One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[wagtunes]

Good points ontrackp

I've posted this before, but it's an interesting comparison of what an OSC entry sounds like with zero effects (and... no compressor or eq) vs. Full:


It might pay to normalize the FX version, as the volume is quite low, but does it sound like the original to you? Probably my bias, but I think it sounds fairly close, especially if you ignore all the space / reverb effects.

No FX
https://soundcloud.com/bjporter/pancake ... no/s-j7PMk


Original Entry (full fx)
https://soundcloud.com/bjporter/pancake ... asion-1982

The first one sounds like something I would do.

The second one sounds like something I wish I could do.

Sorry BJ, no comparison. The first one is lifeless. It just sits there. There are no dynamics, variation or anything. It's dead.

The 2nd one, is simply a masterpiece. Did you win that month? If not, you should have.

See, all that FX craftsmanship brought out the song so you could actually hear it and feel it an experience it.

It's no different from hearing an out of tune 10 year old sing the national anthem and then listen to Cher's version at Super Bowl XXXIII, one of the most electrifying performances I've ever heard of a song I'm, quite honestly, sick to death of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7X8r8rUHXY

Performance, no matter how good the song, is everything.

[bjporter]

Oh I agree with you. I guess my question was more like: Do timbres sound the same synth / come from same synth? I'm thinking yea. Do the songs sound the same? Heck no, the no-fx version sounds more like a chip tune.

That Cher performance was well done, the voice is a bit too low for my liking though.

The first one sounds like something I would do.

The second one sounds like something I wish I could do.

Sorry BJ, no comparison. The first one is lifeless. It just sits there. There are no dynamics, variation or anything. It's dead.

The 2nd one, is simply a masterpiece. Did you win that month? If not, you should have.

See, all that FX craftsmanship brought out the song so you could actually hear it and feel it an experience it.

It's no different from hearing an out of tune 10 year old sing the national anthem and then listen to Cher's version at Super Bowl XXXIII, one of the most electrifying performances I've ever heard of a song I'm, quite honestly, sick to death of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7X8r8rUHXY

Performance, no matter how good the song, is everything.

[Frostline]

@ontrackp
Just let me preface by saying that I think you are genuinely trying to help me understand. And I really do appreciate that. I realize that I am probably appearing to be stubborn or obtuse or intentionally frustrating about this but honestly I am not.

The issue is that I am seeking objective clarity and keep getting subjective interpretation and having that called common sense.

The word 'dramatically' seems to mean something different to you than it does to me when it comes to changing a sound.
To me a dramatic change to a sound is a perceptible difference where the original can easily be distinguished from the new. It does not matter how that change to the sound was accomplished. It is just different.

Maybe I am just not subtle or sensitive enough to hear the "why" of the difference I just hear the difference. So words like timbre are not overly helpful to me. I just can tell "something" was done to the point where sound 1 does not sound like sound 2. If it is a timbre change I have no clue. It is just a change I can hear.

I can hear a 12db highpass @ 100hz vs that highpass not being there. But I cannot answer if that changed the timbre of the sound. I can say it is a different sound and depending on the original I might say it is a dramatic difference.

Say there is a patch that sounds like a trumpet. I EQ and filter it so it sounds like a french horn, did I drastically change the timbre of the sound? It still sounds like a brass instrument so maybe no. But a french horn and trumpet do sound distinctly different so maybe yes. Somehow common sense is supposed to determine that answer for me.

It is the subjective wishy-washy nature of some of the rules that I am having the most issue with. If EQ/saturation/delay/reverb/compression are allowed, then fine let me move all the knobs on the EQ/saturation/delay/reverb/compressor wherever I want as part of my artistic expression.
Not this vague notion you can move knob A but only a little of knob B or C or otherwise the timbre (whatever that is) is changed too dramatically.
And I have to subjectively decide how much of C I can move and some other person can subjectively decide that too much C was used so I need to either change it or be DQed. It's madness trying to enforce an objective rule on subjective criteria.

Just tell me what tools I can fully use (twist all the knobs all I want as much as I want to twist them) and let me be about my business of making my track without needing to fuss over subjective criteria I don't understand, or explain the criteria in a way I can understand it. (this is not directed @ anyone specifically)

[ATN69]

@Frostline.

My simple advice is not to overly complicate or over think things. Stay away from distortion plugins, bit crushers, flangers, choruses, phasers and similar, and everything will be fine If you take the number one spot at OSC I don't think anyone will fail you if you used a bit much reverb or delay, or even EQ for that matter.

In this business things will always be subjective because there are no metric measurements to be applied. It's the nature of things. Use common sense. Your common sense is no less than the rest of us, I am sure

[ontrackp]

Hey Frostline -- I really do appreciate your desire for clarity, and wish I could help more, but I'm out of words.... sorry.

Just do the best piece you can, follow ATN69's advice which is simple and good and I'm sure you're entry will be fine. The worst thing that will happen is someone will call you out on using an effect that seems too extreme, the best thing -- and most likely thing -- is that you'll provide a track that's fun to listen to, and we'll all be happy to have you participate!

