One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[idfpower]

Will you be returning to the challenge soon? This months synth is awesome when you get to know it, and its available on Mac/PC and Linux. Surely worth a shot

Hm...maybe...at some point. Let's just say I've decided to jump back in only if the synth fits my taste & workflow in the long run But it's ok And the good thing about OSC is that all the time talented ppl join it

[doctorbob]

Incidentaly, the current synth (Digits) is very capable of vocal like patches - without any filters either in or outside the synth

Yes. Digits can do voice-like sounds very easily, and as you say, without any filtering outside. The "wah-wah" style voice on my entry is just one of those - a single Digits patch, a little EQ and verb - nothing else at all!

Would be nice to spend time and articulate some words - but time is the enemy here.

Once day I will try work up some realistic voices as I used to program speech synths for a Phonology Professor, - the Klatt synth (derived from MITtalk), which gave rise to DECtalk and Stephen Hawkins machine. Also one called PCsynth out of GCHQ. Drove the synth with data created using Prolog - which gave rise to YorkTalk and also the knowledge went into the BT Laureate system. Google up Yorktalk speech synthesis for more details (some time ago now!). Did some voice template mathing systems to create basic data so the synth could speak with a particular voice - sometimes is was quite good. Talked to Stephen H about possibly giving him his voice back (using recordings from before he got MN), but he said he was OK as he was because people now identify that voice with him (a truism). Female voices were/are different and a little harder to do - but giving someone a new voice is great, but male voices for women just grates a lot.

dB

[bjporter]

Did some voice template mathing systems to create basic data so the synth could speak with a particular voice - sometimes is was quite good. Talked to Stephen H about possibly giving him his voice back (using recordings from before he got MN), but he said he was OK as he was because people now identify that voice with him (a truism). Female voices were/are different and a little harder to do - but giving someone a new voice is great, but male voices for women just grates a lot.

dB

Doc... your posts continually fascinate me. Honestly, you should start an audio blog and write about your experiences. You have a ton of great stories If not that than do a series here on KVR or in this thread. A lot of untapped wisdom it seems.

[fluffy_little_something]

How about MUX? I know, it is not free, but it is part of the free version of Mulab, a simple, less than 20MB DAW. So the rule might be using only Mulab Free and its built-in synth, drums, and effects, no external plugins. It is of course the free version and hence limited, but that might be a challenge

It's available for Windows and Mac, 32 and 64 bit, so nobody is excluded, except penguins

[RichardSemper]

Did some voice template mathing systems to create basic data so the synth could speak with a particular voice - sometimes is was quite good. Talked to Stephen H about possibly giving him his voice back (using recordings from before he got MN), but he said he was OK as he was because people now identify that voice with him (a truism). Female voices were/are different and a little harder to do - but giving someone a new voice is great, but male voices for women just grates a lot.

dB

Doc... your posts continually fascinate me. Honestly, you should start an audio blog and write about your experiences. You have a ton of great stories If not that than do a series here on KVR or in this thread. A lot of untapped wisdom it seems.

Now that's something I would have to follow!

[J.Ruegg]

OSC no external FX special .

That would be cool!.

[J.Ruegg]

I have got a idea yesterday, I'm not sure if someone else has sugest this earlier, but I think this will solve some problems:

Make a rule that says that everyone that takes part in the contest needs to submit his track without ANY FXs(maybe only some gain stages to make it sound more or less nice), the No-FXs track shouldn't be uploaded necesary to soundcloud.
The idea is that everyone can listen to the effected version, and then to the direct output of the synth and then judge if the sound has gone too far away from the original.

Did you think this would work?

[z.prime]

Sad but true: OSC these days is all about production... Very slim chance to rank in the top 5 with a well written song (composition-wise) but with crude production.

This often comes up.

Let me ask a tangentially related rhetorical question, not targeted at you per se, but all who profess the contest should be about "using the synth" "without effects":

Are you completely satisfied with your music today?

