One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[Frostline]

TL;DR What is an "effect" per OSC rules?

Bringing from other thread since this is not specific to this month.

... On a analytical side I would recommend to take a look at this post beta software, which allows you to see the spectrum of 4 channels (pay version 16) in a single display, each channel with it's unique color: https://www.kvraudio.com/product/spectrum-by-ben-schulz (actually I use Melda Production MMulitAnalyzer but that is not free...). After detecting collisions in that tool, it's usually a EQ or even a dynamic EQ or MB-Compressor to tame frequencies...obviously.

I saw this in the SC comments as well and it made me wonder so now that it is on the forum I would like to talk about it.
I am waiting until after voting is complete to post this so there is no potential impact on the results. But the idea sprang to mind on the day of the quoted post above. I have also touched on some of this previously without much response. So asking again basically.

My first reaction was to question how one could use any commercial(one with a monetary cost) 3rd party(not a part of the DAW package) plug-in in an OSC track. Because that is how I thought the rules were set up. And I thought it "odd" for anyone to say they use a commercial plug-in when discussing OSC tracks.

But, the rules are specific to "effects" and lists several different types of "effects".

Personally I had justed lumped anything that wasn't an instrument into the "effect" category. Peter's post makes me wonder if there is possibly a 3rd category(or maybe even more).
Now I'm not saying or implying Peter actually used the MMultiAnalyzer in any OSC track (it is not listed in his LotS submission), nor am I implying that even if it had been used it would or should actually be against the rules.

It is just what brought the idea to mind that I could be mis-interpreting the rules to my own misfortune.

Maybe a definition of "effect" for OSC rules is just something that alters the sound chain once it is past the instrument.

Everything listed as an "effect" on the rules pages seems to fall under that definition.

So do the rules allow for things that do not meet the above definition of "effect" to be 3rd party commercial products(things that are not free) used in our OSC productions?

Example 1:Things that only provide feedback to the user but do not alter the sound chain in any way for the final render.
Like say meters. While downstream of instrument it does not(or if built correctly should not) alter the sound.
Or Various headphone calibration software packages? If on monitoring channels only has no impact on sound past instrument.

Example 2:Things that help with midi input or provide data to feed into the instrument.
Two types that might fall under this is HY-SEQ16 or Xfer Cthulhu. Neither (as far as I know) generate sound or affect sound once sound is generated by the instrument.

Example 3:Products that produce midi data based on audio input or other capture/conversion method.
Like Jam Origin Midi Guitar 2. Upstream of instrument no effect on sound past instrument.
If I had a hardware guitar with a nice Roland or Fishman setup with it I could generate midi data with that similar to using a midi keyboard. I see nothing against that in the rules. Or for example one could use a Seaboard or other alternative hardware controller that allows the user great control over instrument parameters while the midi data is being recorded. So does the fact that Midi Guitar 2 is software and not hardware really make any difference?

Example 4. Software products that help control/modulate parameters of the instrument but do not create sounds or alter sounds once past the instrument.
MuTools Mux(parameter modulations only) or CableGuys MidiShaper I think are examples of this.
In the case of Mux I could buy MuLab as my DAW and use the features of Mux and be well within the rules. Or I could buy Bitwig and get many modulation options that I would be allowed to use. Yet it seems unclear if I could just buy and use Mux or Midishaper to accomplish the same goal of easier parameter modulation in Reaper because I don't know if they count as "effects".

[rghvdberg]

All 3rd party plugins in a osc project should be free and easily available ...

It's of course impossible to check if commercial construction kits, midi creator software or analyzers are used outside of the DAW.

oh wait .. I recorded midi drum breaks from my Yamaha psr keyboard once in a project, mapped the notes to my synth patches.
oh well I ended up 19th iirc (Podolski)

things like the mux parameter morphing tools are just clever use of a daws capability, and should be applauded ..

[Frostline]

All 3rd party plugins in a osc project should be free and easily available ...

That is how I originally interpreted the rules. However the rules are specific to "effect". Do you think for clarity the rules should be changed from 'any 3rd party effect' to 'any 3rd party plug-in'?
Because after thinking about it, I personally(as an example) don't see a meter(or analyzer) as an "effect" but I do see it as a plug-in.

It's of course impossible to check if commercial construction kits, midi creator software or analyzers are used outside of the DAW.

With that in mind, what then is the point of a rule that can neither be policed or enforced? What does the rule accomplish if participants have no idea if anyone else is following it?

oh wait .. I recorded midi drum breaks from my Yamaha psr keyboard once in a project, mapped the notes to my synth patches.
oh well I ended up 19th iirc (Podolski)

But that came from hardware, clearly not a 3rd party plug-in. Are you saying what you did was against the rules as written, or the spirit of the rules or something?
As I interpret the rules as written, using hardware to generate midi is not against any rule. I'm sure many contestants generate midi via external hardware.

