80's Saw Sound

[Ingonator]

It's possible that this is somehow a layer of two synths but i'll concentrate on doing patches which come as close as possible with a single synth.

The 8 layers on Synthix will help there. Definitely switch off the chorus and try to create small detunes in the different layers first. Subtle, of course, so it's more chorus effect than super saw. A couple of layers of detuned saw should get the main body of the sound. You could then maybe try adjusting the envelopes slightly so that a more brassy sound punches through a tiny bit before the other saw layers kick in. Then pan some left and some right, and maybe create a small delay only on the right ones

Hi PAK,

i'll try that. I have already made some Hypersaw emulaions that way. Maybe i could also use the double saw for that.

UPDATE:
I have made a new Synthix patch with additional layers like you proposed. I have used two layers with different envelope and filter settings and panned the left and right. The other two layers are just to add more detuned Sawtooth waveforms instead of using the Chorus. No Delay used in that example but i'll try that too. I really like such kind of "experiments"...

BTW like a already mentioned i se the AAC file (from iTunes) of the remastered origional version for comparison. It looks like the sound is different in some versions of the song.

link: https://rapidshare.com/files/1410096137 ... Test_3.mp3

Here is the same patch with only the first two layers used (no "extra" Sawtooths):
https://rapidshare.com/files/3168404746 ... Test_4.mp3

There does not seem to be a big difference in those two.


Here is the old patch with one layer for comparison:
https://rapidshare.com/files/3998666112 ... Test_2.mp3


Ingo

[PAK]

link: https://rapidshare.com/files/1410096137 ... Test_3.mp3

On this one there's a noticeable improvement when you play chords higher up on the keyboard - you've just about got the main body of the sound at that part. But.. the overall sound is a bit like there's a short reverb on it. If that's actually being caused by the detune and especially pan/delay settings then back off on them. You can eventually add some chorus back if you narrow the detune - you just want the bulk of that tone coming from the saws.

Using pan helps create width, but also makes it trickier to knit the sound together so it sounds like a solid whole. To my ears you want something that's somewhere between this one and example 4 in terms of width, but probably closer to 4. Remember you can also try turning the volume down on really wide layers too, so it still creates the sense of width, but is maybe less overpowering about it.

The attack part still has too much of a "squelch" to the sound (same is true in example 4). It's like the decay's being opened and closed too fast, and if there's resonance on the filter there I'd turn it down/off. As I said myself, this attack part is the trickiest. Brassy sounds are easy when they're slow attacks. But doing them with the impression of a "vintage hardware" attack punch is one of those things that's still tricky to replicate in the virtual world. Hopefully stuff like attempting to remove the feedback lag, in the next generation of filter designs, might go a way to making this sort of thing as effortless as it should be. Then even the parpiest Moog sounds might not be safe.

In the meantime I would switch off the saw layers and just try to make a good punchy dry (not much/any resonance) brass sound, then cut the saw layers back in and think about shaping the tone and blending it with the saw layers as best you can.

Of course, it's always easier to say with this sort of stuff, but tends to be a bit trickier to actually do

[Ingonator]

link: https://rapidshare.com/files/1410096137 ... Test_3.mp3

On this one there's a noticeable improvement when you play chords higher up on the keyboard - you've just about got the main body of the sound at that part. But.. the overall sound is a bit like there's a short reverb on it. If that's actually being caused by the detune and especially pan/delay settings then back off on them. You can eventually add some chorus back if you narrow the detune - you just want the bulk of that tone coming from the saws.

Using pan helps create width, but also makes it trickier to knit the sound together so it sounds like a solid whole. To my ears you want something that's somewhere between this one and example 4 in terms of width, but probably closer to 4. Remember you can also try turning the volume down on really wide layers too, so it still creates the sense of width, but is maybe less overpowering about it.

The attack part still has too much of a "squelch" to the sound (same is true in example 4). It's like the decay's being opened and closed too fast, and if there's resonance on the filter there I'd turn it down/off. As I said myself, this attack part is the trickiest. Brassy sounds are easy when they're slow attacks. But doing them with the impression of a "vintage hardware" attack punch is one of those things that's still tricky to replicate in the virtual world. Hopefully stuff like attempting to remove the feedback lag, in the next generation of filter designs, might go a way to making this sort of thing as effortless as it should be. Then even the parpiest Moog sounds might not be safe.

In the meantime I would switch off the saw layers and just try to make a good punchy dry (not much/any resonance) brass sound, then cut the saw layers back in and think about shaping the tone and blending it with the saw layers as best you can.

Of course, it's always easier to say with this sort of stuff, but tends to be a bit trickier to actually do

Many many thanks for your response, this is really appreciated. I'm always up to learn new things.

BTW i just noticed that Synthix got a Delay parameter for each of the 4 envelopes. That one could also help instead of using a real Delay FX.


Ingo

[Ingonator]

link: https://rapidshare.com/files/1410096137 ... Test_3.mp3

On this one there's a noticeable improvement when you play chords higher up on the keyboard - you've just about got the main body of the sound at that part. But.. the overall sound is a bit like there's a short reverb on it. If that's actually being caused by the detune and especially pan/delay settings then back off on them. You can eventually add some chorus back if you narrow the detune - you just want the bulk of that tone coming from the saws.

