Hubbry Logo
FlangingFlangingMain
Open search
Flanging
Community hub
Flanging
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Flanging
Flanging
Flanging
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Example of flanging
A short sample followed by two flanging versions
Problems playing this file? See media help.

Flanging /ˈflændʒɪŋ/ is an audio effect produced by mixing two identical signals together, one signal delayed by a small and (usually) gradually changing period, usually smaller than 20 milliseconds. This produces a swept comb filter effect: peaks and notches are produced in the resulting frequency spectrum, related to each other in a linear harmonic series. Varying the time delay causes these to sweep up and down the frequency spectrum. A flanger is an effects unit that creates this effect.

Part of the output signal is usually fed back to the input (a re-circulating delay line), producing a resonance effect that further enhances the intensity of the peaks and troughs. The phase of the fed-back signal is sometimes inverted, producing another variation on the flanger sound.

Origin

[edit]

As an audio effect, a listener hears a drainpipe or swoosh or jet plane sweeping effect as shifting sum-and-difference harmonics are created analogous to use of a variable notch filter. The term "flanging" comes from one of the early methods of producing the effect. The finished music track is recorded simultaneously to two matching tape machines, then replayed with both decks in sync. The output from the two recorders is mixed to a third recorder. The engineer slows down one playback recorder by lightly pressing a finger on the flange (rim) of the supply reel. The drainpipe or subtle swoosh effect sweeps in one direction, and the playback of that recorder remains slightly behind the other when the finger is removed. By pressing a finger on the flange of the other deck, the effect sweeps back in the other direction as the decks progress towards being in sync. The Beatles' producer George Martin disputed this reel flange source, attributing the term to himself and John Lennon instead.[1][2]

Despite claims over who originated flanging, Les Paul discovered the effect in the late 1940s and 1950s; however, he did most of his early phasing experiments with acetate disks on variable-speed record players. On "Mammy's Boogie" (1952) he used two disk recorders, one with a variable speed control.[3][4] The first hit song with a very discernible flanging effect was "The Big Hurt" (1959) by Toni Fisher.[5]

Further development of the classic effect is attributed to Ken Townsend, an engineer at EMI's Abbey Road Studio, who devised a process in the spring of 1966. Tired of laboriously re-recording dual vocal tracks, John Lennon asked Townsend if there was some way for the Beatles to get the sound of double-tracked vocals without doing the work. Townsend devised automatic double tracking (ADT). According to historian Mark Lewisohn, it was Lennon who first called the technique "flanging". Lennon asked George Martin to explain how ADT worked, and Martin answered with the nonsense explanation "Now listen, it's very simple. We take the original image and we split it through a double vibrocated sploshing flange with double negative feedback".[1] Lennon thought Martin was joking. Martin replied, "Well, let's flange it again and see". From that point, when Lennon wanted ADT he would ask for his voice to be flanged, or call out for "Ken's flanger". According to Lewisohn, the Beatles' influence meant the term "flanging" is still in use today, more than 50 years later. The first Beatles track to feature flanging was "Tomorrow Never Knows" from Revolver, recorded on 6 April 1966. When Revolver was released on 5 August 1966, almost every song had been subjected to flanging.[6]

Others have attributed it to George Chkiantz, an engineer at Olympic Studios in Barnes, London. Two early British pop examples of flanging occur in the Small Faces' single "Itchycoo Park" alongside Cat Stevens single "A Bad Night" (both 1967), both recorded at Olympic and engineered by Chkiantz's colleague Glyn Johns.[7][8]

Itchycoo Park – The Small Faces
Tape flanging effect on the 1967 single "Itchycoo Park".
Problems playing this file? See media help.

The first stereo flanging is credited to producer Eddie Kramer, in the coda of Jimi Hendrix's "Bold as Love" (1967). Kramer said in the 1990s that he read BBC Radiophonic Workshop journals for ideas and circuit diagrams.[citation needed]

Kendrick's setup to control flanging

In 1968, the record producer for the Litter, Warren Kendrick, devised a method to precisely control flanging by placing two 15 ips (inches per second) stereo Ampex tape recorders side by side.[9] The take-up reel of recorder A and supply reel of B were disabled, as were channel 2 of recorder A, channel 1 of recorder B and the erase head of recorder B. The tape was fed left-to-right across both recorders and an identical signal was recorded on each channel of the tape, but displaced by approximately 18 inches along the length of the tape. During recording, an ordinary screwdriver was wedged between the recorders to make the tape run "uphill" and "downhill." The same configuration was employed during the playback/mixdown to a third recorder. The screwdriver was moved back and forth to cause the two signals to diverge, then converge. The latter technique permits zero point flanging; i.e., the lagging signal crosses over the leading signal and the signals change places.[10][11][12][13]

A similar "jet plane-like" effect can occur naturally in long distance shortwave radio music broadcasts. In this case the delays are caused by variable radio wave propagation time and multipath radio interference.

