One Synth Challenge #110: JuceOPLVSTi by Bruce Sutherland (Taron Wins!)

[generaldiomedes]

Before some people get their panties in a twist over unfair DAW powers of expensive pro gear like logic. I'm using MuLab...it's dirt cheap, it has no convolution reverb (sadly) and I hardly do wicked effect stuff. Yet, I've won this competition numerous times and generally find my tracks in the top 5. So...you think this is a DAW advantage?!

MUX is definitely useful in the OSC where many synths lack much in the way of modulation. I'd take MuLab over Studio One for example.

[Taron]

Absolutely. But I especially enjoy with this synth that there ain't much to modulate, hahaha. Of course, one could go all out and try to micro-modulate the heck out of any grain given, but it would feel like attacking windmills, so to say. This time it's really rather going with the flow and simply making music.
It can still produce a decent variety of sounds. I dislike that FM can't react to velocity, but additive does and goes a long way, too, adding more character to the arrangement.
So, yeah, a good and true challenge!

[doctorbob]

Thus far I've only played (playing solos) with the pitch bend. With half a note there are only subtleties possible for envelopes anyway.

... and screamin' guitar solos are probably out too ... so far with my playing around the main things to get right is the depth of the sound, single instances all seem to be rather thin - might go for another blues styled thing - oh wait, I already did that! Maybe some jazz improvisation might be a different "bag" for this family of synth chips??? Easy enough to set up a few jazz bass lines and "work it, man!". But, on the other hand, maybe I need to do something outrageous?

Gonna be fun for sure.

dB

[Frostline]

I'm using MuLab...it's dirt cheap, it has no convolution reverb (sadly) and I hardly do wicked effect stuff. Yet, I've won this competition numerous times and generally find my tracks in the top 5. So...you think this is a DAW advantage?!

Yes.
It gives you access to Mux.
You can download Reaplugs and get free convolution reverb or there are other free convolution reverbs out there as well.
I have yet to find a free Mux alternative. And the rules state I can't buy Mux and use it in Reaper (or I would). And MuLub can't be a ReWire client so that potential workaround to get Mux is out too. So yeah there is a DAW advantage.

But I don't think it is the reason why you do so well so often.
Talent/skill is the reason, not the DAW.

And I see this Mux advantage was already brought up in the lengthy time it took me to type this (I got distracted before I could finish).
__________________________

As to the rules and pushing limits. The rules state to use minimal amounts of FX but it leaves the definition of minimal up to the individual.
So for one that might be a subtle hint of reverb to add space yet for another it might be 100% wet reverb to get the sound they want/need for their track(because any less was insufficient for the task 100% was the minimum needed).
I'm quite sure both interpretations of minimal have made the top 5.

And of course as a voter if you feel the minimal line (by your standard) was crossed you can deduct points from the score you give the track.

[Taron]

Hehe, I was gonna add the same with the point deduction, but that's such a slippery slope. People could "feel" there was something fishy and feel compelled to respond to these things rather than enjoying and evaluating the music for what it is. It just shifts the attention away from what matters too much. Naturally, there are some constructions of songs, which glaringly count on wild effects to make an impression, while otherwise not offering much, but then just recognize what the offer musically and in terms of sound design.
In my opinion, a mix should provide a proper stage, a proper choreography, so to say and emphasize the music and atmosphere, rather than having sounds provide content for effects. YET,- oh god, I can't stop,- some tracks live off experimental concepts and are glorious that way, too.
So, yeah... just relax, enjoy and feel your way through the collection at voting time!

[J.Ruegg]

... it's been done before, people using EQ to create formant like effects. That was my first shocker, when I joined OSC for the second time, years back. It felt like cheating to me, but seemed to having been alright. I still find it questionable, but apparently it's alright. You may not want to know what some of them dubstep boys were pulling with effects, hahaha. ...but it's alright. ...so...if you feel like your song needs it, precedence gives you ...

(quote from here)

I don't know which was the case, but for me modulating eq's or external filters to get a formant effect crosses waaay long the line.
On the other hand, having 5 instances of the synth with different cutoff settings and a lot of resonance can give a similar effect, and that's completely legal (this is what I mostly exploit when it is a very "limited" synth).
I only use the effects to get a clean mix, to add punchiness to drums, maybe some external panning, or delay to add space etc...

And of course as a voter if you feel the minimal line (by your standard) was crossed you can deduct points from the score you give the track.

I find it silly to deduct points just based on that, making an analogy : Someone could deduct points of a track just because "the melody is soo good, maybe it isn't even his, maybe he copied that from another song, so I will deduct points because of that..."

I have proposed something a long time ago, and will do again :

What if we add an additional rule, that when you submit a track, you also upload a completely DRY version of it (absolutely no FXs on it, just the direct output of the synth), maybe a limiter on the master, and some gain stages to have all of them at the same level, but no more... that way in the voting stage the people can listen to it, and judge if it went too far or not .
Any thoughts on that ^ ?

