Haven't you heard One Ping Only?hakey wrote:and you can't get much more analog than a Moog
Simple Sylenth1 patch with Zebra
-
- KVRAF
- 7794 posts since 20 Jul, 2004 from Clearwater
Wavsen.com - Professional mix delivery platform with client approval, watermarking, and portfolio page builder.
-
- KVRist
- 449 posts since 13 Aug, 2008
Sorry to interrupt this thread, I got Sylenth1 in the group buy and I have 3 banks is this correct amount, I tried finding the aforementioned patch/preset to listen and found a patch/preset Booka in subset 2 of the first bank are there more or did I not look in the right area? Thanks for any assistance and pardon the interruption. I'm still using ZebraCM and looking forward to getting Zebra, in the mean time I like learning what I can and following along and learning from these threads and I'm sure this question would be better asked in a different forum it just seemed fit to ask here.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 212 posts since 5 Jun, 2006
Hakey I don't want to emulate the sylenth1 patch I posted the youtube video of the booka shade song so you can listen and decide which one emulates that better.
Since Sylenth1 has a preset for it and sounds 99.9% there I tried to used to emulate that in Zebra2,that's all.
In the sample I did, we have 5 synths among them we have Zebra,Sylenth1 and some moog emulations in vsti.
As far as the little Phat presets in Zebra.
Can you tell me the names of the patches so I can take a look and see if Howard put some osc efx to make it dirty-analog, so I can study it?
Thanks.
Since Sylenth1 has a preset for it and sounds 99.9% there I tried to used to emulate that in Zebra2,that's all.
In the sample I did, we have 5 synths among them we have Zebra,Sylenth1 and some moog emulations in vsti.
As far as the little Phat presets in Zebra.
Can you tell me the names of the patches so I can take a look and see if Howard put some osc efx to make it dirty-analog, so I can study it?
Thanks.
-
- u-he
- 30215 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
The oscillators of the Little Phatty are among the cleanest I know. Most digital osc sounds more dirty to me.ecsmix wrote:make it dirty-analog
The dirt of the Little Phatty comes from its filter overload, which can partly be mimiced by Zebra's XMF filter modules.
Urs-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 212 posts since 5 Jun, 2006
Cool Urs thanks for sharing.
Do you mind telling us what would be the best technics in the osc fx or any part of the amazing zebra to achieve the sound on the clip from booka shade.
In my opinion It need a little tweek on the oscilators maybe with the efx section?
Thanks.
Hey URS on te clp #1 is Zebra, what do think I did wrong there?
Do you mind telling us what would be the best technics in the osc fx or any part of the amazing zebra to achieve the sound on the clip from booka shade.
In my opinion It need a little tweek on the oscilators maybe with the efx section?
Thanks.
Hey URS on te clp #1 is Zebra, what do think I did wrong there?
-
- KVRAF
- 5234 posts since 25 Feb, 2008
Honestly, I'd be happy with 99.9%!ecsmix wrote:Hakey I don't want to emulate the sylenth1 patch I posted the youtube video of the booka shade song so you can listen and decide which one emulates that better.
Since Sylenth1 has a preset for it and sounds 99.9% there I tried to used to emulate that in Zebra2,that's all.
The Phatty patches are in the factory soundbank Local > 9 Clowns and all begin with 'Fatty ___')As far as the little Phat presets in Zebra.
Can you tell me the names of the patches so I can take a look and see if Howard put some osc efx to make it dirty-analog, so I can study it?
Last edited by hakey on Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- KVRAF
- 4141 posts since 11 Aug, 2006 from Texas
Obsessing over mimicing a single sound usually leads to time wasted and frustration. There's a few reasons for this.
1. You probably don't have the setup of the person who created it. This means the effect chains, hardware and software, as well as the personal experience with everything in the chain. It's really important to stress this. People say "why doesn't synth x sound like the demo mp3 from synth y?" Sometimes the demo mp3 might be tweaked or external effects have been added.
2. You won't sound like you. You'll sound like someone else. This can't be stressed enough. Unless you have a pressing need to sound exactly like someone else (read, being paid
) it's better to find out what sound is you. People respect and admire originality.
3. Soloing a sound an adding a sound to a mix are different things. You may hear a sound in a song, then hear the instrument soloed and they don't sound the same. Playing hakey's preset or Sylenth's preset in isolation will give you only an approximation of what it will sound like in the mix.
4. Prioritizing timbre over musical structure. I'll give you a concrete example:
It's the same piece of music played by different groupings of instruments (symphony vs pianos only). Both pieces evoke the same set of powerful emotions conveyed by the music itself, not merely the sound of the instruments played. It's another example of the sum greater than the parts.
I'm not trying to be condescending to you in any way. I'm just sharing with you a few of the things I've learned along the way. I used to obsess over sound copying from bands I admired too. I still have a lot to learn and saw this thread reminding me of how I used to think.
1. You probably don't have the setup of the person who created it. This means the effect chains, hardware and software, as well as the personal experience with everything in the chain. It's really important to stress this. People say "why doesn't synth x sound like the demo mp3 from synth y?" Sometimes the demo mp3 might be tweaked or external effects have been added.
2. You won't sound like you. You'll sound like someone else. This can't be stressed enough. Unless you have a pressing need to sound exactly like someone else (read, being paid
) it's better to find out what sound is you. People respect and admire originality.3. Soloing a sound an adding a sound to a mix are different things. You may hear a sound in a song, then hear the instrument soloed and they don't sound the same. Playing hakey's preset or Sylenth's preset in isolation will give you only an approximation of what it will sound like in the mix.
4. Prioritizing timbre over musical structure. I'll give you a concrete example:
It's the same piece of music played by different groupings of instruments (symphony vs pianos only). Both pieces evoke the same set of powerful emotions conveyed by the music itself, not merely the sound of the instruments played. It's another example of the sum greater than the parts.
I'm not trying to be condescending to you in any way. I'm just sharing with you a few of the things I've learned along the way. I used to obsess over sound copying from bands I admired too. I still have a lot to learn and saw this thread reminding me of how I used to think.
-
- KVRAF
- 1534 posts since 18 Jan, 2005
It could just be a simple matter of "transcription". Nothing wrong with that.bmrzycki wrote:Obsessing over mimicing a single sound usually leads to time wasted and frustration.
I ♥ Music.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 212 posts since 5 Jun, 2006
bmrzycki, I believe you didn't understand.
I am trying to learn the synthesis behind the sound and apply anywhere I want.
I tried to apply in the synth I like the most and I couldn't for some reason so I asked for help.
I am trying to learn the synthesis behind the sound and apply anywhere I want.
I tried to apply in the synth I like the most and I couldn't for some reason so I asked for help.
-
- u-he
- 30215 posts since 8 Aug, 2002 from Berlin
Sorry, I'm on vacation currently and thus can't listen properly.ecsmix wrote:Cool Urs thanks for sharing.
Do you mind telling us what would be the best technics in the osc fx or any part of the amazing zebra to achieve the sound on the clip from booka shade.
In my opinion It need a little tweek on the oscilators maybe with the efx section?
Thanks.
Hey URS on te clp #1 is Zebra, what do think I did wrong there?
The possibilities with OscFX are quite endless, given that some FX heavily depend on the shape of the waveform. I think that not even 25% of the potential are explored yet. Howard Scarr and others did some really surprising stuff there that I havn't known about, hence I'll refrain from giving any tips.
Cheers,
Urs