Fatboy Slim thoughts about software synths

[musikmachine]

And what, do I ask, are mixes listened through? hhhmmmmmn?

El cheapo MP3 players?

Reasonably priced stereo systems?

The magic of hardware can be heard through even teh cheapest earbuds.

I watched this producer masterclass video on youtube a few weeks ago with Milton Jackson and he uses all software but he then runs it through some high end outboard to get the vibe he wanted and the track sounded the better for it imo and i think that would carry across to most media.

But i think it is a good example of how both are used to good effect, i found it quite inspiring anyway.

[ghettosynth]

As a musician, you may hear the differences. But most of the audience won't be musicians...

Again, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around why people didn't read the article. It's about an artists take on the tool he uses, not about what the audience feels about them.

I did read the article. There are some veiled claims to superiority of one type of sound over another, e.g. the (not so veiled) reference to the crunchy sound of the S950 that other producers preferred. Also the claim that all softhsynths sound metallic implies that that non-softsynths sound better.

It seems to me that it's more about workflow than anything else. There's not really much going on in the S950 other than a non-resonant lowpass filter and 12 bit sampling. I find it really difficult to believe that it's sound can't be replicated in software. After all, it's mostly a digital piece of hardware, it's not really all that analog and non-resonant filters aren't quite as challenging as resonant filters.

Out of curiosity, any of the devs here have any insight on this? Is there something genuinely interesting in the S950 technology that presents a significant challenge?

As far as audience not hearing the difference, again, I think that they certainly can in an A/B situation, they just aren't that interested in expressing a strong opinion about it.

[ghettosynth]

I watched this producer masterclass video on youtube a few weeks ago with Milton Jackson and he uses all software

So, he's clearly NOT using all software.

1) The rhodes sample is a "recording" of hardware.

2) The sample from the record is a "recording" of analog synths. In fact, it's a recording of a moog modular. There is arguably no better example of vintage analog purity.

3) Later he refers to using an Oberheim M1000 and calls it a "rack mounted softsynth." The M1000 is a rack mounted hybrid analog synth based on the CEM3396. While I may not think that it's an awesome synth, it's not, in fact, a soft synth by any definition.

He states explicitly that he's using the rhodes sample to add some "analog" quality. Where here, analog means electromechanical.

Further the sounds from the break are coming from that original record recorded with a Moog Modular onto tape then cut onto vinyl. In his opinion, you will struggle to get the same sound from a soft-synth.

Using (static) samples of analog hardware is just like using a recording, modulo, how inter-sample variation will be static across time. As soon as you try to modulate and/or further filter them, however, you will encounter similar limitations as you do with softsynths except that, if done minimally, the character still plays through.

So, he's using samples of vintage analog gear, samples of vintage electromechanical keyboards, and at least one vintage analog synth. I'd say that's very much a mixed approach and not an "all-software" approach at all.

I like his approach though. It's rare that I see a house producer say do the beats last, That one idea alone was worth watching it. I've always started with beats, as do many producers, and he's right, what you start with often gets in the way. It seems that if you're going for that smooth deep sound, his approach might work better.

[Mutant]

Nope, it is you who don't understand the topic. Did you even read the article? Read it and then get back to me. Here's some help:

What about software synths and the like...
"They're on there and I have a play with them, but they all sound a bit samey - metallic and twangy. Sure, you can get the most incredibly complex noises coming out of them, but they don't really inspire me.

He's saying the sound does not inspire him because of the sound quality, not because of how close they sound to the real deal. Not once in that article does he even talk about the closeness of an emulation to a hardware synth. So just because you've decided to change the topic to something you want to chat about, it doesn't mean it has anything to do with the article we're talking about. So you're saying an artist should use tools he doesn't like the sound of because they're easier? Is that your point?

they all sound a bit samey - metallic and twangy

If after that ignorant statement the thread topic is anything else than software vs hardware to you...
He basically said "software = metallic and twangy ; hardware = not metallic and twangy" how is that not software vs hardware ?

