How to make a simpler sound?

How to make that sound...
User avatar
vurt
addled muppet weed
41767 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass

Post Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:51 am

yeah, find relevant ambience/sound stage for the sound.
dont stretch it.
voila.

WOTG
KVRist
32 posts since 4 Aug, 2014

Re: How to make a simpler sound?

Post Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:02 am

whyterabbyt wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:18 am
edit : not playing with the 'i cant do it so its all a conspiracy' shite.
There is no conspiracy. They mostly use hardware, not plugins, plus a whole lot of other things that they don't want to reveal. There is no paranoid conspiracy about it, it's the truth. The "pros" even admit this. I wanted to see if there was an alternate solution, and obviously I'm not going to get that, so I said forget it. You don't have an answer I'm looking for. Don't get an attitude with me, Idc who you are.
whyterabbyt wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:19 am
WOTG wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:10 am
whyterabbyt wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:22 am
highkoo wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:41 pm
That was a couple years ago and looks like was mostly about processing various gunshot sounds, so we might be talking about something else now.
okay I skimmed, so rereading in depth, the first one was about simplifying a very complex and specific fx chain that wasnt working to produce the kind of gunshot sounds he wanted, this one is about not being able to produce the kind of simple gunshot sounds he wants.
im not sure if there's a very complex fx chain being used now or not, but if the gunshot sources are clean and accurate, and what's wanted is something that doesnt intrude too much into a scene, then i cant think what would be needed beyond compression and reverb to smooth transients, before whatever IRs are being used to bed with the scene of the film/game.
maybe avoid pitching the sounds down as is so common, even cut some bass.

ive seen all sorts of stuff on beefing up weapon sounds, especially with layering. maybe do the opposite.

however, i'd also suggest reading everything watson wu says in any interview anywhere.
Man forget it, I don't think people truly get this. They all say the same things, but they're lying, obviously, because no "recording" gives you those hollywood style sounds that have a simple but big clean texture to them, it takes a bunch of secret editing methods, that for some reason, no one wants to reveal, so just forget it.
oh, ffs, a lunatic. waste of everyone's time. forgotten.
lmao, lunatic, lol okay. I've been through this countless times, and I never get the answer I'm looking for, and if I can't get it, I move on. There's no battle sakes about it. You got a problem, take it up with the authorities. I'm not going to sit here and be insulted just because your ass has no patience for disagreement or other people's problems. No one told you to post or respond.


Shabdahbriah wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:45 am
Dude, please... :roll:

What he [whyterabbyt] said below, and what a very lengthy (and time consuming) explanation by someone who does this very thing (in the other thread) tried to convey, is essentially what you will have to work with/deal with. full-stop.

The examples you gave "shotgun-1" sounds like it was done in a field/out-doors. Your example "shotgun2-stereo", aside from being nearly twice as long, sounds like it was processed, or done in an open-walled parking garage. Big difference.
WOTG wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:10 am
whyterabbyt wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:22 am
highkoo wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:41 pm
That was a couple years ago and looks like was mostly about processing various gunshot sounds, so we might be talking about something else now.
okay I skimmed, so rereading in depth, the first one was about simplifying a very complex and specific fx chain that wasnt working to produce the kind of gunshot sounds he wanted, this one is about not being able to produce the kind of simple gunshot sounds he wants.
im not sure if there's a very complex fx chain being used now or not, but if the gunshot sources are clean and accurate, and what's wanted is something that doesnt intrude too much into a scene, then i cant think what would be needed beyond compression and reverb to smooth transients, before whatever IRs are being used to bed with the scene of the film/game.
maybe avoid pitching the sounds down as is so common, even cut some bass.

ive seen all sorts of stuff on beefing up weapon sounds, especially with layering. maybe do the opposite.

however, i'd also suggest reading everything watson wu says in any interview anywhere.
Man forget it, I don't think people truly get this. They all say the same things, but they're lying, obviously, because no "recording" gives you those hollywood style sounds that have a simple but big clean texture to them, it takes a bunch of secret editing methods, that for some reason, no one wants to reveal, so just forget it.
His explanation is everything I've already heard before, and it doesn't work. Of course, if there's no solution, then I have to work with it, thus I said forget it. I said people won't truly understand, because they don't work with the same sounds, and are typically working with sounds that are already processed for them, or recorded in a specific way to their liking. All I asked was for a way to make the sound sound more SIMPLE like you hear in some examples I posted, because there's no way they were recorded that way, even in other recordings, there's no way you can make them come out in such a way without using extensive measures. I'm not stupid, I know how this works, I wanted to see if anyone knew anything else, and I'm not getting the answers I'm looking for, it's just the usual, "use compression, EQ, reverb, blah blah". Those are just the basics that isn't finding a new way, it's just explaining something we all already know.

