One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[bjporter]

A quick mention: Having a synth vote might mean taking the spontaneity out of the OSC. I remember excitedly waiting for the 1st of the month to see what the next synth will be.

Probably of less concern, this means that people could potentially start very early (knowing , and build some uber synth masterpieces... unlikely but wanted to bring it out there.

[bjporter]

duplicate removed

[idfpower]

A quick mention: Having a synth vote might mean taking the spontaneity out of the OSC. I remember excitedly waiting for the 1st of the month to see what the next synth will be.

Probably of less concern, this means that people could potentially start very early (knowing , and build some uber synth masterpieces... unlikely but wanted to bring it out there.

Agreed - that's why I voted against having such a poll before the competition

[crimsonwarlock]

First of all: Voted

Now, I still think we are STILL over-thinking this voting stuff, especially when it comes to the perceived risk of tactical voting. First of all, there should be some trust involved, simply because that gels with the overall feel of the OSC. Secondly, I explained before that when you have 10-15 or more submissions (and we are way over that for all the latest ones) it is actually pretty hard to really move someone more then one or two places in the overall rating. The below quote shows this misconception:

Agreed I voted for the stacking system because I too find the old system too mismatch (e.g. if you look as the OSC cm total scoring stats there is a 198 point difference the top voter and bottom voter massive discrepancy)

The thing is that this quote clearly shows how people 'feel' without actually knowing or understanding what's going on statistically; when you look at the CM OSC with 198 points difference between first and last voter, this only means that the lowest voter simply didn't like most tracks and the top voter liked most of them. There's nothing wrong with that.

Besides that, the difference in actuall given points between the first and last track is 155 points, it actually means that with an even distribution of votes over 75 tracks, the difference between any two subsequent tracks is just about 2 points!, meaning it is much less then any voter can actually differ between two tracks (with a 5 point system it being 4 points). So 155 points difference between first and last is pretty cool correct statistical distribution based on the amount of tracks and the 5 points max to be awarded to each track.

So basically it comes down to this (statistically): when the maximum difference is 4 points to be given (between 1 and 5), as soon as the amount of tracks is a certain multitude of that same number, the system will mediate itself based on statistical distribution across the range. Tactical voting simply is not an issue.

So I voted for the basic 5 point system; it is simple, everyone can use it's own interpretation of what is 1 point and what is 5 points and nothing will go wrong. The track that gets the most points because most people like it a lot will win, and that is simply how it should work.

[chilledpanda]

A quick mention: Having a synth vote might mean taking the spontaneity out of the OSC. I remember excitedly waiting for the 1st of the month to see what the next synth will be.

Probably of less concern, this means that people could potentially start very early (knowing , and build some uber synth masterpieces... unlikely but wanted to bring it out there.

Agreed, I voted no I like the fact that we don't know adds to the excitement and scramble of getting to know the synth asap.

[H-man]

A quick mention: Having a synth vote might mean taking the spontaneity out of the OSC. I remember excitedly waiting for the 1st of the month to see what the next synth will be.

Probably of less concern, this means that people could potentially start very early (knowing , and build some uber synth masterpieces... unlikely but wanted to bring it out there.

Agreed, I voted no I like the fact that we don't know adds to the excitement and scramble of getting to know the synth asap.

+1+1

Voted

[chilledpanda]

First of all: Voted

Now, I still think we are STILL over-thinking this voting stuff, especially when it comes to the perceived risk of tactical voting. First of all, there should be some trust involved, simply because that gels with the overall feel of the OSC. Secondly, I explained before that when you have 10-15 or more submissions (and we are way over that for all the latest ones) it is actually pretty hard to really move someone more then one or two places in the overall rating. The below quote shows this misconception:

Agreed I voted for the stacking system because I too find the old system too mismatch (e.g. if you look as the OSC cm total scoring stats there is a 198 point difference the top voter and bottom voter massive discrepancy)

The thing is that this quote clearly shows how people 'feel' without actually knowing or understanding what's going on statistically; when you look at the CM OSC with 198 points difference between first and last voter, this only means that the lowest voter simply didn't like most tracks and the top voter liked most of them. There's nothing wrong with that.