Artificial flanging

[edit]

In the 1970s, advances in solid-state electronics made flanging possible using integrated circuit technology. Solid-state flanging devices fall into two categories: analog and digital. The Eventide Instant Flanger from 1975 is an early example of a studio device that was able to successfully simulate tape flanging using bucket-brigades to create the audio delay.[14] The flanging effect in most newer digital flangers relies on DSP technology. Flanging can also be accomplished using computer software.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][excessive citations]

The original tape-flanging effect sounds a little different from electronic and software recreations.[22][23] Not only is the tape-flanging signal time-delayed, but response characteristics at different frequencies of the tape and tape heads introduced phase shifts into the signals as well. Thus, while the peaks and troughs of the comb filter are more or less in a linear harmonic series, there is a significant non-linear behaviour too, causing the timbre of tape-flanging to sound more like a combination of what came to be known as flanging and phasing.

"Barber pole" flanging

[edit]

Also known as "infinite flanging", this sonic illusion is similar to the Shepard tone effect, and is equivalent to an auditory "barber pole".[24][25] The sweep of the flanged sound seems to move in only one direction ("up" or "down") infinitely, instead of sweeping back-and-forth. While Shepard tones are created by generating a cascade of tones, fading in and out while sweeping the pitch either up or down, barber pole flanging uses a cascade of multiple delay lines, fading each one into the mix and fading it out as it sweeps to the delay time limit. The effect is available on various hardware and software effect systems.[26]

Comparison with phase shifting

[edit]
Spectrograms of phasing and flanging effects

Flanging is one specific type of phase-shifting, or "phasing".[27] In phasing, the signal is passed through one or more all-pass filters with non-linear phase response and then added back to the original signal. This results in constructive and destructive interference that varies with frequency, giving a series of peaks and troughs in the frequency response of the system. In general, the position of these peaks and troughs do not occur in a harmonic series.

In contrast, flanging relies on adding the signal to a uniform time-delayed copy of itself, which results in an output signal with peaks and troughs which are in a harmonic series. Extending the comb analogy, flanging yields a comb filter with regularly spaced teeth, whereas phasing results in a comb filter with irregularly spaced teeth.

In both phasing and flanging, the characteristics (phase response and time delay respectively) are generally varied in time, leading to an audible sweeping effect. To the ear, flanging and phasing sound similar, yet they are recognizable as distinct colorations. Commonly, flanging is referred to as having a "jet-plane-like" characteristic. In order for the comb filter effect to be audible, the spectral content of the program material must be full enough within the frequency range of this moving comb filter to reveal the filter's effect. It is more apparent when it is applied to material with a rich harmonic content, and is most obvious when applied to a white noise or similar noise signal. If the frequency response of this effect is plotted on a linearly-scaled graph, the trace resembles a comb, and so is called a comb filter.[28]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Flanging

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Flanging is an audio modulation effect characterized by a distinctive sweeping or whooshing , achieved by mixing an original with a duplicate that has a variable short delay, typically ranging from 0 to 20 milliseconds, resulting in dynamic comb filtering that creates moving notches and peaks in the frequency spectrum. This process produces a sense of movement across frequencies, often evoking the of a jet taking off or a swirling vortex. The origins of flanging trace back to analog tape recording techniques in the late 1950s and early , where engineers duplicated audio onto two synchronized reel-to-reel tape machines and manually varied the playback speed of one by pressing a finger against the tape reel's to introduce subtle time differences between the signals. Although early instances may have appeared on tracks like "The Big Hurt" by Toni Fisher in 1959, the effect was popularized in 1966 by on their song "" from the album , where producer and engineer applied it to create psychedelic textures by slowing one tape machine. By the mid-1970s, dedicated hardware pedals and units from companies like and made flanging more accessible, leading to its widespread adoption in rock and . In technical terms, a flanger splits the input signal into two paths: one direct and one passed through a delay line whose time is modulated by a low-frequency oscillator (LFO), often at rates between 0.1 and 2 Hz, before the signals are recombined. This differs from similar effects like phasing, which uses all-pass filters to shift phase without true delay, or chorus, which employs longer delays and multiple voices for a thicker . Today, flanging is commonly implemented in workstations (DAWs) and plugins, allowing precise control over parameters like depth, feedback, and stereo width, and remains a staple in genres from to electronic music. Flanging has left a lasting mark on , with iconic applications including the full-track flanging on Jimi Hendrix's "Voodoo Child (Slight Return)" in 1968, achieved via two tape machines for a swirling, otherworldly guitar tone, and the prominent guitar flanging on The Police's "" in 1979, which defined the new wave sound. Other notable examples include Pink Floyd's experimental sweeps on tracks from The Dark Side of the Moon (1973), Eddie Van Halen's layered flanging in Van Halen's self-titled debut album (1978), and its use in modern productions for drums, synths, and vocals to add movement and depth.