I don't know how the first sounds I posted were recorded, the one I posted was recorded in an outdoor setting, surrounded by lots of trees. If you want me to explain how "my" sound works, I explained it thoroughly in another thread that was posted here. So I thank him for posting it, so I don't have to explain it again.

highkoo
KVRAF
3813 posts since 26 Jun, 2004

Re: How to make a simpler sound?

Post Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:28 am

Answers?
You dont have any questions! :lol:

This thread might as well be titled "How to make this snare more orange?"
I feel like the big secret might be: EQ

To take a serious guess though; Could there be layering/replacing happening with certain freqs?
Like, scoop out the low end of the gunshot, layer in some clean bass tone, scoop out the transient, add a noise blast?
Last edited by highkoo on Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
ImageImageImageImage

mcbpete
KVRian
1410 posts since 24 Jun, 2006 from London, England

Re: How to make a simpler sound?

Post Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:31 am

highkoo wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:28 am
This thread might as well be titled "How to make this snare more orange?"
That's an easy one - http://www.zynaptiq.com/orangevocoder/ :hihi:

WOTG
KVRist
32 posts since 4 Aug, 2014

Re: How to make a simpler sound?

Post Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:47 am

highkoo wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:28 am
Answers?
You dont have any questions! :lol:

This thread might as well be titled "How to make this snare more orange?"
I feel like the big secret might be: EQ

To take a serious guess though; Could there be layering/replacing happening with certain freqs?
Like, scoop out the low end of the gunshot, layer in some clean bass tone, scoop out the transient, add a noise blast?
I'm not trying to be an asshole, but I'm not using basic sound terminology because it makes no sense with what I'm trying to describe. I'm trying to describe how you hear and picture the texture of a sound. Idk how else to explain this, but whatever, I'm not going to get into a big fight about this.

In bold, this is already mostly done. And actually, I think the bass only becomes a problem when I try to lower the high end, but I can't lower the high end too much without completely ruining the sound, it's the best I can come up with. I guess I just wanted the hiss gone altogether, without losing any of the richness in the sound. Does that make any sense? Or at least that's what I want, but if I can't get that, by any solid vst plugins at all, then whatever I'll just accept it the way it is.

mcbpete
KVRian
1410 posts since 24 Jun, 2006 from London, England

Re: How to make a simpler sound?

Post Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:58 am

Maybe you need to go for a more offline tool like Izotope's RX7 and try some of the spectral noise tools and other 'repair' options to tweak the sound and remove unwanted reverb effects.

User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
26793 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Re: How to make a simpler sound?

Post Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:04 am

mcbpete wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:58 am
Maybe you need to go for a more offline tool like Izotope's RX7 and try some of the spectral noise tools and other 'repair' options to tweak the sound and remove unwanted reverb effects.
But that wont be the magic secret hardware that all the pro's use and never mention.
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."

elassi
KVRAF
2143 posts since 8 Sep, 2009

Re: How to make a simpler sound?

Post Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:06 am

highkoo wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:28 am
I feel like the big secret might be: EQ
+1

deastman
KVRAF
6993 posts since 7 Aug, 2003 from San Francisco Bay Area

Re: How to make a simpler sound?

Post Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:22 am

You want to know the secret? Artistry. Mastery of the craft. Talent. Skill. Practice. Experience.

You might as well be asking which color paints and brushes you need to make your paintings look more like a Rembrandt.
Incomplete list of my gear: 110V AC to 12V DC 1.5A power supply (+ tip)

highkoo
KVRAF
3813 posts since 26 Jun, 2004

Re: How to make a simpler sound?

Post Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:21 am

deastman wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:22 am
more like a Rembrandt.
More.. 'brun', right?
Is it "brun", or like "broone"?
:hihi:
WOTG wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:47 am
I'm not trying to be an asshole, but I'm not using basic sound terminology because it makes no sense with what I'm trying to describe. I'm trying to describe how you hear and picture the texture of a sound. Idk how else to explain this, but whatever, I'm not going to get into a big fight about this.
Well, first sentence there; Yea no worries man. Its weird to try and describe sound, period.
Second sentence; Well, it doesnt work that way. :)
There has to be a common lexicon in the audio realm in order to converse.
WOTG wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:47 am
I guess I just wanted the hiss gone altogether, without losing any of the richness in the sound. Does that make any sense?
Yes! That is a specific thing. i.e. Some high end frequencies are unwanted, some others are important.
So yea man, unfortunately the answer might literally just be careful listening and careful EQ.

Guessing, but,
Are you trying to treat many different samples with one chain?
I tend to waste a lot of time just trying to dial in dynamic settings in a chain, so that they catch variations in the input as Im working. Set it and forget it laziness. With demands this detailed and particular, a lot of time will be wasted doing that.
ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
Niowiad
KVRist
327 posts since 25 Jan, 2017

Re: How to make a simpler sound?