And he is obviously wrong here.
And if he is wrong, then it is wrong logic too.
A synth that can sound 99% like the analog (in a mix) will not sound metallic and twangy.

[Tricky-Loops]

BTW, are vocals digital or analog??

[kmonkey]

So a well known producer is asked for opinion (which is actually quite mature and reasonable for a lot of reasons-like it's his workflow for god sake) and what you get here? Numerous producer ditching, discrediting, twisting and whatever pile one can think of.

You guys should keep it simple. If it is so hard for you then remember on cruel real world fact when talking so mighty:

Fatboy Slim is well known person/producer and he has a role in music history like it or not. A lot of poeple know his music. How many know for your music (including mine)? Get real. You are nobody and noone ever heard for you. There is pretty much good chance that most of you (me included) won't ever develop anything similar in context of given time - like he did

(and no i am not his fanboy i only heard several tracks but quite honestly i keep hearing them on various international radios all the time in all these years)

So before you start to ditch someone, ground yourself.

[Tricky-Loops]

Ive had enough, signing off to play a few soft synths and ENJOY them, couldnt care less if its soft or hard, Plus i can also "TWEAK" it with my hands due to an ingenius contraption called a "USB MIDI KEYBOARD" so i can get hands on with them..Night Night everybody

THAT'S IT! You can play with hardware (USB MIDI keyboard) your software synth! So you can make digilog anatal hardsoft music!!

[ghettosynth]

So a well known producer is asked for opinion (which is actually quite mature and reasonable for a lot of reasons-like it's his workflow for god sake) and what you get here? Numerous producer ditching, discrediting, twisting and whatever pile one can think of.

You're also exaggerating. We're having a discussion about, not only his point of view, but also the validity of those ideas independent of his point of view. It's becoming an interesting discussion. Of course, none of our opinions matter to anyone else, but frankly, the only value of his opinion is that he's famous enough that someone is going to ask him for it. That doesn't mean at all that his opinion can't be wrong. It sounds to me like he's struggling through adapting a workflow that was once really useful and is now less so, and that perhaps he took too long to adapt; perhaps he hasn't yet discovered what works and what doesn't in this new way of working.

[zerocrossing]

Nope, it is you who don't understand the topic. Did you even read the article? Read it and then get back to me. Here's some help:

What about software synths and the like...
"They're on there and I have a play with them, but they all sound a bit samey - metallic and twangy. Sure, you can get the most incredibly complex noises coming out of them, but they don't really inspire me.

He's saying the sound does not inspire him because of the sound quality, not because of how close they sound to the real deal. Not once in that article does he even talk about the closeness of an emulation to a hardware synth. So just because you've decided to change the topic to something you want to chat about, it doesn't mean it has anything to do with the article we're talking about. So you're saying an artist should use tools he doesn't like the sound of because they're easier? Is that your point?

they all sound a bit samey - metallic and twangy

If after that ignorant statement the thread topic is anything else than software vs hardware to you...
He basically said "software = metallic and twangy ; hardware = not metallic and twangy" how is that not software vs hardware ?

And he is obviously wrong here.
And if he is wrong, then it is wrong logic too.
A synth that can sound 99% like the analog (in a mix) will not sound metallic and twangy.

Is it that English is not your first language? I feel I'm taking crazy pills here. Yes, it's about hardware vs software but in the context of the artist's personal opinion. He's saying he likes the sound of hardware better so shouldn't he then use it to make his music? Shouldn't he make music that sounds like he wants it to?

I do agree that saying all software sounds "samey - metallic and twangy" is unfair. He probably hasn't used some of the better plug ins, but I'll tell you that there are many highly rated plug ins that sound horrible. Aliasing all over the place. I demoed Saurus and I couldn't believe anyone would call it "vintage" as to me it just sounded harsh. I'm currently listening to the new demo tracks of Cyclop by Sugar Bytes and I'm shocked that someone thought those demo tracks sounded good enough to post... yet there's a thread where a lot of people think it's the cat's pajamas. I'll reserve judgement on that one until I hear it in person.