Using pan helps create width, but also makes it trickier to knit the sound together so it sounds like a solid whole. To my ears you want something that's somewhere between this one and example 4 in terms of width, but probably closer to 4. Remember you can also try turning the volume down on really wide layers too, so it still creates the sense of width, but is maybe less overpowering about it.

The attack part still has too much of a "squelch" to the sound (same is true in example 4). It's like the decay's being opened and closed too fast, and if there's resonance on the filter there I'd turn it down/off. As I said myself, this attack part is the trickiest. Brassy sounds are easy when they're slow attacks. But doing them with the impression of a "vintage hardware" attack punch is one of those things that's still tricky to replicate in the virtual world. Hopefully stuff like attempting to remove the feedback lag, in the next generation of filter designs, might go a way to making this sort of thing as effortless as it should be. Then even the parpiest Moog sounds might not be safe.

In the meantime I would switch off the saw layers and just try to make a good punchy dry (not much/any resonance) brass sound, then cut the saw layers back in and think about shaping the tone and blending it with the saw layers as best you can.

Of course, it's always easier to say with this sort of stuff, but tends to be a bit trickier to actually do

Hi PAK,

after a little time off from this here is my next try based on some of your suggestions:

https://rapidshare.com/files/1647965091 ... Test_5.mp3

Here is what is changed:
- Resonance reduced to around one third of the original value
- two different layers (different detuned saws) which are panned left/right
- some adjustments in envelopes (especially attack) and Cutoff
- additional 2 voice Unison so again 4 voices per note
- added the internal EQ of Synthix for Bass and middle frequencies

Here is another example with slightly different settings and an additional Delay amount (additional parameter available in all 4 envelopes of Synthix) in the envelopes of 2 of the 4 layers:
https://rapidshare.com/files/1424563927 ... Test_6.mp3



Here are all the older examples for comparison:
https://rapidshare.com/files/3770578953 ... Test_1.mp3

https://rapidshare.com/files/3998666112 ... Test_2.mp3

https://rapidshare.com/files/1410096137 ... Test_3.mp3

https://rapidshare.com/files/3168404746 ... Test_4.mp3




Ingo

[Ingonator]

Hi,

after doing another try on the Synthix version of the "Out Of Touch" Brass sound (see my last post) i did another try with Arturia Prophet V2.

I have created two patches with slightly different detuning of the Saws and panned them slightly left and right (-15L and +15R) inside Ableton Live 8.

Here is the demo:
https://rapidshare.com/files/877356090/ ... Test_2.mp3

And here is the download for the two patches (for import as a Prophet V bank file):
https://rapidshare.com/files/3180823794 ... _Brass.zip


Have fun,
Ingo

[Albert.VST]

Funny, trying to recreate a solo sound from a finished production. So including all processing in the production chain. Which can be extensive as Hall & Oates weren't exactly B-artists so it will have been recorded a major studio. Starting with the synth used, was it DI-'d or amp'd, internal and external effects and eq in the recording, effects and eq during mixing and during mastering? Digital recorded (did the Sony 3324 or the Mitsubishi 32 track already exist), digital mastered? Then start by setting your audio card back to 44.1kHz 16 bit

Amazing how close the sound of a single synth patch can come to the processed recording, isn't it? Wouldn't be surprised if the sound of the original synth used (could have easily just been a Prophet 5 or DX-7) was far from it.
And I guess if a straight recording of the synth patch was publised here there would be quite a number of posters that couldn't be convinced it was the actual sound patch that was used.

[Ingonator]

Funny, trying to recreate a solo sound from a finished production. So including all processing in the production chain. Which can be extensive as Hall & Oates weren't exactly B-artists so it will have been recorded a major studio. Starting with the synth used, was it DI-'d or amp'd, internal and external effects and eq in the recording, effects and eq during mixing and during mastering? Digital recorded (did the Sony 3324 or the Mitsubishi 32 track already exist), digital mastered? Then start by setting your audio card back to 44.1kHz 16 bit

Amazing how close the sound of a single synth patch can come to the processed recording, isn't it? Wouldn't be surprised if the sound of the original synth used (could have easily just been a Prophet 5 or DX-7) was far from it.
And I guess if a straight recording of the synth patch was publised here there would be quite a number of posters that couldn't be convinced it was the actual sound patch that was used.

Hi Albert,

the patch for Synthix is acually 2 or 4 layers and uses both panning and the internal EQ so it's not really "simple"...

The Prophet V2 demo was made with two slightly different patches (differnt detuning of the Saws) and panning inside Ableton Live 8.

I have tried to do the same with the free new Charlatan synth now:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... &start=120

Anyway you are right. Based on the equipment that Hall & Oates used compared to myself the result seems to be quite nice (and i have not even used mastering FXs for the demos...).