Post Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:36 pm

I might be missing something but just by looking at the waveforms you can notice the one from your own sample has been hard-clipped to absolute oblivion, compared to the ones you posted as reference.

I don't know if that's pretty much how it already looked raw (so it would be a matter of recording levels) or became like this after processing, but I guess it could have at least something to do with the issue.

Of course I realize we're supposed to listen to stuff rather than looking at waveforms, but hey...
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
whyterabbyt
Beware the Quoth
26793 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair

Re: How to make a simpler sound?

Post Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:42 am

Niowiad wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:36 pm
I might be missing something but just by looking at the waveforms you can notice the one from your own sample has been hard-clipped to absolute oblivion, compared to the ones you posted as reference.
The post I wound up removing mentioned that it had bad digital distortion. But it was clear the OP wasnt interested.
"The bearer of this signature is a genuine and authorised pope."

User avatar
V0RT3X
KVRAF
7563 posts since 4 Jul, 2012 from Canada

Re: How to make a simpler sound?

Post Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:50 am

I wonder if this “sound” he’s talking about is the sounds you get by recording with tape? Lots of the old hollywood sound guys used Tape recorders like Nagras to capture their sounds. The sounds were usually processed through analog outboard gear or sped-up/slowed with tape speed.

Not sure the process would be “simpler” though.
Sound Experiments -> |https://soundcloud.com/user-841453413|
Join the Anti-EDM movement :borg:

WOTG
KVRist
32 posts since 4 Aug, 2014

Re: How to make a simpler sound?

Post Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:37 am

highkoo wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:21 am
deastman wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:22 am
more like a Rembrandt.
More.. 'brun', right?
Is it "brun", or like "broone"?
:hihi:
WOTG wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:47 am
I'm not trying to be an asshole, but I'm not using basic sound terminology because it makes no sense with what I'm trying to describe. I'm trying to describe how you hear and picture the texture of a sound. Idk how else to explain this, but whatever, I'm not going to get into a big fight about this.
Well, first sentence there; Yea no worries man. Its weird to try and describe sound, period.
Second sentence; Well, it doesnt work that way. :)
There has to be a common lexicon in the audio realm in order to converse.
WOTG wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:47 am
I guess I just wanted the hiss gone altogether, without losing any of the richness in the sound. Does that make any sense?
Yes! That is a specific thing. i.e. Some high end frequencies are unwanted, some others are important.
So yea man, unfortunately the answer might literally just be careful listening and careful EQ.

Guessing, but,
Are you trying to treat many different samples with one chain?
I tend to waste a lot of time just trying to dial in dynamic settings in a chain, so that they catch variations in the input as Im working. Set it and forget it laziness. With demands this detailed and particular, a lot of time will be wasted doing that.
Yeah it is very hard to describe the sound. I use EQ in very different ways, a straight forward EQ doesn't work with the sounds I use, and I have to be very selective and picky of the plugins I use.

Niowiad wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:36 pm
I might be missing something but just by looking at the waveforms you can notice the one from your own sample has been hard-clipped to absolute oblivion, compared to the ones you posted as reference.

I don't know if that's pretty much how it already looked raw (so it would be a matter of recording levels) or became like this after processing, but I guess it could have at least something to do with the issue.

Of course I realize we're supposed to listen to stuff rather than looking at waveforms, but hey...
I wish I could remove such distortion, but it's the best I can do with these sounds

whyterabbyt wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:42 am
Niowiad wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:36 pm
I might be missing something but just by looking at the waveforms you can notice the one from your own sample has been hard-clipped to absolute oblivion, compared to the ones you posted as reference.
The post I wound up removing mentioned that it had bad digital distortion. But it was clear the OP wasnt interested.
I wish I could rep you for being too funny

V0RT3X wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:50 am
I wonder if this “sound” he’s talking about is the sounds you get by recording with tape? Lots of the old hollywood sound guys used Tape recorders like Nagras to capture their sounds. The sounds were usually processed through analog outboard gear or sped-up/slowed with tape speed.

Not sure the process would be “simpler” though.
Yep that's probably exactly right, a lot of it is used by hardware that give a very naturally warm sound, so it produces less artifacts. Simply processing that in doesn't seem to work though, so I'm giving up on that unless I find a vst plugin that can get me where I want.

mcbpete
KVRian
1410 posts since 24 Jun, 2006 from London, England

Re: How to make a simpler sound?

Post Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:04 am

NOTHING will fix it if the original recordings are as in the state as Niowiad has shown, it'd be the sound equivalent of

Image

Return to “Sound Design”