[Frostline]

It might pay to normalize the FX version, as the volume is quite low, but does it sound like the original to you? Probably my bias, but I think it sounds fairly close, especially if you ignore all the space / reverb effects.

Listening to the two tracks blind to anything else about them I could easily believe that the dry version was done with something like Digits and then the midi was exported to Avenger and sounds were designed to be similar the original if it had been suggested it was done that way. The patterns are the same but to me the sounds are quite different.
I believe you when you say they are from the same synth, but had you said the synths were different I would believe that instead. To me they sound different enough that either is possible.

People talk about maintaining the distinct sound of a synth. That if you can't tell that the sound came from the synth it was supposed to come from then it has been modified too much.
Using that criteria, and if it were possible for me to do I think if I could go through the last 6 months of submissions, isolate the kick drum buss from 5 tracks and present them together in one track that no one could tell me which kick sound came from which specific synth with much if any accuracy.
As in the distinct character of the synth itself had been taken to a point to be unrecognizable. The timbre of the specific synth has been lost.
So then begs the question, if it is ok to do that to kick drum type sounds, why not other sounds?

[wagtunes]

Oh I agree with you. I guess my question was more like: Do timbres sound the same synth / come from same synth? I'm thinking yea. Do the songs sound the same? Heck no, the no-fx version sounds more like a chip tune.

That Cher performance was well done, the voice is a bit too low for my liking though.

The first one sounds like something I would do.

The second one sounds like something I wish I could do.

Sorry BJ, no comparison. The first one is lifeless. It just sits there. There are no dynamics, variation or anything. It's dead.

The 2nd one, is simply a masterpiece. Did you win that month? If not, you should have.

See, all that FX craftsmanship brought out the song so you could actually hear it and feel it an experience it.

It's no different from hearing an out of tune 10 year old sing the national anthem and then listen to Cher's version at Super Bowl XXXIII, one of the most electrifying performances I've ever heard of a song I'm, quite honestly, sick to death of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7X8r8rUHXY

Performance, no matter how good the song, is everything.

BJ, do they timbers sound the same? No. Here's why.

In the original, you can't really hear the timbers. Everything is buried in the mix. It sounds like, if I can make this as a comparison, playing a trumpet into a 10 foot thick insulated bag and then playing it out in the open the way it's supposed to be played, even if there is no reverb or anything on it.

Electronic instruments don't have natural acoustics like acoustic instruments, so they need some "assistance" to bring them to life. That bringing to life changes the timber if for no other reason than it makes it more noticeable. That's why we use things like EQ to begin with. Now, toss in a little reverb, compression and whatever else you've tossed into that mix and you have a totally new animal. I almost didn't recognize the track on the 2nd listen through with FX.

In short, any change you make to a sound changes its timber. It has to. Now, was it changed drastically? Well, no. If it was, it would have been a DQ'd entry. But enough so that it turned a meh track into superb track.

And that's with my wretched 59 year old ears that I can hear the difference in timber. I'm sure these younger guys can hear it even more.

[wagtunes]

@ontrackp
Just let me preface by saying that I think you are genuinely trying to help me understand. And I really do appreciate that. I realize that I am probably appearing to be stubborn or obtuse or intentionally frustrating about this but honestly I am not.

The issue is that I am seeking objective clarity and keep getting subjective interpretation and having that called common sense.

The word 'dramatically' seems to mean something different to you than it does to me when it comes to changing a sound.
To me a dramatic change to a sound is a perceptible difference where the original can easily be distinguished from the new. It does not matter how that change to the sound was accomplished. It is just different.

Maybe I am just not subtle or sensitive enough to hear the "why" of the difference I just hear the difference. So words like timbre are not overly helpful to me. I just can tell "something" was done to the point where sound 1 does not sound like sound 2. If it is a timbre change I have no clue. It is just a change I can hear.

I can hear a 12db highpass @ 100hz vs that highpass not being there. But I cannot answer if that changed the timbre of the sound. I can say it is a different sound and depending on the original I might say it is a dramatic difference.

Say there is a patch that sounds like a trumpet. I EQ and filter it so it sounds like a french horn, did I drastically change the timbre of the sound? It still sounds like a brass instrument so maybe no. But a french horn and trumpet do sound distinctly different so maybe yes. Somehow common sense is supposed to determine that answer for me.

It is the subjective wishy-washy nature of some of the rules that I am having the most issue with. If EQ/saturation/delay/reverb/compression are allowed, then fine let me move all the knobs on the EQ/saturation/delay/reverb/compressor wherever I want as part of my artistic expression.
Not this vague notion you can move knob A but only a little of knob B or C or otherwise the timbre (whatever that is) is changed too dramatically.
And I have to subjectively decide how much of C I can move and some other person can subjectively decide that too much C was used so I need to either change it or be DQed. It's madness trying to enforce an objective rule on subjective criteria.

Just tell me what tools I can fully use (twist all the knobs all I want as much as I want to twist them) and let me be about my business of making my track without needing to fuss over subjective criteria I don't understand, or explain the criteria in a way I can understand it. (this is not directed @ anyone specifically)

I think I can explain this in a way where you'll get it.