History

Origins in Analog Recording

The origins of flanging trace back to experimental audio techniques in the mid-20th century, particularly through the pioneering work of guitarist and inventor . In the late and early , Paul developed multi-track tape recording methods using modified reel-to-reel machines, enabling him to layer sounds and create artificial echoes via short delays between synchronized tracks. These innovations, including sound-on-sound overdubbing and slapback echo effects, produced thickening and spatial audio phenomena that foreshadowed the phase-shifting qualities of flanging by exploiting variable time differences in playback. One of the earliest commercial recordings to feature a flanging-like effect was "The Big Hurt" by Toni Fisher in 1959, achieved by running the audio through three synchronized tape machines with subtle speed differences. By the and into the , recording engineers refined these ideas into manual tape flanging, a hands-on process involving physical manipulation of tape reels on synchronized machines. The technique emerged as engineers pressed their thumbs or fingers against the metal —the outer rim of a tape reel—to temporarily slow down playback speed on one machine relative to another, introducing subtle variations in timing. This manual intervention created a sweeping, undulating through dynamic delay modulation, marking an evolution from static double-tracking to interactive audio effects in studio environments. The core technical setup for analog tape flanging required two identical reel-to-reel tape machines playing the same source material in sync, with their outputs mixed together. Engineers would manipulate the on one machine to generate a variable delay typically ranging from 0 to 20 milliseconds, causing the two signals to interfere and produce phase cancellations—known as filtering—that resulted in resonant peaks and notches in the frequency spectrum. This interference created the characteristic "whooshing" or "jet-like" , discovered somewhat serendipitously during sessions as tapes were aligned or adjusted. Early documented applications of this method appeared in prominent studios, including , where engineers like Ken Townsend built on these principles in 1966 to develop artificial double-tracking (ADT). During overdubs for vocal and instrumental layers, the accidental variation in tape speeds revealed the flanging effect's potential, leading to its intentional use for enhanced depth without manual re-recording. This hands-on analog approach laid the groundwork for later electronic adaptations.

Popularization and Early Examples

Flanging gained significant prominence in the mid-1960s through innovative studio applications by , particularly during the recording of their 1966 album . On the track "," engineer Ken Townsend applied artificial double-tracking (ADT), modulating the tape speed to create swirling, psychedelic flanging effects on John Lennon's drone-like vocals. Producer collaborated closely with Lennon to achieve this sound, instructing the team to process the vocals as if the singer were "the chanting from a hilltop," marking a pivotal moment in transforming tape manipulation into a deliberate audio effect for . Shortly thereafter, in 1967, The further popularized flanging in their hit single "," which is widely recognized as one of the earliest commercial recordings to feature the effect prominently in the bridge sections after each chorus. Engineer achieved this by physically pressing on the tape reels during playback at , producing a distinctive whooshing sweep that complemented the song's hazy, drug-inspired lyrics and mod-to-psychedelic transition. This application helped elevate flanging from an experimental curiosity to a staple in British rock production. Engineers like and played key roles in refining flanging techniques for rock and psychedelic genres during this period. Martin integrated it seamlessly into ' soundscapes, while Kramer applied manual tape-flanging to Jimi Hendrix's 1968 track "Gypsy Eyes" from , where he and colleague Gary Kellgren pressed the tape flanges to generate dynamic, swirling guitar textures that enhanced the album's experimental edge. These contributions aligned with the broader of the late , where flanging contributed to the mind-expanding sonic palettes of artists like Hendrix, as embraced similar studio innovations on early albums such as The Piper at the Gates of Dawn (1967) to evoke of consciousness amid the countercultural boom.