[Taron]

I think, we're getting lost in details, whenever we talk about these things. It's not always easy to take a big step back and view the OSC for what it really is and always has been: You get a free synth, you try to make the most out of it and share your musical exploration.
Sometimes our "morphogenic field" drives us to the "let's allow everything" side of things, and sometimes the "total purism" end. It's this almost funny tug-o-war, mostly featuring the same people fighting for the same thing, triggered by ...well... whatever...the stars?

Really, as much as I'd embrace a hardcore challenge that goes: Only use the synth, no other effects, no other tools, maybe a limiter, no EQ. I think, it's not even in the spirit of the OSC. And the idea of having to sit through potentially dozens of songs of this kind, hahahahaha.... please, no, please!

So, yeah, again, relax and enjoy a really fun round with this minimal source of maximum musical joy! *Thanks, Bruce, by the way! I hope, he knows about this?!

[Halonmusic]

Love this synth.

[Local Man]

I'm assuming AdlibBlaster is OK to use as well?
https://jeff-russ.github.io/AdlibBlaster/
Apparently it's just a a Mac AU compatible port that is given a different name.

[marks-a-whybikky]

I am sorry! i "kicked the ball" and now i see i did the wrong!

Taron wrote: relax and enjoy a really fun round with this minimal source of maximum musical joy!

You are absolutly right!
about five years ago i started here in OSC with no knowledge of mixing, sounding and so on. I learned here in OSC a lot .... no! Not a lot ... nearly everything! The classic way: try and error. Now the errors went to a minimum and my sound experience wants to develop ... here, it is not the right "stadium" for developing. So, please to all take my three-quater-bow ....

To show you that i try my best without "effect-cheeting", here is my WIP:
https://soundcloud.com/marks-a-whybikky/wip-osc110
the first 10sec. are dry(onlyEQ and/or Compressor), the following 20sec are with reverb (OrlyRiver), GrooveDelay (Presounus). All over it's made in StudioOne3

... is it too much delay?reverb?effect?

[marks-a-whybikky]

... ohhh, i forgot:
seven instances of this wonderfull FM/AdditivSynth with an automation on one Eq ....

[Frostline]

I find it silly to deduct points just based on that,

I agree it is silly to deduct points for that, and I personally don't do it.
The two tracks I was thinking about in my example I gave both a 5.
I clearly fall in the "minimum is the amount that is needed at the time" camp though. If a sound can only be made by extensive reverb use then that is the minimum as I see it.
To me the end product (a track people can stand to listen to) using the allowed tools is the goal. Not the number (great or small) of secondary tools used in the process.

However, doesn't this ...

What if we add an additional rule, that when you submit a track, you also upload a completely DRY version of it (absolutely no FXs on it, just the direct output of the synth), maybe a limiter on the master, and some gain stages to have all of them at the same level, but no more... that way in the voting stage the people can listen to it, and judge if it went too far or not .

...suggest doing basically the same thing?
Comparing with and without FX and judging if it went too far...wouldn't that also be basing a score over crossing a personal line on FX usage?
How is it different?
What would be the point of listening to the dry version if not to influence the score of the processed one?

[J.Ruegg]

What if we add an additional rule, that when you submit a track, you also upload a completely DRY version of it (absolutely no FXs on it, just the direct output of the synth), maybe a limiter on the master, and some gain stages to have all of them at the same level, but no more... that way in the voting stage the people can listen to it, and judge if it went too far or not .

...suggest doing basically the same thing?
Comparing with and without FX and judging if it went too far...wouldn't that also be basing a score over crossing a personal line on FX usage?
How is it different?
What would be the point of listening to the dry version if not to influence the score of the processed one?

I suggested that because that way you would have a way to know how much effect the FXs did, and for example if someone made a sound using automation of an EQ parameter, it would be noticeable in the DRY version(in contrast to someone who used heavy automation & layering to get something that sounds impressive, that would still sound almost the same in the DRY version).
I said that because Taron was implying that some participants where using effects to the extreme, and maybe some others think that too and will underrate the hard work that is done in layering, automating every single detail etc...

[Taron]

Hey Mark, that's a very nice use of the attenuation! Sounds GREAT!
...I wanted to do a nice little epiano, made 2 instances of it with the pitch bend offset for elevation, but it turned out to be an amazing jazz guitar sort of sound. Really, really nice, too! Not sure what I'll do with it, but it may well become a lead instrument later on.

Frostline and J.Ruegg, I would bring this conversation to an end at this point before it becomes the dominant part of the thread. It's a great topic, again, for the general OSC thread, but here it just threatens to clutter stuff up again. I think, we'll have a better time talking about the synth and sharing experiments along the way.

In the spirit of sharing W.i.P.s... here's what I've started with:
https://soundcloud.com/taronium/taron-f ... io/s-I1Wcw

[doctorbob]

Very nice WIP Taron ... the pitch bending on that nice lead sounds more than a semitone , but we all know it can't be unless you are doing some Taron witchcraft

Sounds like this should develop into an ace challenge and you have laid down your marker ... I now have to go and do a much more rich and dense composition rather than a traditional song - I might post up a blues number for fun and education (so to speak) if I get time - this synth deserves it!

You go Mr. T.

dB