Be honest. Now, I want to extrapolate this in terms of the OSC. I believe there are 3 primary factors which result in a good track (and as we're all entitled to our own opinions, you're more than welcome to disagree):

1) Sound design & selection
2) Composition & creativity
3) Overall production

Asking the question another way:

Are you completely satisfied with your sound design skills?
Are you completely satisfied with your composition abilities?
Are you completely satisfied with your production results?

Yes? Then the contest is fair: you should have as good a chance as anyone of getting in the top 5. No? Then is it because one of the categories is lacking? Then what should we cut out? The one that always seems to be first on the chopping block: production skills? Okay. But that still leaves 2 categories. What if someone is not good at sound design / selection skills but still makes beautiful compositions? We're in the same boat: not likely to finish in the top 5 due to the poor sonic character of the track, despite the brilliant composition. Similarly, what if someone lacks composition skills? Again, unlikely to finish in the top 5 despite amazing sound design. And, if someone is not adept at either, there would be even less of a chance to do well.

The latter category, however, can take a mediocre track and make it decent and take a good track and make it great. It is the differentiating factor between something amazing and something not so. Would we then argue that we should not be able to create something amazing for OSC? Why then, really, do you want that third category of production removed? This third category is just as important as the other 2 to having a great track, in my opinion.

I really hope this doesn't come across as "holier than thou" attitude in any way, because I really don't intend it at all, but rather as a general viewpoint about the competition. The thing is, really the same argument is always made, which to me could be summarized as: "tracks that are poorly produced do worse but should be able to do better by being good at categories 1 or 2", but I wholeheartedly disagree.

I, am terrible at production. I am not good at sound design. And I am completely lacking in the composition category.

So, to answer the question: I am in no way satisfied with my music, not any aspect of it, not remotely. I can't get the things in my head close to coming out of my speakers. But I want to get better, and the OSC gives me an avenue to do so. It is obviously already hindered from many compositions due to the fact I can't use audio nor can I use many effects I'd like to. I would prefer it didn't have the commercial plugin restrictions, at least. Despite that, I want to be able to make the best tracks within the restrictions of the competition. I want to be able to make something amazing.

The OSC is about making the best track. It's not a sound design competition. It's not a composition competition. To say it should be either or both of those simply doesn't fit with the spirit of the competition to me, at least.

One final thing, since I'm sure most people haven't read this far... I do think it would be interesting to mix up the rules periodically: one month with no external plugins, one month with commercial / all plugins allowed, etc. It would certainly add some variety. Perhaps, in conjunction with the specific synth used - e.g. a synth with no HPF / BPF would be hard to make a great with when there could be no EQ used...

[V'ger]

Very nice posts RuediRena and Z.prime.

This is a classic point of disagreement since as long as I can remember here, I'd just like to add that the top softsynths come with effects, lots of it. Everything from EQ to the kitchen sink. Even Synth1 has an EQ. It's supposed to be used, that's what the top developers want to get the ultimate sound from the instrument.

So when a synth doesn't include effects, maybe the developer just wanted people to use external effects instead. A way to keep it simple and CPU low.

Point is there's not necessarily an inherent purity argument that synths should not have effects on them.

[keith303]

i wonder why so many people are so eager to have a sound that is as close to the respective synth as possible - no matter how crappy the synth is...
i can understand that if you have some kind of fetish for the unadulterated sound of, let's say the SID chip or alike for nostalgic reasons, but OSC is sometimes (often?) relying on very basic, simple and "not-so-well-written" softsynths that are full of aliasing and other nasty artifacts, when for example, automating some faders or simply making use of the synth-internal envelopes (digits is a good example here )

so taking the possibility to form, shape and "design" the sound out of the whole equation would cripple the sonic outcome in a way that the contributed songs would get in trouble to even be perceived as "music" by most people, that are not too nerdy about the whole topic.

as far as i understood from the posts in this thread, the suggestion to disallow effects usually comes from those, who find themselves to be lacking in the production and/or sound design department.
this in particular is something i cannot comprehend, since if you think it's a weak point of yours, shouldn't you feel the urge to specifically train and learn this very skill?

i'm in a similar boat as z.prime is. i regard myself as a "hobby musician" who is not very pleased with what he produces and i want to train and get better at writing and producing music in every possible respect.
so removing one variable out of the whole creation process would only lead to even more unsatisfying results, less practice, less usefulness, less sense..