Besides that, the difference in actuall given points between the first and last track is 155 points, it actually means that with an even distribution of votes over 75 tracks, the difference between any two subsequent tracks is just about 2 points!, meaning it is much less then any voter can actually differ between two tracks (with a 5 point system it being 4 points). So 155 points difference between first and last is pretty cool correct statistical distribution based on the amount of tracks and the 5 points max to be awarded to each track.

So basically it comes down to this (statistically): when the maximum difference is 4 points to be given (between 1 and 5), as soon as the amount of tracks is a certain multitude of that same number, the system will mediate itself based on statistical distribution across the range. Tactical voting simply is not an issue.

So I voted for the basic 5 point system; it is simple, everyone can use it's own interpretation of what is 1 point and what is 5 points and nothing will go wrong. The track that gets the most points because most people like it a lot will win, and that is simply how it should work.

Ah yes, think I maybe guilty of not looking at the bigger picture Which on balance once you look at the average think you right that it is most likely a non issue.
The lowest average on points given is 1.24 and the highest 3.88 (which strangely total 5.12 hey I am a coder by nature).
The overall median average point distribution is 3.219 the actual overall average points is 3.077. Both the averages show above the halfway in both with 5 points and even the real 4 points e.g. taking the 1 off.
The lows and highs do averaging out in this instance. I know votes will always subjective regardless of the method human nature dictates that, so the issue is more likely of perception, but it's the thing that makes the world go around.

Maybe we could track the and display the overall average and median averages with the stats. Future votes should therefore bare this out by not much variation regardless of number of voters and participants.

Also the stacking system both the median average and average is 3.12 when translated to the same point system (in fact if you take the average of the different averages in the 5 point system it is 3.148 so kind of validates that neither system is significantly different).

I think normalization will simply give the similar stats. Though the 5 pt, Stacking, Normalization systems would most likely have a slight different bearing on the final order of the table. Simply because stacking makes you choose which is better or like more.

On that Monday anal re-tentative note and having looked at the bigger picture think the ease of the stacking system with the five points system is the way to go, things like saving and drag and drop. Though wonder if it might be easier to have a page displayed per track with click on the point box and a next button. Allows more screen real estate rather than list, especially if you want to do something like add commenting via the sound cloud api etc. (getting a little carried away now )

[chilledpanda]

Good points. We've had discussions about effects quite a few times. It would be best to organize that information in one place. As I always understood since I joined OSC in 2010 was that we could use EQ, compressor, and limiter quite freely. As for the obxd audio clip I made - the only thing I don't like is the bitcrusher - it seems a bit much - but kept it on for the demo because it sounded cool in the context of the 80's and mullets in general.


Here's the exact process for the kick:

5 layers are used for the kick - all routed into a final bus:
<snipped>

cheers for that , is good insight to how you are layering your kicks, especially with the patches so I can see what each layer is for and each layer is kept simple to it's requirement, I have been tend to do as much in 1 or 2 layers and possibly overcomplicate it. See why you drums are top notch.
If you ever get the urge to do the same with the snare , feel free lol

[chilledpanda]

How much effects to use has been a constant topic as long as I can remember here and seems never to have a clear consensus.

As it can't really be quantified, it can't be put to a vote either, and as it stands it's only limited by the 'beyond recognition' rule like pointed out.

I think it has to come down to the individual tastes when voting on a track and let the points reflect your views on the matter.

Personally I like a lot of effects as I would want to hear as nice tracks as possible and don't see why we can't do what any other producer can do (minues modulation effects), but if I was voting would definitely want to score up a track if it sounds amazing and no effects or only for example a limiter had been used and the rest synth, but that rarely sounds good unless the synth has a lot effects included.

Yes, guess that's the crux of the issue highlighted, if someone thought it was too much would the track be disqualified? or it's simply it's left too people to mark accordingly, because it's tastes a subjective thing. Just when new to osc people kind of take the rule literal, err on caution because it's ambiguous at best.
Imo some of the tracks do kind of sound unrecognisable from the synth, but as the quality is top notch, so really a testament to someone's artistry and skill with effects and sound design more than anything else.
So hence why it seems ambiguous. So if it's not a disqualification because nobody knows where the line is drawn, maybe it should be just a note that voters may mark it down if it is?