But, for example this is something I don't see a logical difference in.
Person A has a guitar with a midi pickup which feeds into a hardware box which converts the signal from the guitar into midi data similar to any generic midi keyboard and said midi data is allowed in OSC compositions.
Person B has a guitar from which the audio is sent to a software version of the hardware box person A used. But because the audio to midi box is now software on the DAW computer instead of software running on the external hardware box it is somehow against the rules?

things like the mux parameter morphing tools are just clever use of a daws capability, and should be applauded ..

But not used? (unless also using MuLab?)

[aciddose]

define "Effect":

Something that has an "effect" on the audio signal.

If you're using an analysis tool you can use whatever you like since it's entirely unrelated in any way to the audio signal. You can run your track through a 60 channel 24 bus neve console just because you like the VU meters. As long as you only use that for metering and the render is 100% direct from your host it's fully within the rules.



That seems obvious doesn't it?

[574X]

Love ffmpeg. It's fast, free, incredibly powerful, and a good habit to get into. On windows all you have to do is set the path to the bin, to get started concatenating to your hearts content.

The 4 channel version of Ben Schultz's multi channel analyzer is now $9.99. With many analyzers, the multi channel options are paid, except in the case of the free version of SPAN. It can display two channels, so you would make a track for it that has a muted master parent send and route the 1/2 of each track just into the 1 and 2 respectively, and show the overlay for the other channel. For some it might be easier to use the Stereo 2.1 option for routing, using the 1/2 and 3/4 inputs, and overlay the sub channel "LFE."

We have people here apparently using virtual reality hardware to mix their tracks and winning first place.
https://developer.oculus.com/documentat ... ok-os-vst/
I don't have an oculus rift.
The only solution is to level out the playing field and give all entrants an oculus rift.

People who feel competitive here might not want to beaten by somebody using virtual reality or something like Hofa IQ analyzer.

We could ask ourselves, why do rules exist? Usually to protect a specific class of people or values. How firmly do they need to be upheld to preserve those values? In the case of the OSC, apparently not at all. Theoretically that’s because this is a friendly, welcoming, community of creative people and endeavors. The rules are essentially: Use your judgment and integrity to make a track with only a synth.

I have a generous monitoring FX chain visibly open 24/7 in Reaper. It's not in the project. It applies to all project tabs. It contains ReaJS Frequency Spectrum Analyzer, Oscilloscope, and Goniometer. Plus, I use Hofa 4U Meter fader to check LU and control output, and occasionally MLoudnessAnalyzer. Often I also use the virtual midi keyboard in Reaper without telling anyone. Now you know my secret to how I always win.

The daws are not free either.

We could all switch to Tracktion 5, which you type in a name and email to get. It's exceptional and feels somewhere between Reaper, Ableton and MuLab, with customizable hotkeys, video sync, very well embedded stock plugins, and a modular patch bay.

Anyone care to guess why I haven't posted info about Hinton and Fairchild "free" synths even though they are some of my favorite for commercial productions? Hint, it's not because it's made with SynthMaker, with all its shortcomings. I ofc love SM and have made many SM synths. It's not because of poorly named presets either.

[574X]

aciddose, u trippin.

Literally spending hours carving out frequencies with an expensive analyzer has a huge, measurable effect on the result. Obviously.
This is an issue of integrity.
The (lack of) repercussions will be so severe that he might never (mention his) use (of) it on (all of) his entries again!

[Frostline]

define "Effect":

Something that has an "effect" on the audio signal.

If you're using an analysis tool you can use whatever you like since it's entirely unrelated in any way to the audio signal. You can run your track through a 60 channel 24 bus neve console just because you like the VU meters. As long as you only use that for metering and the render is 100% direct from your host it's fully within the rules.

Right, thats hardware, not a plug-in.
So completely fine per the rules(as I understand them). And I'm 100% on board with that.
But why then if a passive monitoring system is a plug-in(instead of external hardware) it would be against the rules? Or is it not? I don't know, which is why I am asking.
Reading the rules as rghvdberg seems to(and I did as well prior to thinking about it differently) it would be disallowed due to being a commercial plug-in.
But the rule doesn't say 'any' commercial plug-in it specifically says effect plug-in.
So in that instance, it has no direct effect just like the meters in the pretty desk picture. No effect, cool to use?
I suppose one could instead of routing the audio to the nifty desk meters one could route the audio to a separate PC with all the pricey software meters one wanted? Maybe? Or would that violate the rule spirit if not letter?
Again, I don't know. I didn't make the rules, I'm just trying to understand them and to know what my options are to still fall within them.
I don't know if the rules specifically say effect for a particular reason when it comes to plug-ins. Maybe it is to specifically exclude 3rd party plug-ins that don't have a direct effect on the sound from the commercial ban?

[generaldiomedes]

Personally, I just felt it was 'wrong' to utilize any commercial plugin other than what shipped with my DAW regardless of whether it was an effect or not.

[Frostline]

The 4 channel version of Ben Schultz's multi channel analyzer is now $9.99. With many analyzers, the multi channel options are paid, except in the case of the free version of SPAN. It can display two channels, so you would make a track for it that has a muted master parent send and route the 1/2 of each track just into the 1 and 2 respectively, and show the overlay for the other channel. For some it might be easier to use the Stereo 2.1 option for routing, using the 1/2 and 3/4 inputs, and overlay the sub channel "LFE."

