One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[sawsq]

I vote for allowing commercial effect plugins. I don't have any, but I don't think it makes a real difference. Ok, probably it's more convenient to use the plugins you use all the time. But if I ever will make a great track, it will be a great track with or without them. And don't we all know people who own all those shiny toys, and still their sound... well... yeah.

[mehum]

not to mention some additional sonic capabilities in those paid plugs that aren't typically available by the DAW effects.

Could you, or anyone else for that matter, give an example? I can see how it matters for reverb. Filters as well but using heavy characteristic filtering is not really in line with the spirit of the competition anyway (and note I make a clear line between resonant filter and EQ here).

EQ:ing and compressing is 97% technique and (controversy alert!!!) the mojo added with certain products is mostly overrated in my humble opinion. I instead feel like I don't have any control over what they do, in contrast to the Reaper stuff which are very transparent. But perhaps that's me.

My question may seem like sarcastic trolling but I'm actually genuinely interested in knowing. The only plugin I've paid for in years is Mux (unless you count the CM stuff) but I've been looking at stuff like the fabfilter creative suite and perhaps a quality reverb.

[H-man]

What do you mean? Doesn't all plugin developers follow the official OSC regulations???

First I've heard of it ..

[MTLE]

What do you mean? Doesn't all plugin developers follow the official OSC regulations???

Hey we can solve this. There are some developers around here. We could implement an OSC² Plugin which follows all rules. Full name is "On Sounds Commercial - Off Sounds Crappy". Need to talk with Z to make it 100% compatible to BSE. Handling is very simple, just one switch. It can be used on Master or single tracks to grade the quality of your track. You could combine crappy drums with commercial leads ...

[psmacmur]

not to mention some additional sonic capabilities in those paid plugs that aren't typically available by the DAW effects.

Could you, or anyone else for that matter, give an example? I can see how it matters for reverb...

One that springs to mind is Waves Renaissance/Max Bass. That plug uses a psychoacoustic harmonic trick that you could probably emulate with a decent EQ, if you grok the seminal paper on the subject. Even then, you'd be manipulating a dozen parameters vs the plugin's 2, and you might have to automate them or something. I've looked at its results in a frequency spectrum; it's a lot thicker than just a bump at twice the target frequency. It's a *major* time saver, vs. the many subtle tweaks I need for OSC.

[Parduz]

Premise:
I'm fine about whatever decision will be taken. I value composition and "synthesition" (New word = the ability to sort out sounds from the given synth ) much more than the other aspects.
Said this, if i could decide alone i'll ban even DAWs plugins, and i'll build a poll to elect a dozen or so of allowed free FX plugins. This 'cause i think would be more fair for everyone.

Now, don't get me wrong: i'm not saying that now it is an unfair competition. Heck, being it a "synth" contest, to judge the best sound engineer we would have to allow only:

• a 10 seconds Am chord for pads
• a pre-defined fast arpeggio MIDI file for "pluck, bit" sounds
• a 4 bars piano arpeggio

and then let ppl demonstrate his sounds with that. Pretty boring, huh?
So, other than sound engeneering we have in the mix (pun! ) composition, mixing and mastering skills. These makes the play unfair a bit (from the "synth contest" point of view), but makes us interested in the competion 'cause we're allowed to create music we like.
So, forcing FXs will tame down creativity for someone? I guess so.... i'm the kind of musician that search for inspiration by a "sound+playing" combo, i rarely have an idea for a track before knowing what sound will be the "foundation" of it.... but this is just me, i guess that someone just need that compressor, or delay, or whatever to reach his own nirvana (i miss SO MUCH a distortion ).

In the end, i see each "side" have some point. So i'm fine whatever. I'd vote "NO", to stay like it is now (if not more restrictive).

To add some meat for our brain, could it be, perhaps, that after 75 OSC the formula could become a bit old? (not for me, i'm just at my fourth OSC and i'm having lot of fun, but i see how free VSTi that are still working have been almost all used).
Could alternate a "Classic OSC" to a "make a track using whatever you want" contest, and a "One Synth, 3 FXs" contest be a way to make everyone happy, or it will be a kill for the OSC, by splitting partecipants in different streams? I really dunno.