Ingo

[brok landers]

Hi everyone,

i just remembered that Hall & Oates seemed to use the Prophet 5 quite a lot. Then i thought about that the Prophet could use all it's waveforms in the two oscillators at once which leads to a maximum of 5 possible waveforms playing a t once. Based on this the sound in "Out of Touch" could finally be just ONE synth, a Prophet 5 to be exactly.

It could be one synth, but it's used twice. Listen carefully to that track (the original stereo version). There are two separate brass sounds panned left and right. You can even hear that whoever played these parts did not play in time as some chords start later/earlier, and this can not be done by playing one synth+one patch at the same time. Also, you can't pan on the Prophet 5 like the sound is panned on the recording. Then, the actual sound is simple and does not require all waveforms to be used. There is no mystery here (at least for me).

I don't hear the two performances. I think you may be hearing a faint slap-back delay.

no. it's clearly audible, the filter env decay on the right side closes in a totally different way, while the left side stays rather open. also there's no static offset between the triggers, so it cannot be a delay. it's diffrent tracks/takes, unquantized with different sounds, layered and hardpanned left - right.

[brok landers]

Funny, trying to recreate a solo sound from a finished production. So including all processing in the production chain. Which can be extensive as Hall & Oates weren't exactly B-artists so it will have been recorded a major studio. Starting with the synth used, was it DI-'d or amp'd, internal and external effects and eq in the recording, effects and eq during mixing and during mastering? Digital recorded (did the Sony 3324 or the Mitsubishi 32 track already exist), digital mastered? Then start by setting your audio card back to 44.1kHz 16 bit

Amazing how close the sound of a single synth patch can come to the processed recording, isn't it? Wouldn't be surprised if the sound of the original synth used (could have easily just been a Prophet 5 or DX-7) was far from it.
And I guess if a straight recording of the synth patch was publised here there would be quite a number of posters that couldn't be convinced it was the actual sound patch that was used.

though i really doubt that they used a dx like synth for that sound (not that it wouldn't be possible, but it's just so much easier to do this patch with a substractive synth), there's a lot of truth in your post. i'm even going a step further and say, that noone knows how our attempts to recreate this sound would end up, if we would have the mixed original track with the brasspart muted, to fill it in by ourselfes. in essence, the interdependency of all other sounds in the mix would lead to a different sound as we would percieve it in solo-listening... i've experienced such all the time in my life...

[pdxindy]

I want to know how to achieve that 80's saw sound.

example:

skip to 0:17 for the sound

- thanks

Not reading through the thread but if you have Zebra, get the Hybrids soundset from Mkastrup

[Ingonator]

Hi everyone,

after doing some tries to recreate the "Out Of Touch" Brass with some synths like e.g. Synthix and Prophet V (see posts above) and some talk about advanced productions techniques here in this thread i thought it must be possible to somehow create such sound with my beloved Moog Slim Phatty rack and a DAW/host like e.g. Ableton Live 8.

The result of this experiment (with a single Slim Phatty used) is here:
https://rapidshare.com/files/299023649/ ... Test_1.mp3

No external FXs were used for this. Here is how it was done:

1.) programming the preset (monophonic) on my Moog Slim Phatty
2.) splitting the Midi data of the chords (created with a polyphonic softsynth) to 4 new Midi tracks with a single note in each using Ableton Live 8 (with "external instrument" as sound source)
3.) creating 4 new audio tracks which each are related to one of the Midi tracks.
4.) recording the 4 audio tracks (one track at once) of the 4 different Midi tracks
5.) adding a new audio track and recording the 4 other audio tracks into this
6.) duplicating the new audio track and pan those two slightly left and right (15L and 15R)
7.) render the song as a wav file
8.) cut and normalize the wav file and prepare MP3 file with Nero Wave Editor (from Nero 10 Suite)

Equipment used:
Moog Slim Phatty rack (OS 3.1) in monophonic mode (=standard), E-MU USB to Midi (1x1) adapter (better timing than with USB), Focusrite Saffire Pro 24 DSP audio interface, Ableton Live 8.2.2, Nero WaveEditor (from Nero 10 Suite)

This gives an idea how a Slim Phatty could sound in a poly chain mode like demonstrated at the Moog website:
http://www.moogmusic.com/products/phatt ... #demos-tab

BTw this way it should be possible to create a whole song (with pads etc.) using only one monophonic Slim Phatty. Of course you first have to record the notes using another polyphonic synth. I'll try that when i find time for it.


Have fun,
Ingo

[musicman]

Sorry for bumping this thread, but was wanting to know is this a brass or saw synth being played for the main melody in this track here right at the beginning?



are they just basic saws? its a bit hard to hear clearly as its buried with several other elements, and the youtube quality is rubbish.

[AdmiralQuality]

Do you mean are they sampled brass? Most any synth-brass sound begins with saws (or PWM, which is very similar to two detuned out-of-phase saws).

Hear how the sound is spread in stereo? Like most 80's stuff, it's probably at least a couple of different synths, doubled. Could be a sampled element. Could be a DX in there. Probably an analog as well.

Sounds like a strong octave component in there too. Like a second oscillator (or entire synth) is transposed up an octave relative to the rest.