One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[z.prime]

I'm going with Mehum on this one: It has nothing to do with tools, and everything to do with how you use them!
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 2#p6128622

I couldn't think of a top 5 tune ever in OSC that would sound much better with commercial effects to be honest

Yes, absolutely! This is why I always profess commercial effects should be allowed... Really it is to make the osc even more accessible to musicians. People get used to certain tools and learn how to use them well. These tools don't really give advantage over free alternatives these days. But the converse is true - it does give a disadvantage to have to learn something else quickly just to do the same thing as something you already know well. And those of us who own commercial effects lose valuable time to learn them. The other thing that always comes up is where to draw the line... Hence the suggestion to try both extremes. I think it would quash the argument for no effects quickly when we hear how much worse the entries sound and how many fewer there are. Assuming that's true...

[photonic]

Yes, I would like to see commercial plugins to be allowed. I do not own much, but those I have, I would like to use them. For me the OSC is not a pure preset competition. I think most of us are here to make good music, albeit with some limitations. As bjporter said, it will not make the big difference. Because we proved so many times that we all can do amzing things with freeware too.
But honestly, I won some FX here in OSC and in the mixing contest and I am waiting for a chance to use them

[bjporter]

But honestly, I won some FX here in OSC and in the mixing contest and I am waiting for a chance to use them

That's a point... we all need an OUTLET for our GAS right?

[ontrackp]

Maybe you should allow commercial plug ins for one month and see if it really makes a difference. Right now, the top tracks each month sound great -- absolutely professional, and while I'm sure everyone would love to use the best tools they have, I certainly don't hear a lack of quality due to the plug in restrictions.

Using the free plug-ins rule as an excuse for not doing well in the competition is stupid. This is a community of talented composer/producers, and I think we all know that even when you polish a turd, it's still a turd.

[Taron]

Hihi, "Pros to not allow..."

So, yeah, no, I would totally be against commercial plugins, despite the inherit unfairness on quality challenges between various DAWs, it wouldn't be so much about the golden-spoon advantage than about the considered golden-spoon advantage.
In reality, a great tune is a great tune. The cheaper the tools the greater the respect a winning artist receives and the greater the inspiration, at least in my books.

The challenge by name really suggest to get a great sound/music out of a specific synth. If that synth can somehow still be recognized or the less high-end gear is between it and the track, the more the challenge should be met, I'd guess.

I vote against commercial just to simplify the scenario, really. But it is a great idea to make an explicit challenge that allows them, of course.

Also, I wouldn't even consider joining a challenge where I had to use presets.

[RichardSemper]

First let me say I start from the position for keeping the rules as they are. I think the argument for supporting the small devs is a strong one.
And for a newbie (and i still am especially regarding effects) getting a grounding with free ones before even thinking of laying out cash is a useful way of learning what to look for in commercial offerings.

However, it is a tempting idea to have the chance to use the few which i have paid for. All the cm plugins spring to mind for a start, then such as the VPS Philta for eg (although this may colour the sound too much maybe). Still, there is nothing to stop us using these things for other projects than OSC.
I would be wary of allowing all types of effects though as this could seriously change the nature of OSC, moving the focus away from the synth itself.

Regarding 'no effects' : While it might be interesting for a one off challenge, to try to simulate such as reverb and delays etc with workarounds like track layering etc. I don't much fancy posting dry mixes on my soundcloud. EQ, Delays, Reverb and compression are all essential in getting the right mix, and for me have been and still are one of the toughest things to get right. Its part of the challenge of making tunes which people may actually want to listen to.

What about plugins which have no effect on the output sound at all? I'm talking analysers here. I have the amazing Melda mmulti-analyser for example, and the spiralcm analyser, both of which can improve workflow.

As I said, I do like things the way they are, with the focus on showing what can be done with the synth itself. I am in this to make music, to hopefully learn, improve and practice skills along the way, and have some fun. And its wonderful to hear great examples each month of what can be done within the limitations set.

[animehaus]

Maybe you should allow commercial plug ins for one month and see if it really makes a difference. Right now, the top tracks each month sound great -- absolutely professional, and while I'm sure everyone would love to use the best tools they have, I certainly don't hear a lack of quality due to the plug in restrictions.

Using the free plug-ins rule as an excuse for not doing well in the competition is stupid. This is a community of talented composer/producers, and I think we all know that even when you polish a turd, it's still a turd.

+ 1 for everything, pretty much read my mind about this subject.

[PurpleCatfishBettie]

how about: you can use 1 commercial effect?

[wagtunes]

I've gone over the list of pros and cons above and, if I'm going to be perfectly honest and objective, even though I am one of the ones who wants to allow commercial plugins, item #3 of the second list is the most compelling reason not to allow them.

Ultimately, this then comes down to who has the most disposable income and thus you can just "buy your way" into a better position. As you stated, it's already bad enough that some people can only afford free DAWs and can't even get the benefit of the better plugs of the premium DAWs. Compound that problem with allowing those with money to now buy whatever "premium" plug they need to beef up their tracks and the advantage becomes quite large.

Therefore, after really giving this a lot of thought, I feel allowing commercial plugins is NOT a good thing and we shouldn't do it.

Something else you said also made me realize something else that no amount of money or piece of equipment is going to overcome.