I will apologize ahead for causing trouble again

[crimsonwarlock]

First of all: Voted

Now, I still think we are STILL over-thinking this voting stuff, especially when it comes to the perceived risk of tactical voting. First of all, there should be some trust involved, simply because that gels with the overall feel of the OSC. Secondly, I explained before that when you have 10-15 or more submissions (and we are way over that for all the latest ones) it is actually pretty hard to really move someone more then one or two places in the overall rating. The below quote shows this misconception:

Agreed I voted for the stacking system because I too find the old system too mismatch (e.g. if you look as the OSC cm total scoring stats there is a 198 point difference the top voter and bottom voter massive discrepancy)

The thing is that this quote clearly shows how people 'feel' without actually knowing or understanding what's going on statistically; when you look at the CM OSC with 198 points difference between first and last voter, this only means that the lowest voter simply didn't like most tracks and the top voter liked most of them. There's nothing wrong with that.

Besides that, the difference in actuall given points between the first and last track is 155 points, it actually means that with an even distribution of votes over 75 tracks, the difference between any two subsequent tracks is just about 2 points!, meaning it is much less then any voter can actually differ between two tracks (with a 5 point system it being 4 points). So 155 points difference between first and last is pretty cool correct statistical distribution based on the amount of tracks and the 5 points max to be awarded to each track.

So basically it comes down to this (statistically): when the maximum difference is 4 points to be given (between 1 and 5), as soon as the amount of tracks is a certain multitude of that same number, the system will mediate itself based on statistical distribution across the range. Tactical voting simply is not an issue.

So I voted for the basic 5 point system; it is simple, everyone can use it's own interpretation of what is 1 point and what is 5 points and nothing will go wrong. The track that gets the most points because most people like it a lot will win, and that is simply how it should work.

Ah yes, think I maybe guilty of not looking at the bigger picture Which on balance once you look at the average think you right that it is most likely a non issue.
The lowest average on points given is 1.24 and the highest 3.88 (which strangely total 5.12 hey I am a coder by nature).
The overall median average point distribution is 3.219 the actual overall average points is 3.077. Both the averages show above the halfway in both with 5 points and even the real 4 points e.g. taking the 1 off.
The lows and highs do averaging out in this instance. I know votes will always subjective regardless of the method human nature dictates that, so the issue is more likely of perception, but it's the thing that makes the world go around.

Maybe we could track the and display the overall average and median averages with the stats. Future votes should therefore bare this out by not much variation regardless of number of voters and participants.

Also the stacking system both the median average and average is 3.12 when translated to the same point system (in fact if you take the average of the different averages in the 5 point system it is 3.148 so kind of validates that neither system is significantly different).

I think normalization will simply give the similar stats. Though the 5 pt, Stacking, Normalization systems would most likely have a slight different bearing on the final order of the table. Simply because stacking makes you choose which is better or like more.

On that Monday anal re-tentative note and having looked at the bigger picture think the ease of the stacking system with the five points system is the way to go, things like saving and drag and drop. Though wonder if it might be easier to have a page displayed per track with click on the point box and a next button. Allows more screen real estate rather than list, especially if you want to do something like add commenting via the sound cloud api etc. (getting a little carried away now )

Wow, didn't expect you to go completely overboard on the analysis, nicely done though

However, you totally made my point about 'over-thinking things'

[chilledpanda]

First of all: Voted

Now, I still think we are STILL over-thinking this voting stuff, especially when it comes to the perceived risk of tactical voting. First of all, there should be some trust involved, simply because that gels with the overall feel of the OSC. Secondly, I explained before that when you have 10-15 or more submissions (and we are way over that for all the latest ones) it is actually pretty hard to really move someone more then one or two places in the overall rating. The below quote shows this misconception:

Agreed I voted for the stacking system because I too find the old system too mismatch (e.g. if you look as the OSC cm total scoring stats there is a 198 point difference the top voter and bottom voter massive discrepancy)

The thing is that this quote clearly shows how people 'feel' without actually knowing or understanding what's going on statistically; when you look at the CM OSC with 198 points difference between first and last voter, this only means that the lowest voter simply didn't like most tracks and the top voter liked most of them. There's nothing wrong with that.