Imagine a trumpet patch. You use EQ to take out the bottom. It still sounds like a trumpet but maybe thinner. That's okay.

Now imagine you take that same trumpet patch and run it through a variety of FX where you can't possibly know it was ever a trumpet. That's not okay.

Neither I nor anyone else can put it any more simply than that.

[Frostline]

@Frostline.

My simple advice is not to overly complicate or over think things. Stay away from distortion plugins, bit crushers, flangers, choruses, phasers and similar, and everything will be fine If you take the number one spot at OSC I don't think anyone will fail you if you used a bit much reverb or delay, or even EQ for that matter.

In this business things will always be subjective because there are no metric measurements to be applied. It's the nature of things. Use common sense. Your common sense is no less than the rest of us, I am sure

Good advice and it is what I have tried to do.

It is just from my very first foray into this it has felt that I am on the verge of doing something forbidden.
My very first track (according to one person that I respect the knowledge and ability of greatly) should have been disqualified for a violation I had no idea was even a thing.
I think it was allowed to stay in simply because all knew it was going to not be finishing well anyway.
From then on I have been quite concerned with understanding the rules and why they are in place and what they are trying to accomplish. And to that end I don't install anything on my music PC that I think might be against the rules.
But all the new toys available from the DC16 have me wanting to try some of them but I don't want to try anything I can't fully use in this contest.
There are a couple that don't seem have a forbidden word on them yet I am still not sure if they are allowed because I still don't quite understand the reasoning or criteria of some of the rules and if the sound change they make is too dramatic or not.

[ontrackp]

I don't know what DC16 is, but if you have new compressors, reverbs, EQ's and delays -- have a field day! Have fun -- make a good piece, if you're not sure about something post a note and any number of people will provide guidance. Most important -- be creative and have fun!

[bjporter]

I don't know what DC16 is,

kvr Developer Challenge 2016 - http://www.kvraudio.com/kvr-developer-challenge/2016/

[bjporter]

BJ, do they timbers sound the same? No. Here's why.

In the original, you can't really hear the timbers. Everything is buried in the mix. It sounds like, if I can make this as a comparison, playing a trumpet into a 10 foot thick insulated bag and then playing it out in the open the way it's supposed to be played, even if there is no reverb or anything on it.

Electronic instruments don't have natural acoustics like acoustic instruments, so they need some "assistance" to bring them to life. That bringing to life changes the timber if for no other reason than it makes it more noticeable. That's why we use things like EQ to begin with. Now, toss in a little reverb, compression and whatever else you've tossed into that mix and you have a totally new animal. I almost didn't recognize the track on the 2nd listen through with FX.

In short, any change you make to a sound changes its timber. It has to. Now, was it changed drastically? Well, no. If it was, it would have been a DQ'd entry. But enough so that it turned a meh track into superb track.

And that's with my wretched 59 year old ears that I can hear the difference in timber. I'm sure these younger guys can hear it even more.

I see what you're saying, i'm going to do some A/B listening later

On other note: It would be interesting to hear someone try and make 2 tracks identical using their best commercial plugins first, and then another track using their closest sounding free plugins. Maybe a third using built in daw plugs. That's a lot of work though.

[Frostline]

I don't know what DC16 is, but if you have new compressors, reverbs, EQ's and delays -- have a field day! Have fun -- make a good piece, if you're not sure about something post a note and any number of people will provide guidance. Most important -- be creative and have fun!

https://www.kvraudio.com/kvr-developer- ... 016entries

Some cool stuff and all free.

Plugs I am unsure of use in OSC but look interesting to me. There are a couple others I am fairly confident that are ok to use.

voiceofsnow

Lagrange

antiknot if I don't use the flanger part

Spaceship Delay if I don't use the bit crusher or tube saturation

[ATN69]

I have also been looking into DC16. There is one called Roth-Air that I might use some times. It will bring some clarity to the sound, like an enhancer. It's kind of subtle but it seems to make the sound more crisp. I am sure a similar result could be accomplished with a carefully tuned EQ but this Roth-Air just does that faster.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

First - extreme sound shaping with plug-instead is not allowed. We merely would like to use the plug ins we know better and use on a daily basis for other projects. It will make for a faster workflow. Hobbling production by forcing everyone to use free, and often unfamiliar or lower quality plugins does not improve creativity or sound design skills. It does inhibit workflow and production. This is an experiment. If it fails we can go back to more draconian rules. The playing field is inherently uneven for many reasons that have nothing to do with commercial plugins.

Hobbling? Even if it were the case that simple free plugins were unfamiliar, at first, it would be easy to get familiar.

As for free plugins being lower quality? 2006 called, and they want their views on free plugins back

You talk about draconian rules, but it's not like anyone's telling you that you can't use any plugs at all. Of course, there are many reasons why the playing field might not be level (It's an issue that exists in anything where it is preferable to rule out confounding factors) but the key would be to remove the one's that can be removed.

I say all of this as a Logic Pro user, who enjoys a wealth of great quality included plugs. Ot would be both easier, and better, for me to use those plugs. However, I am arguing this on a point of principle of how I think things like this should be run. It may be a small point to you, but it's absolutely the reason why I haven't entered the competition in 5 years