Technical Principles

Signal Delay and Mixing

Flanging is fundamentally a comb-filtering audio effect achieved by mixing an original (dry) signal with a slightly delayed (wet) copy of itself, where the delay time is typically short, ranging from 1 to 20 milliseconds, to produce audible interference patterns rather than distinct echoes. This process creates a frequency-dependent response characterized by alternating peaks and notches, resembling the teeth of a . The phase cancellation mechanics arise from the superposition of the two signals: at frequencies where the delayed signal arrives with a phase shift of 180 degrees (or odd multiples thereof) relative to the original, destructive interference occurs, resulting in deep notches that attenuate those frequencies. Conversely, at frequencies where the phase alignment is 0 degrees (or even multiples), constructive interference produces peaks that boost those frequencies by up to 6 dB. This interference pattern forms the comb-like , with the spacing between notches determined by the inverse of the delay time. The locations of the frequency notches can be derived from the condition for destructive interference between the two signals separated by a time offset τ\tau (the delay in seconds). The phase difference is δ=2πfτ\delta = 2\pi f \tau, and nulls occur when δ=(2n+1)π\delta = (2n+1)\pi for n=0,1,2,…n = 0, 1, 2, \dots, leading to fn=n+1/2τ=2n+12τf_n = \frac{n + 1/2}{\tau} = \frac{2n+1}{2\tau}. For example, with τ=5\tau = 5 ms (0.0050.005 s), the first few notches appear around 100 Hz, 300 Hz, and 500 Hz, creating the characteristic tonal shaping. In practice, the mixing ratio between the dry and wet signals significantly influences the effect's depth and prominence; a typical 50/50 wet/dry blend yields the most pronounced filtering by balancing the contributions equally. Variations in this ratio, such as increasing the wet signal , can deepen the notches and enhance the overall intensity, while unequal blends may soften the interference for subtler applications. This static delay-and-mix configuration originated in analog tape techniques but forms the basis for all flanging implementations.

Modulation for Sweeping Effect

In flanging, a low-frequency oscillator (LFO) modulates the delay time of the signal path to produce the signature sweeping effect, typically using a sinusoidal or triangular to vary the delay smoothly over time. The base delay is usually set between 1 and 10 milliseconds, with the LFO sweeping this value by ±5 to 10 milliseconds at rates ranging from 0.5 to 3 Hz, creating whooshing or jet-like sweeps that evoke motion. This modulation depth, often adjustable from 0.25 to 1.0 relative to the base delay, controls the intensity of the sweep, with shallower depths yielding subtler movement and deeper ones producing more pronounced undulations. The LFO-induced variation in delay time shifts the positions of the interference notches in the dynamically, transforming the static into a sweeping one where nulls and peaks move across the spectrum. As the delay changes, the notch frequencies—spaced at intervals of approximately the reciprocal of the delay time—traverse audible bands, generating the characteristic metallic or swirling central to flanging. This time-varying comb filtering contrasts with fixed-delay effects by introducing perceptual depth and motion, with the sweep rate dictating the perceived speed of the notches' movement. Feedback can be incorporated by a portion of the delayed signal back to the input, enhancing at the notches and intensifying the sweeping effect without altering the core modulation. Typical feedback levels range from 0 to 0.7, amplifying the comb filter's peaks while risking instability if overdriven, which sharpens the notches for a more dramatic sweep. The modulated delay time τ(t)\tau(t) is mathematically expressed as τ(t)=τ0+Asin⁡(2πfLFOt),\tau(t) = \tau_0 + A \sin(2\pi f_{\text{LFO}} t), where τ0\tau_0 is the base delay, AA is the modulation depth ( of variation), and fLFOf_{\text{LFO}} is the LFO frequency. This formulation ensures the delay oscillates periodically, causing the notch frequencies fn≈n/τ(t)f_n \approx n / \tau(t) (for integer nn) to vary continuously over time, directly producing the sweeping response.

