Bug? Delay hold degrades

markyd

Inspired
The Delay hold, when engaged, loses high end over time. Almost as if there is a low pass filter engaged. I have tried all types of delays, I have made sure that the EQ is flat. This is important to me because I play a lot of ambient music, and I fade in and out delays that have been held from earlier in the composition. If you listen to the audio file, the beginning has much more highs than the end.
 
What type of delay are you using? I'm not sure how they're implemented but maybe the analog and tape delay algorithms have a low pass filter or distortion baked in that can't be dialed out with the exposed EQ parameters.
 
What type of delay are you using? I'm not sure how they're implemented but maybe the analog and tape delay algorithms have a low pass filter or distortion baked in that can't be dialed out with the exposed EQ parameters.
I have tested all the delays. They all do this. The audio sample is from the stereo digital delay. Thanks for the reply!
 
This is my rack. I have to keep an fu*****in Digitech TSR-24 in the rack just for the delay hold function. The delays do not degrade when the repeat hold function is engaged on the TSR-24. Sure would love to get rid of it!
Rack2.jpg
 
The Delay hold, when engaged, loses high end over time. Almost as if there is a low pass filter engaged. I have tried all types of delays,

Yes I have noticed that a year ago (or maybe more) or so too. The hold delay also is not endless and fades out after some time (also depending on the (feedback?) settings). Not sure what that is. It doesn't work like a normal hold delay. I think it is better if the hold function wouldn't depend on the settings and just holds what is there when you press the switch.
 
Last edited:
Yep. I noticed this when I first used it. I also noticed a volume anomaly when it is engaged. I don't know if this is still the case, as I don't use it for infinite feedback. I cut the delay input and set the feedback to 100 instead. I don't know why Hold would do this if it is simply playing the buffer contents repeatedly. Apparently, it is not a true Hold. I avoid it completely. I wouldn't call it a bug though. It is just a peculiar implementation of Hold.

And the TSR-24 was the best processor in its class in its day. Brilliant design for the 90s.
 
I don't know why Hold would do this if it is simply playing the buffer contents repeatedly. Apparently, it is not a true Hold.

I haven't used the hold delay lately but is this still the case? No idea why it is doing that.....
 
Back
Top Bottom