So my guess is that Fatboy probably listened to Pro52 and some of the early Arturia synths and probably just dismissed them as being representative of all software synths as they're published by major developers. They should be the best, right? I did this with Guitar Rig. I tried it and I was shocked that anyone would think it sounded like a real guitar amp... or even just make a guitar sound good. Then I discovered other sims like Amplitube and realized it wasn't that I was against software amp modeling, I just didn't like Guitar Rig. (note, I find Guitar Rig pretty good for synths, drums and other stuff)

Anyway, I use software when it makes sense and hardware when that makes sense. If you stick to what they're good at both have valid places in any studio. But the article isn't about that. It's about what inspires Fatboy Slim and for what ever reasons he has, he's got a right to them. If I had the space and money I'd probably do the same thing.

[Mutant]

Fatboy Slim is well known person/producer and he has a role in music history like it or not. A lot of poeple know his music. How many know for your music (including mine)? Get real. You are nobody and noone ever heard for you. There is pretty much good chance that most of you (me included) won't ever develop anything similar in context of given time - like he did

OK so he is a well known "producer".

Would you defend him even if he said "2+2=5" ?

"Oh he is a well know producer so he is right and you are wrong !"

L O L

[Sendy]

There's not really much going on in the S950 other than a non-resonant lowpass filter and 12 bit sampling. I find it really difficult to believe that it's sound can't be replicated in software. After all, it's mostly a digital piece of hardware, it's not really all that analog and non-resonant filters aren't quite as challenging as resonant filters.

I'll be perfectly honest, I haven't heard anything quite like what the S950 and it's derpy nonresonant digital filter can do to a sampled beat in software. In my opinion, some of the best filters can sound amazing with no resonance (either because it doesn't have it, or because you can turn it down and still get a nice sound - think subtlety). The S950's sampling circuits and it's filter have something really funky about them, however, I firmly believe it would be possible to recreate in software. It just probably hasn't happened yet.

I'd have tried Morgana by now, but I find the price a little prohibitive.

[zerocrossing]

As a musician, you may hear the differences. But most of the audience won't be musicians...

Again, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around why people didn't read the article. It's about an artists take on the tool he uses, not about what the audience feels about them.

I'm troubled about artists that don't care about their audience, but only about their take on the tools...

And BTW, I do have read the whole interview!

Obviously you don't speak English well, so I'll help. He's not saying he doesn't care about his audience. He's only saying he finds inspiration in hardware instruments. As his audience, wouldn't you want to hear music that's done by someone inspired? Or would you rather listen to music done halfheartedly by someone forced to use tools he doesn't like?

[Mutant]

Nope, it is you who don't understand the topic. Did you even read the article? Read it and then get back to me. Here's some help:

What about software synths and the like...
"They're on there and I have a play with them, but they all sound a bit samey - metallic and twangy. Sure, you can get the most incredibly complex noises coming out of them, but they don't really inspire me.

He's saying the sound does not inspire him because of the sound quality, not because of how close they sound to the real deal. Not once in that article does he even talk about the closeness of an emulation to a hardware synth. So just because you've decided to change the topic to something you want to chat about, it doesn't mean it has anything to do with the article we're talking about. So you're saying an artist should use tools he doesn't like the sound of because they're easier? Is that your point?

they all sound a bit samey - metallic and twangy

If after that ignorant statement the thread topic is anything else than software vs hardware to you...
He basically said "software = metallic and twangy ; hardware = not metallic and twangy" how is that not software vs hardware ?

And he is obviously wrong here.
And if he is wrong, then it is wrong logic too.
A synth that can sound 99% like the analog (in a mix) will not sound metallic and twangy.

Is it that English is not your first language? I feel I'm taking crazy pills here. Yes, it's about hardware vs software but in the context of the artist's personal opinion. He's saying he likes the sound of hardware better so shouldn't he then use it to make his music? Shouldn't he make music that sounds like he wants it to?