Types of Flanging

Tape-Based Flanging

Tape-based flanging originated as an analog audio processing technique that relied on physical manipulation of reel-to-reel tape machines to create a sweeping, comb-filtering effect through variable signal delay. The setup typically involved two synchronized professional tape recorders, such as 350/351 or models, each playing back identical source material recorded on separate but matching tapes. Engineers would align the machines for playback, mixing their outputs together in real time; to generate the delay, one operator manually applied to the (edge) of the supply on the secondary machine, slightly slowing the tape speed and introducing a short, variable delay of around 5-20 milliseconds relative to the primary machine. This manual intervention allowed for dynamic modulation of the delay time, producing the characteristic whooshing sweeps as the signals intermittently aligned and canceled out frequencies. A hallmark of tape flanging is "thru-zero" , where the delay time passes through zero milliseconds, creating pronounced null points in the that emulate the authentic tape machine interaction. The process was highly labor-intensive, demanding precise coordination between two engineers—one to control playback sync and the other to modulate the tape speed—often in real time during mixing sessions, with no opportunity for easy correction or . It was prone to inconsistencies like wow and flutter from uneven tape tension and mechanical variations, which could introduce unintended pitch instability or artifacts, further complicating the effect's control. Due to the bulk and complexity of the equipment, tape-based flanging was largely confined to studio environments and impractical for live or portable applications. Sonically, the method imparted an organic warmth and subtle saturation from the tape medium itself, enhancing the effect with analog harmonics and a natural, drifting quality that felt more immersive than later electronic approximations, though the sweeps were often less consistent and more unpredictable. Early examples include the 1967 track "" by the , where controlled tape flanging added a psychedelic swirl to the vocals and instruments. By the mid-1970s, tape-based flanging had largely declined in use, supplanted by compact electronic flanging devices like bucket-brigade delay pedals that offered automated, repeatable modulation without the need for multiple machines. Today, while the original hardware method is rare, its characteristics—including thru-zero flanging and tape saturation—are emulated in digital plugins that model tape inertia, saturation, and manual variability for modern production.

Artificial Electronic Flanging

Artificial electronic flanging developed in the mid-1970s as that automated the comb-filtering effect through integrated circuits, providing a portable alternative to the labor-intensive manual manipulation required in tape-based techniques. These early pedals integrated (BBD) chips to generate short, variable delays, enabling musicians to achieve the sweeping, resonant sound in real time without specialized studio equipment. Pioneering examples include the Electric Mistress, designed by engineer David Cockerell and released in 1976 as the first stompbox-format flanger, which utilized a Reticon SAD-1024 BBD chip for analog delay generation. The Flanger followed in 1977, incorporating the similar SAD-1024A chip within its compact enclosure to mix the delayed signal with the original, producing the characteristic flanging notches. At the core of these circuits, the BBD shifts the input audio through an array of capacitors via a modulated , where each stage samples and holds charge to create delay times typically ranging from 1 to 10 milliseconds. A low-frequency oscillator (LFO) varies the for the sweeping modulation, while a feedback path recirculates portions of the delayed signal to intensify the effect's depth and . The sound of BBD-based flangers was generally cleaner and more consistent than tape methods, though it carried a distinctive analog warmth and subtle aliasing from the chip's discrete sampling process. Key controls encompassed rate for adjusting LFO speed, depth for modulating the delay variation, and manual settings for the base delay time, allowing users to tailor the effect from subtle shimmer to pronounced sweeps. A major innovation was the footswitchable pedal design, which permitted on-the-fly activation and adjustment during performances, expanding flanging's accessibility beyond studio environments. This approach differed from contemporaneous effects like the Univox Uni-Vibe, which employed all-pass filtering to emulate rotary speaker motion rather than true delay-based comb filtering.

Digital and Modern Implementations

The shift to digital implementations of flanging occurred in the 1980s, exemplified by rack-mounted multi-effects units like the Eventide H3000 Ultra-Harmonizer, released in 1986, which employed (DSP) chips to simulate variable delay lines without the tape hiss, wow, or flutter associated with analog methods. These early digital processors allowed for programmable effects, including flanging, by generating clean, repeatable delay modulations through dedicated hardware like the TMS32010 DSP chips. In digital flanging, the core relies on a structure where the input signal is mixed with a delayed version of itself, typically implemented as a (FIR) filter for the basic delay:
y(n)=x(n)+gx(n−M)y(n) = x(n) + g x(n - M)
with MM as the delay in samples and gg as the mix gain, modulated sinusoidally by a low-frequency oscillator (LFO) at rates of 0.1–5 Hz to create the sweeping notches. (IIR) variants incorporate feedback for resonant peaks:
y(n)=cx(n)+gy(n−M)y(n) = c x(n) + g y(n - M),
enabling sharper comb responses similar to analog bucket-brigade devices but with greater stability. To handle fractional delay variations during modulation and prevent artifacts from time-varying filters, —processing at 2–8 times the base sample rate followed by downsampling—is commonly applied, spreading potential high-frequency distortions beyond the audible range before low-pass filtering. Prominent software implementations include plugins integrated into digital audio workstations (DAWs), such as Waves' MetaFlanger, which models thru-zero flanging by allowing delay times to pass through zero milliseconds (0–50 ms range) while offering phase inversion for hollow or zinging tones, and supports up to 24-bit/192 kHz resolution. Similarly, Live's Flanger device uses a stereo-capable delay line (0.1–20 ms) modulated by an LFO, with independent left/right processing for enhanced spatial width and tempo-sync options like 1/4- or 1/8-note rates. Digital flanging provides key advantages over analog predecessors, including the capacity for high feedback levels (up to 100%) without oscillation risks due to precise in DSP, superior via channel-specific modulation, and seamless tempo synchronization for rhythmic alignment in productions. These features became widely accessible through DAW integration and VST plugins starting in the , with mobile audio apps incorporating flanging emerging in the for on-the-go processing. Contemporary hardware advances blend digital precision with analog emulation, as seen in the Strymon TimeLine pedal (2013), which uses DSP to replicate flanging via short modulated delays in its twelve delay engines, allowing infinite preset storage, control, and modulation depth/speed adjustments for effects ranging from subtle chorusing to intense sweeps without analog noise.