Besides that, the difference in actuall given points between the first and last track is 155 points, it actually means that with an even distribution of votes over 75 tracks, the difference between any two subsequent tracks is just about 2 points!, meaning it is much less then any voter can actually differ between two tracks (with a 5 point system it being 4 points). So 155 points difference between first and last is pretty cool correct statistical distribution based on the amount of tracks and the 5 points max to be awarded to each track.

So basically it comes down to this (statistically): when the maximum difference is 4 points to be given (between 1 and 5), as soon as the amount of tracks is a certain multitude of that same number, the system will mediate itself based on statistical distribution across the range. Tactical voting simply is not an issue.

So I voted for the basic 5 point system; it is simple, everyone can use it's own interpretation of what is 1 point and what is 5 points and nothing will go wrong. The track that gets the most points because most people like it a lot will win, and that is simply how it should work.

Ah yes, think I maybe guilty of not looking at the bigger picture Which on balance once you look at the average think you right that it is most likely a non issue.
The lowest average on points given is 1.24 and the highest 3.88 (which strangely total 5.12 hey I am a coder by nature).
The overall median average point distribution is 3.219 the actual overall average points is 3.077. Both the averages show above the halfway in both with 5 points and even the real 4 points e.g. taking the 1 off.
The lows and highs do averaging out in this instance. I know votes will always subjective regardless of the method human nature dictates that, so the issue is more likely of perception, but it's the thing that makes the world go around.

Maybe we could track the and display the overall average and median averages with the stats. Future votes should therefore bare this out by not much variation regardless of number of voters and participants.

Also the stacking system both the median average and average is 3.12 when translated to the same point system (in fact if you take the average of the different averages in the 5 point system it is 3.148 so kind of validates that neither system is significantly different).

I think normalization will simply give the similar stats. Though the 5 pt, Stacking, Normalization systems would most likely have a slight different bearing on the final order of the table. Simply because stacking makes you choose which is better or like more.

On that Monday anal re-tentative note and having looked at the bigger picture think the ease of the stacking system with the five points system is the way to go, things like saving and drag and drop. Though wonder if it might be easier to have a page displayed per track with click on the point box and a next button. Allows more screen real estate rather than list, especially if you want to do something like add commenting via the sound cloud api etc. (getting a little carried away now )

Wow, didn't expect you to go completely overboard on the analysis, nicely done though

However, you totally made my point about 'over-thinking things'

That's the monday morning coffee vibe for ya (although I'm excused by senility and having to post a reply in similar length of your post)

note to myself keep off the forum on monday mornings

[bjporter]

cheers for that , is good insight to how you are layering your kicks, especially with the patches so I can see what each layer is for and each layer is kept simple to it's requirement, I have been tend to do as much in 1 or 2 layers and possibly overcomplicate it. See why you drums are top notch.
If you ever get the urge to do the same with the snare , feel free lol

Yeah I was going to get to that eventually - thanks for the extra motivation... but it's pretty quick to explain so here's you go:

**Note: My kick version tutorial is here: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 7#p5687117**

The Snare:
#1) The Big Picture - 2 snare instances routed through a group with fx


#2) Top of the snare - the snappy part: No inserts / fx - just a preset


#3) Bottom of the snare - the main body - Only 1x insert / fx

Inserts for the Bottom:


The Limiter: Drastically pull up softer frequencies - basically making a much bigger sound… this is very similar to increasing the volume a bunch and putting a brick wall limiter… I just liked the sound… experiment the space and see what you like


#4) Now route those 2 into this group


Limiter: Lower the volume, but raise some lower frequencies a bit


Reverb: Give it a very 80's space


More Reverb: Take that space and mellow it out a bit


And now I'm linking to the Master bus information - which in my tune added more space, and digitized the sound more: Go to part #7: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 7#p5687117

The presets:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/220 ... resets.rar

[bjporter]

Arg, the dreaded double post again

[crimsonwarlock]

That's the monday morning coffee vibe for ya (although I'm excused by senility and having to post a reply in similar length of your post)

note to myself keep off the forum on monday mornings

[solidtrax]

Voted