KVR Audio

TristezaOrange · Post by **TristezaOrange** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:51 pm

living sounds wrote: That's what musicians care for.

Don't you mean that's what you care for and that you'll happily project it on everyone else?

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:51 pm

tony tony chopper wrote:ok just to be sure that I won't waste my time, we're talking about this, right?
http://anothergol.googlepages.com/China.mp3

Yes, but I've been using it at 88,2 khz.

TristezaOrange · Post by **TristezaOrange** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:52 pm

nuffink wrote:
living sounds wrote:Why do you too have to resort to insults all the time? Let's have a discussion like adults, just for once, all right?
Adults understand that the yardstick in their head is personal not universal. It's impossible to have an adult conversation with somebody who hasn't learned this.

+1

Better put than anything I could say.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:58 pm

Aroused by JarJar wrote:??? See if you'd read what I write you'd already know that I have my own FM synth that I like very much (and it is software).

A simple 'no' would suffice then. And yes, I already knew that you had your own FM synth.

whyterabbyt wrote:Straw man. I'm totally cool with people thinking FM8 for example sounds great, totally open to accepting their subjective opinion as "objective", which it is in art.

That's good. Some other people are having problems being that 'cool'.

The flipside of this is NOT that I and others are deluded fools for NOT finding it to sound good, but finding other synths to sound good.

I dont quite follow that. Could you rephrase it please?

By accident and/or design. What sounds good to me in the FM synth I use happens by purely by design, not by accident.

That doesnt preclude the fact that it may happen 'by accident' in other FM synths. But just so we can keep things straight, could you make it a bit clearer when you're specifically talking about just your own synth, rather than the more generic plethora of FM synths that the rest of the thread is dealing with, thanks.

Don't you mean to add "as far as I can tell?" Or do you speak from divine authority?

Does it need 'divine authority' to see that its only ever been the same two people here saying that same things over and over for the past three or four years, at every opportunity, and that there are clearly dozens, if not hundreds of people who have expressed happiness with the quality of the sounds they are obtaining from the various FM synths available? Does statistical inference require 'divine authority' these days?

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:01 pm

Well, I finally know (after many struggles) how I can achieve the great sound heard on professional recordings treasured by everyone. In that sense, I know what works for musicians.

TristezaOrange · Post by **TristezaOrange** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:03 pm

living sounds wrote:Well, I finally know (after many struggles) how I can achieve the great sound heard on professional recordings treasured by everyone. In that sense, I know what works for musicians.

And do you think that your way (the way you have figured out, anyway) is the only way to get professional results?

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:05 pm

living sounds wrote:Well, I finally know (after many struggles) how I can achieve the great sound heard on professional recordings treasured by everyone.

which recordings are those?

that are treasured by everyone.

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:06 pm

Well, Britney obviously. But beyond that ...

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:12 pm

Funny you mentioned Britney. Because her current record doesn't sound half as good as the old stuff. Compare the sound of "If You Seek Amy" to "I Luv Rock'N'Roll". I think they went all ITB on the latest record, at least it sounds like that.

z15 · Post by **z15** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:15 pm

living sounds wrote:Well, I finally know (after many struggles) how I can achieve the great sound heard on professional recordings treasured by everyone. In that sense, I know what works for musicians.

What decade and what style of music specifically? There are quite a lot of differences in the sonics and aesthetics of different eras, genres and artists that could be said to have produced "professional" results that people love. A classical music recording engineer despises the noise made by an indie rock mixing engineer, who might not get what a techno producer does... The said techno producer might wonder why '70s dub records sound so crappy, and Lee Perry is just laughing and wondering why American recording engineers are so afraid of putting enough bass, and goes to bury the master tapes to his garden. Meanwhile, someone is churning awesome stuff with a beaten-up PC laptop and Audiomulch.

I agree with nuffink. Claiming that "people with good ears can hear a clear difference between this and that" may be correct (although to be sure it should be tested), but "people with good ears can hear that this one sounds clearly better than that" is not. It's subjective and having a good monitoring setup and ears shouldn't imply some kind of taste in sound. Different strokes for different folks and so on. If you have seriously found clear common factors between the huge amount of music that people love and think sounds awesome, then I do applaud you, but I don't personally think it's possible.

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:15 pm

living sounds wrote:Compare the sound of "If You Seek Amy" to "I Luv Rock'N'Roll".

Err... I might pass on that one.

Nokenoku · Post by **Nokenoku** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:15 pm

living sounds wrote:That might have been me:
www.scherer.de/Download/DXtest.rar

Yes, and that one:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=228264

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:19 pm

z15 wrote:The said techno producer might wonder why '70s dub records sound so crappy, and Lee Perry is just laughing and wondering why American recording engineers are so afraid of putting enough bass, and goes to bury the master tapes to his garden.

Strangely enough I was going to ask where he saw the common ground between Lee Perry and Quincy Jones but I couldn't face having to explain why Lee Perry is a great producer.

z15 · Post by **z15** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:23 pm

nuffink wrote:Strangely enough I was going to ask where he saw the common ground between Lee Perry and Quincy Jones but I couldn't face having to explain why Lee Perry is a great producer.

Anyone who has heard The Congos' "Heart of the Congos" and doesn't agree that the guy is a genius is obviously deaf. And that's a cold, hard fact

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:28 pm

Ok I had to do it all by ear, because I still can't figure out the VOPM settings, they don't even match what I'm reading in a DX7 manual.
I don't know what TL, MUL, DT1, DT2 are, and the doc is in jap.
So I guess it'll be better if you pick an existing DX7 patch (& its rendition from a DX7), so that we have something we can import to start with.

http://anothergol.googlepages.com/China2.mp3
(they're both in it)

(& sry, I made it with versions of FL & Sytrus that aren't published yet, so I can post the project but you won't be able to open it. So if you want to try yourself in Sytrus or others, the algo is OP1(with feedback) modulating OP2 that's output, added with OP3 modulating OP4 that's output.
Freq ratios:
OP1: 8
OP2: 4
OP3: 6
OP4: 3
FM amounts & envelopes: values wouldn't be compatible between synths, you'll have to try

The Fight for FM