Comparisons to Similar Effects

Flanging versus Phasing

Phasing is an audio modulation effect that employs phase-shifting networks composed of all-pass filters to alter the phase relationships between frequency components of a signal without introducing an absolute time delay or changing the response. These all-pass filters, typically implemented as a series of cascaded sections, shift the phase of different variably, creating a comb-like with moving notches when the processed signal is mixed with the dry signal. The notches are generated at where the cumulative phase shift reaches odd multiples of π radians, and a low-frequency oscillator (LFO) modulates the filter frequencies or pole positions to sweep these notches dynamically, producing a swirling, undulating . In contrast to flanging, which relies on a short, modulated time delay to produce a comb filter, phasing achieves its effect through these all-pass filters that delay frequencies differentially rather than uniformly. This fundamental difference results in flanging exhibiting broader peaks and notches with pronounced due to the time-domain delay, creating resonant sweeps reminiscent of a jet flyby, whereas phasing yields narrower, smoother notches lacking such for a more subtle, hollow modulation. Flanging's comb filtering produces uniformly spaced notches across the , leading to a denser, more aggressive alteration of the signal, while phasing typically generates fewer notches with spacing that is linear in phase rather than , contributing to its characteristic whooshing yet less metallic . The mathematical underpinnings highlight these distinctions in notch behavior. For flanging, the notches occur at frequencies given by fk=2k+12τf_k = \frac{2k+1}{2\tau}, where k=0,1,2,…k = 0, 1, 2, \dots and τ\tau is the delay time in seconds, resulting in notches spaced linearly in that sweep up and down as the delay is modulated by an LFO. In phasing, the phase shift introduced by each section follows a response involving tan⁡(ωτ/2)\tan(\omega \tau / 2) due to bilinear transformation in digital implementations or analogous analog designs, where ω\omega is the ; this leads to notch positions that move in a more circular or elliptical pattern in the when modulated, differing from flanging's linear frequency sweep. Both effects emerged in the amid and studio innovations, with flanging originating from analog tape manipulation and phasing drawing early inspiration from the rotating speakers of Leslie cabinets used by organists since the but popularized in guitar effects by the decade's end. The pedal, released in 1972, exemplified commercial phasing hardware using networks and became a staple for its single-knob control over sweep rate.

Flanging versus Chorus

Flanging and chorus are both modulation-based audio effects that employ low-frequency oscillators (LFOs) to vary delay times, but they diverge significantly in their delay ranges and resulting timbres. Chorus typically generates multiple copies—often three or more—of the input signal, each delayed by 15-40 milliseconds and subtly detuned through LFO modulation of the delay time, which introduces minor pitch variations to simulate the natural imperfections of an of performers. This multi-voice approach creates a sense of thickness and spatial width, evoking the chorusing effect of grouped instruments or voices without overpowering the original signal. In comparison, flanging uses a single delayed copy with much shorter of 1-10 milliseconds, leading to intense comb filtering where constructive and destructive interference produces deep nulls and resonant peaks. These ultra-short result in metallic whooshes and sweeping resonances, often likened to a , as the modulated delay sweeps the notches across the . Unlike chorus, which maintains a smoother, less interfered texture to avoid pronounced nulls and achieve a shimmering ambiance, flanging's mechanism emphasizes these cancellations for a bolder, more transformative sound. Both effects share core parameters like LFO rate (typically 0.1-5 Hz for controlling sweep speed) and depth (modulation intensity), allowing similar control over the motion's pace and extent. However, chorus frequently incorporates dedicated or pitch-shifting elements alongside minimal feedback to preserve subtlety and ensemble-like warmth, while flanging employs higher feedback levels to intensify the sweeps and highlight the comb-filtered character. Sonically, flanging excels in creating dramatic, jet-like whooshes ideal for accentuating guitar solos, as exemplified by the intense riff sweeps in Van Halen's "Unchained," where the effect adds propulsion and edge. Chorus, by contrast, is favored for lush, detuned pads that broaden textures without disruption, such as the shimmering synth layers in productions like ' "Everybody Wants to Rule the World," contributing to their expansive, immersive quality.