I do agree that saying all software sounds "samey - metallic and twangy" is unfair. He probably hasn't used some of the better plug ins, but I'll tell you that there are many highly rated plug ins that sound horrible. Aliasing all over the place. I demoed Saurus and I couldn't believe anyone would call it "vintage" as to me it just sounded harsh. I'm currently listening to the new demo tracks of Cyclop by Sugar Bytes and I'm shocked that someone thought those demo tracks sounded good enough to post... yet there's a thread where a lot of people think it's the cat's pajamas. I'll reserve judgement on that one until I hear it in person.

So my guess is that Fatboy probably listened to Pro52 and some of the early Arturia synths and probably just dismissed them as being representative of all software synths as they're published by major developers. They should be the best, right? I did this with Guitar Rig. I tried it and I was shocked that anyone would think it sounded like a real guitar amp... or even just make a guitar sound good. Then I discovered other sims like Amplitube and realized it wasn't that I was against software amp modeling, I just didn't like Guitar Rig. (note, I find Guitar Rig pretty good for synths, drums and other stuff)

Anyway, I use software when it makes sense and hardware when that makes sense. If you stick to what they're good at both have valid places in any studio. But the article isn't about that. It's about what inspires Fatboy Slim and for what ever reasons he has, he's got a right to them. If I had the space and money I'd probably do the same thing.

I would have nothing against him if he just said "i only tried few synths and they sounded metallic and twangy, i don't know if all softsynths are like that, but from what i heard from these few i got discouraged and went back to my analogs".

[Tricky-Loops]

As a musician, you may hear the differences. But most of the audience won't be musicians...

Again, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around why people didn't read the article. It's about an artists take on the tool he uses, not about what the audience feels about them.

I'm troubled about artists that don't care about their audience, but only about their take on the tools...

And BTW, I do have read the whole interview!

Obviously you don't speak English well, so I'll help. He's not saying he doesn't care about his audience. He's only saying he finds inspiration in hardware instruments. As his audience, wouldn't you want to hear music that's done by someone inspired? Or would you rather listen to music done halfheartedly by someone forced to use tools he doesn't like?

You're the only one speaking English well?

You should read the whole post before commenting on it. I haven't said what he haven't said. Norman Cook didn't mention the audience at all.

So what is your subject? Whether finding inspiration in hardware instruments is useful or not?

[musikmachine]

I watched this producer masterclass video on youtube a few weeks ago with Milton Jackson and he uses all software

So, he's clearly NOT using all software.

1) The rhodes sample is a "recording" of hardware.

2) The sample from the record is a "recording" of analog synths. In fact, it's a recording of a moog modular. There is arguably no better example of vintage analog purity.

He states explicitly that he's using the rhodes sample to add some "analog" quality. Where here, analog means electromechanical.

Further the sounds from the break are coming from that original record recorded with a Moog Modular onto tape then cut onto vinyl. In his opinion, you will struggle to get the same sound from a soft-synth.

Using (static) samples of analog hardware is just like using a recording, modulo, how inter-sample variation will be static across time. As soon as you try to modulate and/or further filter them, however, you will encounter similar limitations as you do with softsynths except that, if done minimally, the character still plays through.



I like his approach though. It's rare that I see a house producer say do the beats last, That one idea alone was worth watching it. I've always started with beats, as do many producers, and he's right, what you start with often gets in the way. It seems that if you're going for that smooth deep sound, his approach might work better.

Sorry, i meant including the samples within kontakt. He is quite disparaging of softsynths as well tbh, i think he says something along the same lines as NC but he still uses them and gets the sound he desires through post processing. I suppose i was making a wider point about the strengths of each medium and the creativity aspect that seems to get overlooked, the tools don't make the music but obviously they are a part of the process.

I used to do the beats last but changed cause it helps me to keep focus but i keep that approach in mind now and don't let the drums get too busy or overwhelm the track, can always do them first and then pull them back in the mix. But i like the approach of blending the sounds as a whole rather than seperate elements (was he talking about Dubstep? ).

But at the end of the say it is all about workflow. I don't see the point in being narrow minded. Use whatever inspires you!