I've listened to some tracks by some of the "better" contestants. The talent level of these people is considerable. Whether it is natural talent or came from years of working at their craft doesn't matter. The point is, they are very skilled and thus will simply have an advantage over those who aren't as skilled, like myself. As embarrassing as this is to admit, if I were allowed to use any plugin I wanted, any synth I wanted, break every rule in the OSC, I still wouldn't make a track as good as some of these extremely talented people.

The only way for me to do better at these challenges is to get better at what I do. After 36 years of songwriting, synth programming and mixing/mastering, it is doubtful that I am going to get much better than I am now. I think I've reached the peak of my skill level. Without formal training (somebody to actually watch over my shoulder as I create my tracks) I'm not going to improve just doing this on my own. By now this should be pretty obvious.

So I vote we leave the rules as they are. Because anything we do to make it "better" for everybody is going to do just that, make it better for everybody. So those at the top of their craft will still be at the top of their craft. All it's going to do is make the competition more expensive for everybody and that's the last thing we need.

Sometimes you have to logically think through a situation to realize that what you thought would make it better will only make it worse and that you were wrong.

I was wrong.

And with that, I'm going to go and make some music.

Good or bad, at least it's something that I have enjoyed doing since 1979.

[esteband]

My 2 cents: Let's keep the rules as they are. I think they're just what the doctor ordered for GAS sufferers like me. True, the rules don't prevent one from downloading oodles of freebies, but the spirit of the rules urges less is more. I think it's a very useful discipline to cultivate.

I'm also really in-favor of supporting indie-devs.

-Steve

[Mojo42]

Amen

Phew, what a waste of time. Could have made 10 patches more this night, if I wouldn`t have followed this discussion

I agree to Ontrackp, Richard Semper and Mehum, just for to say something after I have wasted my time in reading 3 hours about the next possible strategy about how to make place 20 out of place 22. My dear god in heaven, I`m really glad I don`t mind my position at the scores at all.

[mmoncur]

I think commercial plug-ins would just cause trouble. There are a lot of things (reverb comes to mind) where those who can afford a good commercial plug-in would have a definite advantage.

If we're going to bend the rules at all, I'd say let's just change the name to the "One Synth and One Kick Drum Sample Challenge." That would make my life way easier...

(5 layers of PG8X in my kick and I still don't like it...)

[mehum]

I'm going with Mehum on this one: It has nothing to do with tools, and everything to do with how you use them!
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 2#p6128622

I couldn't think of a top 5 tune ever in OSC that would sound much better with commercial effects to be honest

Nice to be able to say something half valuable occasionally

Regarding commercial plugs, I abstain my vote (if I have one...). I use almost exclusively free plugins anyway so wouldn't affect how I work since I still can't use my guitar pedals

Well, there is one more point in only using free and available plugins. Since we're supposed to be ready to share our projects in case there's a controversy it would get a bit messy if you'd have to buy all the plugins to make it work properly
A minor point and I doubt that has ever happened...

[H-man]

Well, there is one more point in only using free and available plugins. Since we're supposed to be ready to share our projects in case there's a controversy it would get a bit messy if you'd have to buy all the plugins to make it work properly

A minor point and I doubt that has ever happened...

I think that is a valid point for sure. Project sharing for learning purposes as well as for OSC collaborations are usually only viable with free plugins as well.

[BlitBit]

Concerning the usage of commercial plug-ins I'd also vote to just keep everything as it is now. I think not being able to use commercial plug-ins can even serve as a nice antidote to GAS. When listening to the top entries in most OSCs it becomes obvious quickly that you don't need the latest and greatest plug-ins to write good (sounding) songs but that you "just" have to:

• Write a song in the first place. So no saying: "Yeah, once I have bought plug-in XYZ I will be able to write a song."
• Know how to use the tools that are available: how to use EQs, reverbs, compressors, distortion, etc.
• Know the production values, especially: know that you must apply many of the available tools to get a good result and why this is the case:
  • Use EQs to carve niches into the frequency spectrum for each instrument. I always liken this to using a scissor when making a collage. For example in most cases you would not glue full photos onto a collage but would instead cut the irrelevant stuff out and only use the portions that are of interest or show your subject. Same with instruments. Most basses don't have an interesting high end so you EQ it away, etc.
  • Use reverbs to put different instruments into one (artificial) space. Use reverb to pull some instruments to the front (higher dry amount) and some to the back (higher wet amount).
  • Use distortion to enhance the harmonic spectrum of "boring" sounding sounds.
  • Use compressors to make individual tracks or the mix louder. Use sidechain compression to handle instruments that might conflict in their main frequency spectrum.
  • Use limiters to get a loud mix (but don't overdo it).
  • Use automation and modulation to keep tracks and instruments interesting, especially synths which might sound boring and sterile very quickly.
  • Use amplitude automation to guide the listener through your song.

To put it a bit differently: listening to all the top entries shows you that there is no excuse to that you are not writing a good sounding song. You might not have the time to write one. But if you have the time the reason most likely is that you do not want to learn the stuff above and that you are still looking for a shortcut to success (which there is not).

If it was up to me the only thing that I would change would be the scoring scale. I would like to use six different grades instead of five because it would force voters to make a decision on whether they rather like something or not. With five different grades there is always the three which serves as a safe middle ground. Don't know how to rate something? Just give it a three. With six different grades you'd have to decide either on three or four. But I guess this has already been discussed a million times over.

Hope to join one of the next OSCs again because I really like this community!