Applications

In Studio Recording and Production

In studio recording and production, flanging enhances tracks by introducing sweeping modulation that adds texture and spatial interest without overwhelming the core signal. It is commonly applied to vocals to create an ethereal quality, as seen in 1970s productions where the effect contributed to lush, processed soundscapes. On drums, flanging imparts rhythmic movement, particularly effective for hi-hats or percussion in electronic tracks to simulate organic variation and width. When used on full mixes, it delivers psychedelic depth, a hallmark of 1960s studio techniques that expanded the sonic palette beyond static elements. Key production techniques involve precise control within digital audio workstations (DAWs). Automating the low-frequency oscillator (LFO) rate on flanger plugins allows producers to sculpt evolving sweeps that align with dynamics, a standard practice in tools like for building tension or transitions. Layering flanging before reverb integrates the modulated signal into broader spatial effects, enhancing depth while maintaining clarity in the overall mix. Digital implementations facilitate these methods through versatile plugins that emulate analog behaviors. The evolution of flanging in studios traces from manual tape manipulation in recording suites, where engineers synchronized two reel-to-reel machines for real-time delay variation, to contemporary software emulations. Plugins such as Waves MetaFlanger capture vintage tape-era tones with modern precision, enabling seamless integration into workflows. This progression has made flanging accessible for subtle enhancements in rock, electronic, and sound design, including its use on whooshes for immersive effects without low-end muddiness when frequencies are selectively targeted. As of 2023, flanging appears in productions, such as builds for dramatic sweeps.

In Live Performance and Instruments

Flanging effects are widely integrated into live guitar performances through compact pedal units that enable real-time manipulation. The Boss BF-3 Flanger, for instance, offers foot-controlled sweeps via its manual mode, allowing performers to adjust depth, rate, and on for dynamic sweeps during solos or rhythms. Its stereo output capability enhances immersive live sound by creating a wider spatial effect when connected to dual amplifiers or PA systems. In and keyboard setups, flanging is incorporated via modular systems like modules, which support real-time patching for customized during live electronic performances. Modules based on (BBD) chips, such as the Doepfer A-188-1, or multi-effect units like the Tiptop Audio FX Modular with flanger modes, allow integration into larger rigs for on-the-fly modulation. Tempo-sync features in these units ensure flanging aligns with live beats, essential for electronic live sets in genres like or ambient. Live performers face challenges with digital flanging pedals, including potential latency from , which is often minimized through advanced buffering techniques in modern designs to maintain tight with playing. Blending flanging with guitar amps requires careful gain staging to shape tone without overwhelming the core signal, often achieved by placing the pedal early in the chain post-distortion. In live tours, flanging has evolved with wireless integration and control, enabling remote parameter adjustments from tablets or controllers for seamless stage operation. Artists like The Police's popularized flanging in live settings, using units like the Electric Mistress for signature sweeps that added texture to new wave performances.

