hoping that, if the HX3 rotary is good enough, I won't need the Vent any more.

this seems to be one of the few things we all can agree on. Indeed. And I've also observed that, the worse (or let's say less authentic) the original organ sound is, the more it can be helped by running it through a real Leslie or a Vent. The rotating speaker (and amp) element is such a big part of the overall sound, that if it's done well, it can mask a lot of deficiencies in the source.

Thanks Dan!

Hello all, Fender has a new rotary effect pedal called the Pinwheel. I'm always interested in checking out new rotary pedals to see how they compare to the Ventilator II. This one caught my eye because it has a feature that I like -- the ability to use an external footswitch to control the fast/slow switching. It's also stereo in/out, which is helpful in my rig, and has a "mode" switch that selects between emulating a Leslie 122, 145, or Fender Vibratone. Also, there's a "keyboard" vs. "guitar" voicing switch on the back. The top face knobs include controls for the fast and slow rotary speeds, as well as the ramp time between them, and a separate "drive" control for overdrive. All very encouraging. The guitar demos sound nice, but I haven't been able to find a demo of anyone running an organ through this pedal. So I ordered a pinwheel and did an A/B comparison this afternoon. And then I thought I'd make a quick recording and share it with the group. I recorded two short organ passages through each pedal. For each passage, the Pinwheel is first, Ventilator II is second: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6bod6bi1tjdvhg9/Pinwheel_First_Vent2_Second.wav?dl=0 This is my first attempt to share a file on a forum, so I hope it works -- if anyone has trouble downloading the file, just reply here and I'll try to fix it if I can. Notes on the recording: this was played with drawbars 888000248 on a Hammond XK-2. No percussion, chorus, or vibrato, and the XK-2's internal leslie emulation was turned off. The XK-2 has two outputs that I believe are identical. One output went to the mono input of the Pinhweel, the other to the mono input of the Ventilator II. The stereo outputs from each pedal were sent into a Rolls MX122 mixer, and the L/R output of this mixer was recorded into a DAW. I played once with only the Pinwheel turned up at the mixer, then played again with only the Vent turned up, then did all this again for the other short passage. In the DAW I chopped out most of the dead air between the passages, and normalized each section so that they would have roughly the same audio level. The knobs on the Pinwheel were set to try and match my settings on the Vent, in terms of fast/slow speeds, ramp time, and overdrive (though I may not have dialed in quite as much drive on the Pinwheel, as I listen back to it now). The Pinwheel mode switch was set to "1" for "122," which is the cabinet that the Vent is built to emulate, and the voicing was set to "keyboard." The Pinwheel has no way to adjust the "mic distance," as one can do on the Ventilator, so the lower rotor is much more prominent, and the stereo separation is wider, on the Pinwheel. Also, the tone knob on the Pinwheel was set all the way to maximum treble, which got me closest to the sound of the Vent. EDIT -- played with it some more after posting, and I think I actually did get the Pinwheel drive matched as closely as possible to the Vent when I recorded. About 1/3 of the way up, so it's there but not dominating. Past this point, it quickly gets very noticeably overdriven, not in a bad way, but not subtle either. The reverb is coming from the XK-2 -- neither of these pedals supplies that. Also, the overdrive is a combination of the overdrive dialed in from the XK-2 as well as some dialed in on the pedals themselves. The audio was well below clipping when it was recorded, so none of the grit is coming from any kind of digital distortion (or distortion within the mixer). My own opinion of the results: The rotary part of the Pinwheel sound is pretty good, but it falls down on the amplifier/cabinet tone emulation -- the tone just doesn't have the "air" or "warmth" of the Vent. Through headphones, this is readily apparent, but even playing through studio monitors out into the room, this lack of character from the pinwheel was really noticeable. Curious to hear what other people's takes are on this pedal, and in any case, hoping this comparison may help others who are considering the Pinwheel. Cheers!

Backed! This looks like a lot of fun, and a great way to encourage my kids with their music theory. Thanks for the heads up!

Hey MOI, in my case there was a small rattle or buzzing noise that came from the black plastic receptacle for the power cord -- I think there's a fuse cover or something that's part of the receptacle -- it's flush with it on the face, but it isn't completely tight. I solved it by putting a piece of electrical tape over that part of the receptacle, so that it couldn't move. Who knows, maybe this is your issue... good luck!

I think you're right that there would be no output from the front in this case, because it would be amplifying L' + R' = 0. But the side output that you would get would be: L' - R' = 2L in one direction, and L' + R' = 2R in the other. As I understand it, this will not create the 3-D effect. It would no different than placing two normal stereo speakers back to back, which is not what the spacestation does. The "magic" of the SS3 is that the difference signal, L - R, is amplified and distributed around the room along with the summed mono L + R. No, elseif had it right. Right SS input R' = (R-L) Left SS input L' = (L-R) Front output = R'+L' = (R-L) + (L-R) = 0 Side speaker outputs are (forward and backward): Forward: L'-R' = (L-R) - (R-L) = 2*(L-R) Backward: R'-L' = (R-L) - (L-R) = 2*(R-L) Aha. Yes, this is exactly right. I should have double-checked before rushing to post. How embarrassing. Very sorry about that, Elseif, and thank you and JazzPiano88 for taking the time to correct me!

I think you're right that there would be no output from the front in this case, because it would be amplifying L' + R' = 0. But the side output that you would get would be: L' - R' = 2L in one direction, and L' + R' = 2R in the other. As I understand it, this will not create the 3-D effect. It would no different than placing two normal stereo speakers back to back, which is not what the spacestation does. The "magic" of the SS3 is that the difference signal, L - R, is amplified and distributed around the room along with the summed mono L + R.

well, if the floor is dirty, then yes. Aha! Just as I suspected...

Yeah. I've seen that approach demonstrated often here, but have yet to actually try it myself. There's something weird to me about putting the speaker on the floor, pointed at the floor. Does the front grill get dirty? Is it bad for the speakers to be trying to push air against the floor like that, or to be firing in a horizontal orientation rather than a vertical one? (I'll admit, that last one is a stretch). And just wasting all that power, amplifying a signal and producing sound that will end up going nowhere... seems wrong to me. I'd much rather just shut it off. Still, if this approach is Aspen-approved (and thanks for the reminder), then maybe I will give it a try. Actually, now that I think about it, the even better way to do this would be to wire the SS's volume controls a little differently. There should be one volume control for the front main speakers, and a separate one entirely for the side-firing speaker. This is not the way the controls work currently: the LEVEL knob controls both the main and side-firing speakers, and then the WIDTH knob lets you make a second adjustment to just the side-firing one (but you can't raise it at all if the master LEVEL is set to zero). This effectively prevents you from ever having just the side-firing one working. It seems like this is harder to implement than my scheme of just one volume knob per speaker, but I'm guessing it was done to prevent people from inadvertently turning up only the side-firing, and then claiming that the amp sounds lousy (which it certainly would, on its own.)