Bummer on the BS 4-chan meter going non-free(abbreviations can be fun). Looked like a cool product, it is still in my yet to look at downloaded files folder.
And thanks for the tips on how to do something similar with SPAN.

We have people here apparently using virtual reality hardware to mix their tracks and winning first place.
https://developer.oculus.com/documentat ... ok-os-vst/
I don't have an oculus rift.
The only solution is to level out the playing field and give all entrants an oculus rift.

But the software was free and available. So within the rules.
Am I breaking a rule using my panorama instead of Reaper's virtual keyboard to input midi?
I didn't think I was, but not everyone has a panorama, just like not everyone has on Oculus.
I mean it' seems like the rules are quite open for hardware as long as the hardware does not require the audio to leave the DAW, pass through the hardware and then return to the DAW for the function of the hardware to be fulfilled. So no hardware compressors, reverbs etc...."effects" basically.

The Oculus thing is interesting though. I don't know, but I doubt it is processing the audio actually in the Rift. More likely it is a virtual controller for a software effect. A super fancy and expensive UC-33 kinda. Just specifically locked into a specific software. I don't know, just imagining how it might work. So if the audio is not leaving the DAW to process in the Rift, and the software is free....seems within the rules as I currently interpret them. But I could also see how it might not be within the rules since it is very hardware reverb like as a whole (if the software requires the hardware to actually work).

I see a lot of potential in the tech of it though. Imagine seeing a virtual audio spectrum, with all the tracks a different color and the user can just reach up and grab the sounds basically and push and pull them into position in the soundspace.

People who feel competitive here might not want to beaten by somebody using virtual reality or something like Hofa IQ analyzer.

I had never considered that, but probably because I look at the competition aspect of the contest a bit differently than some I imagine.
I don't see it as "I want to beat 574X's track with my track" but more like "what can I do differently so 574X enjoys my track enough to give it a good score this time?" Just using you as an example, I've not felt harshly judged by you or anything like that. I'd say you have been fair to generous in your assessment of my work.
But while I'm not not trying to beat you, I guess I might be miffed a bit if I thought you were not following the same ruleset I was trying to follow. Which is why I am trying to get better understanding of the rules for everyone by having an open discussion about them.

The rules are essentially: Use your judgment and integrity to make a track with only a synth.

My judgement dictates understanding is a prerequisite to integrity.
I want to feel I am following the rules of the contest to the best of my ability and understanding.
I don't want to be following a misunderstanding of a rule, especially if it has negative personal impact. Like denying myself a tool which is perfectly fine to use but I don't understand the rule well enough to realize it.

Anyone care to guess why I haven't posted info about...

I couldn't fathom a guess, but I am curious.

[rghvdberg]

Spotify update
boep.nl (my portal) has been updated and finally stats are working.
I have statistics for jan - mar 2017
You may notice that there are 2 'tracks' sales in there. Before starting publishing for the OSC I uploaded one (OSC) track of my own. This one is on iTunes too.

Sales/Streams per artist

afbeelding.png

Streams (with song title)

screenshot-secure.boep.nl-2017-07-18-09-52-51.png

Per Country

afbeelding2.png

For the first quarter the revenue is €0,10 on Spotify tracks. (60 streams)
Mind you,the 2 tracks I apperently sold on iTunes made €0,46

All Spotify tracks are bundled under One Synth Challenge, but each track has the original creator as artist.
https://open.spotify.com/artist/4XFB8oOG9ozc7fU1fPOjQr

I'm almost ready to publish osc 98 and 99, still waiting for reactions of some peeps.

[574X]

Thanks, Rob!
Peeps, get it together with your reactions!

Frostline, it's a secret, then. I'll pm you. But I've said a lot about a similar issue in the current OSC. Too much...

In the mean time, now you can easily code your own midi files for fun and inspiration!
Scribbletune

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

[Armagibbon]

Yea I was about to use midishaper in my thing but last second dropped it when I read the rules. Def hurt the track because a couple things don't work without lfo and envelopes. But I figured the track should be about working with the synth, not just getting the sound I want. Challenge should be a challenge right? I mean if you got all these tools to make any old sound generator into a super synth, what's the f*ckin point?

[rghvdberg]

Top 5 of OSC 99 pushed to spotify.
Will take some time to appear online.

[574X]

A lot of DAWs have the ability to assign lfos to any parameter, let alone just copy and pasting automation. For example, automating an eq, which can have the same effect as an auto filter or filter envelope.
- Of which there are a decent amount of free versions, like hy filter 2, kjaerhus classic auto filter, and tal filter 2, which is a drawable envelope that can handle panning as well, though pancake or even pecheneg tremolo are better for that because you can change the phase.

I keep it pretty minimal here because I prefer that, but if the music calls for a specific modulation, there are plenty of ways of legitimately doing it.

[rghvdberg]

I hesitate to automate eq because basically that's adding a filter to a synth that hasn't got one, thus drastically changing the sound of the synth.

I did once used extreme eq settings to create a formant filter. I believe that was in my Nabla track. Occurred for only a second or so.