References

  1. https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/understanding-chorus-flangers-and-phasers-in-audio-production
  2. https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/finessing-the-flanger-how-to-create-beautiful-and-weird-sounds
  3. https://www.attackmagazine.com/technique/tutorials/5-ways-to-add-flanging-to-techno-drums/
  4. https://www.musicradar.com/news/we-take-the-original-image-and-split-it-through-a-double-vibrocated-sploshing-flange-with-double-negative-feedback-the-beatles-les-paul-or-larry-levine-who-really-discovered-flanging
  5. https://www.attackmagazine.com/features/long-read/from-pedals-to-plugins-a-history-of-modulation-effects/
  6. https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/modulation-effects
  7. https://www.izotope.com/en/learn/guide-to-audio-effects
  8. https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-what-jimi-hendrix-effect
  9. https://www.musicradar.com/news/electro-harmonix-announces-the-andy-summers-walking-on-the-moon-flanger
  10. https://www.musicradar.com/news/ultimate-guide-modulation-effects
  11. https://www.les-paul.com/multi-track-recording/
  12. https://www.strymon.net/les-paul-multitrack/
  13. https://bobbyowsinskiblog.com/who-created-flanging-its-complicated/
  14. https://www.audiotechnology.com/tutorials/tape-flanging-in-the-new-world
  15. https://www.premierguitar.com/gear/modulation-nation-chorus-phasing-and-flanging
  16. https://www.eventideaudio.com/blog/from-phasing-to-flanging/
  17. https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/chorus-flange-and-phase-pedals-difference/
  18. https://www.abbeyroad.com/news/inside-abbey-road-artificial-double-tracking-2530
  19. https://www.musicradar.com/news/the-whole-beatles-and-george-martin-discovering-flanging-debate-has-just-taken-a-weird-turn
  20. https://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/xz25/
  21. https://powerpop.blog/2023/12/28/small-faces-itchycoo-park/
  22. https://www.jimihendrix.com/encyclopedia-tag/eddie-kramer/
  23. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture-council/articles/rise-of-1960s-counterculture-derailment-psychedelic-research-1235076358/
  24. https://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~josh/documents/DAFXTutorial.pdf
  25. https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-what-exactly-comb-filtering
  26. http://music-web2.ucsd.edu/~trsmyth/filt171/filt171.pdf
  27. https://helpx.adobe.com/ca/audition/using/modulation-effects.html
  28. https://www.ableton.com/en/manual/live-audio-effect-reference/
  29. https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp/Flanging.html
  30. https://music.arts.uci.edu/dobrian/maxcookbook/flanging-explained
  31. https://www.dafx.de/paper-archive/2023/DAFx23_paper_63.pdf
  32. https://wiki.analog.com/resources/tools-software/sigmastudio/toolbox/adialgorithms/flanger
  33. https://gearspace.com/board/audio-student-engineering-production-question-zone/908848-analog-tape-flanging-actual-experience.html
  34. https://www.recordproduction.com/techniques/tape-flange-feature-one-way-to-get-a-flanging-effect
  35. https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/flange-flanging/
  36. https://omegastudios.com/8-step-analog-tape-flange/
  37. https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/flanger-management
  38. https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/understanding-emulating-vintage-effects
  39. https://www.interestingelectronics.com/old/henrys_interesting_electronics/flanger/flanger.htm
  40. https://paulreno.com/ehx-electric-mistress/
  41. https://reverb.com/ca/p/mxr-flanger-black
  42. https://www.electrosmash.com/mn3007-bucket-brigade-devices
  43. https://www.destroyallcircuits.com/blogs/news/the-chip-age-bucket-brigades-jetpacks-why-nerds-whisper-sad-1024
  44. https://pedalplayers.com/guitar-players-guide-to-flanger-pedals/
  45. https://www.gilmourish.com/?page_id=4537
  46. https://www.premierguitar.com/gear/echoes-of-the-past-and-future
  47. https://www.vintagedigital.com.au/eventide-h3000-dse-ultra-harmonizer/
  48. https://reverb.com/news/tech-behind-eventide-h3000-ultra-harmonizer
  49. https://users.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave.Marshall/Multimedia/PDF/07_3_Audio_Effects_Delays.pdf
  50. https://www.sageaudio.com/articles/oversampling-explained
  51. https://www.waves.com/plugins/metaflanger
  52. https://www.ableton.com/en/manual/flanger-phaser-chorus/
  53. https://www.strymon.net/manuals/TimeLine_UserManual_RevH.pdf
  54. https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/pasp/Phasing_2nd_Order_Allpass_Filters.html
  55. https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/q-whats-difference-between-phasing-and-flanging
  56. https://www.dafx.de/paper-archive/2015/DAFx-15_submission_67.pdf
  57. https://faculty.tru.ca/rtaylor/publications/allpass2_align.pdf
  58. https://reverb.com/news/a-brief-history-of-the-mxr-phase-90
  59. https://stringjoy.com/chorus-vs-flange/
  60. https://www.masteringbox.com/learn/chorus-flanger-and-phaser
  61. https://blog.landr.com/modulation-effects-flanger-phaser-chorus/
  62. https://stompboxbook.com/forever-flanged-10-great-flanger-powered-tracks-pedal-playlist/
  63. https://sonalsystem.com/blogs/frequencies/revisiting-classic-hits-from-the-80s-production-techniques-and-instrumentation
  64. https://blog.native-instruments.com/what-is-a-flanger/
  65. https://modulargrid.net/e/tiptop-audio-fx-modular
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.