[Touch The Universe]

You can add me to that list too, hobby musician who seeks to better himself in every way till I reach a point that I'm confident enough to play live and have a large track selection to choose from. All aside however, I like the competition just the way it is, though I am new to it. However apart from having seperate competitions for sound desigin, production etc, why not have an option to just score each track in those categories while still having the one with the top score wins. Alternatively the one's with highest scores in each field entitled to win prizes. Just a thought but again, I like things just the way they are. No need to over complicate things.

[Saukar30]

Did some voice template mathing systems to create basic data so the synth could speak with a particular voice - sometimes is was quite good. Talked to Stephen H about possibly giving him his voice back (using recordings from before he got MN), but he said he was OK as he was because people now identify that voice with him (a truism). Female voices were/are different and a little harder to do - but giving someone a new voice is great, but male voices for women just grates a lot.

dB

Doc... your posts continually fascinate me. Honestly, you should start an audio blog and write about your experiences. You have a ton of great stories If not that than do a series here on KVR or in this thread. A lot of untapped wisdom it seems.

Now that's something I would have to follow!

Ditto!!

And btw....I havent looked through this thread much, but has anyone suggested using MDA JX10 for a One Synth Challenge?

Though it is quite old (it was the 1st VST synth I actually used besides Neon).. it has 64 bit versions in both Mac & PC and doesn't really take alot of CPU. I used this ina few songs back in the day and I remember that this was a pretty decent synth even though it had no GUI.

[ccDuckett]

I've said it before, but: The OSC is a great way to improve in composition/arrangement, sound design, and production- the restraints are perfect for discovering what I'm lazy/deficient in, and (albeit slowly) finding better ways of tackling those issues. That being said, it's also great to hear so many different takes on a particular synth- it reminds me of the fun of discovering how many interpretations of source material there can be over at ccMixter. With OSC, of course I'm going to respect something really well-produced that showcases good sound design and an interesting arrangement- but I also take the participant's overall experience level into consideration, and I'm less excited about a track which shows someone delving into a time-worn, standard "bag of tricks" that merely show they've got a good knowledge of synth tropes and mix engineering, than about a track which shows a certain amount of "clean slate" thinking toward the synth, while still making it their own.

We all have different tastes, both as creators and as listeners- I may have a lot of admiration for an extremely clean and glossy EDM showcase-type piece, but I'm not going to beat my head against a wall and moan because my own work doesn't sound like that- I'd rather sound like myself (in an imperfectly realized fashion due to ignorance/lack of experience), than sound like "somebody trying desperately to sound like somebody else".

Nobody is ever satisfied with their own work, as amply evidenced by previous replies; certainly not me either, but if I don't make what I'm making and keep at it, while trying to clarify and improve it, nobody else can or will. There's older tracks of mine that make me cringe with all of what I hear wrong with them- yet others have liked them enough to put them on albums, use in videos, etc. So what if what I do doesn't cure cancer, or if there's plenty of folks more talented and skilled than I am? It keeps me off the streets, and makes some people smile

[idfpower]

Are you completely satisfied with your music today?

IMO when the "I am completely satisfied with my music" moment comes, you might as well retire, 'cause from that point on there will be no more progress - that's it, you've reached the end of your musical journey Yes, of course most artists push themselves and try to hone their skills and a lot of them (me included) are their own harshest critics and are never satisfied with their music, in spite of ppl thinking "man, that's really good stuff" - it's in our nature

But that was not the point. MY point was this: ppl have a very subjective way of analysing a song and often the "technical" aspect is more important than how that song actually sounds. A rough diamond is still a diamond, while a very well polished turd is still a turd...if you know what I mean (talking in general, not about OSC entries)

I have no problem with effects; but effects can dramatically alter the actual sound/character of the synth. So then why do we even bother to pick a particular synth, if the songs' sound has very little in common with that said synth? In most cases you can't tell which synth was used to make those songs - outside of OSC it would be very difficult to pin point it...

All that being said, that's why I've decided to take a break from OSC: I can try to make ppl see things my way or accept that everyone has his/her own view on the subject And since majority decides, it's only a matter of coping with the rules and joining in when/if finding the synth interesting enough to take it for a spin

Bottom line is: ppl have their own way of judging a song; for some songwriting is critical, for others is production, or whatever. That won't change no matter the argument so it's pointless to try to enforce your own criteria - it simply doesn't work. Reality is what it is...

[keith303]

IMO when the "I am completely satisfied with my music" moment comes, you might as well retire, 'cause from that point on there will be no more progress - that's it, you've reached the end of your musical journey

retiring at a point where technical shortcomings and musical disabilities are problems of the past, would be a pretty unlogical decision, because you'd just right then enter a stage in which you'd finally have, symbolically spoken, established a "Brain-to-DAW" connection, which allows you to fulfill your musical ideas and intentions without drawbacks with a theoretical 100% accuracy.
i imagine it to be still very (even more) thrilling and exciting, as finally only the quality of your ideas would decide over the quality of your musical output.

MY point was this: ppl have a very subjective way of analysing a song and often the "technical" aspect is more important than how that song actually sounds.

sorry mate, that doesn't clarify anything for me.
every aspect of your song, be it technical, arrangement-, composition- or design-wise, is highly influential for the listener's perception of your song and his appreciation for it.

so the technical aspect does have a direct impact on and stands in direct correlation with "how the song actually sounds".

every song which has technical weaknesses will lack expression and character and hence will sound less interesting and entertaining to listeners - no matter how well it was composed and arranged.

So then why do we even bother to pick a particular synth, if the songs' sound has very little in common with that said synth?

why do you assume that the only reason for picking a particular synth is to obtain results which are as unadulterated as possible ?
i have a totally different perception regarding the intention:
- it limits every entrant to the same source of sound (principle of equality)
- it's supposed to be challenging to have nothing at your disposal but this very synth for everything you intend to create

so for me the spirit behind all this is, to have a competition among musicians that all have the same limited starting situation, with the one winning, who got the most out of that situation. (-> minimal resources with the aim of creating maximum effect)

so my point of view on OSC is 100% opposing to yours:
the more your song deviates from the sonic nature of the used synth in a pleasant way, the greater the artistic effort.

All that being said, that's why I've decided to take a break from OSC: I can try to make ppl see things my way or accept that everyone has his/her own view on the subject And since majority decides, it's only a matter of coping with the rules and joining in when/if finding the synth interesting enough to take it for a spin

Bottom line is: ppl have their own way of judging a song; for some songwriting is critical, for others is production, or whatever. That won't change no matter the argument so it's pointless to try to enforce your own criteria - it simply doesn't work. Reality is what it is...

sorry mate, this really sounds like the personal frustration about an aspect you'd like to get removed, because you find it to be uncomfortable or too stressful to comply with.

to me, it's maybe a bit like cooking a good meal at a cooking competition:
in order to make it "delicious", you will need the skill to..
- select the right ingredients
- cook it "to the point"
- add the right amount of spice, salt, sugar, etc..

i'm sorry if it sounds pathetic or rude, but to me you seem like a cook who's asking to remove the salt, sugar and spice from all cook's meals, just because his meals are always oversalted.

sorry if i'm mistaken