As a relatively newcomer, i'd just stress again the concept that it should be a friendly competion. I admire the guys which, even when not submiting a track, build patches for the whole community. I'd like to be able to do the same, and share something as a thankyou, but my technical skills are sub-par on this community, and if i even have some composition ability it is so "innate" in me that i can't explain or "teach" anything.
I'll partecipate in the OSC even if you made a rule that I, and just I, have to use only a Kazoo emulator, 'cause the great value of being part of the community

[H-man]

Actually, flippant remarks aside, whilst I have become quite comfortable with my favourite freebies, I vote yes to allowing commercial plug-ins.

First there is the DAW native plug-in thing that already exists and second, having seen the vast pool of high quality free plug-ins over the last few years, I simply don't think that there is any real advantage obtained by using commercial plug-ins. Quite a testament to the free-ware community really ...keep and eye out for that donate button people.

Now after all that, let's keep the focus on the Synth.

[ImNotDedYet]

not to mention some additional sonic capabilities in those paid plugs that aren't typically available by the DAW effects.

Could you, or anyone else for that matter, give an example? I can see how it matters for reverb. Filters as well but using heavy characteristic filtering is not really in line with the spirit of the competition anyway (and note I make a clear line between resonant filter and EQ here).

EQ:ing and compressing is 97% technique and (controversy alert!!!) the mojo added with certain products is mostly overrated in my humble opinion. I instead feel like I don't have any control over what they do, in contrast to the Reaper stuff which are very transparent. But perhaps that's me.

My question may seem like sarcastic trolling but I'm actually genuinely interested in knowing. The only plugin I've paid for in years is Mux (unless you count the CM stuff) but I've been looking at stuff like the fabfilter creative suite and perhaps a quality reverb.

Many of the hardware emulations being done in software for compression and EQ. I've used quite a few from IK Multimedia and PSP. The Noble EQ from PSP is a Pultec emulation which does some really cool things at the EQ points, but adds some nice harmonic distortion. Many of IK Multimedia's EQs and some comps include input and output gain even without actually using the EQ or Compressor functionality. PSP VintageWarmer as a compressor/limiter does the same. Could you accomplish these with a combination of DAW plugs? Probably, but one would have to know what's going on, and I'd argue it would be damn difficult to replicate the functionality of a Pultec EQ.

[bluerobot]

I must admit, being new to the competition last month, I did find the Fx rules hard to grok at first. In the end I used a lot of DAW Fx (Live).

While I appreciate the spirit of the competition in supporting freeware, the DAW exception seems to negate the value of the non-commercial rule.

It seems to me it would be impossible to come up with a set of rules that satisfied every variable. Even if you removed DAW Fx in an effort to level the playing field further, Mac vs. Windows would still be a problem, for example.

I think the rules about *how* the Fx can be used are doing more to "keep the focus on the Synth" (as H-man said above) than the rule about commerciality.

Perhaps it's better to focus on the *how* rather than the *what*?

All this said, I am content to carry on with the rules as they are.

But if a change was made to allow commercial Fx, then more focus should be placed on the *how*. I like some of the suggestions above, for example, limiting the number of Fx or number of instances, etc. Or, perhaps require more detailed documentation (i.e. how many instances used on which parts, etc).

If we went the other way, and removed DAW Fx, then I suspect it would be too limiting.

Full disclosure: I can think of two commercial plugins that I found it very hard to do without in last month's competition: Sonimus Satson channel strip emulation (which I normally use on every track), and the NI reverbs (RC24 and RC48). None of those things, I think, would have drastically improved my chances of winning, but I would have felt better about it.

[JoeCat]

Haven't OSC'd for some time but have in the past, so hopefully gives me enough cred to weigh in without being too much of a troll

Agree with bluerobot: Allowing commercial effects are probably not such a big deal in terms of fairness if still in keeping with the spirit of the "no significant change to sound" rule; in reality of course the DAW effects might be equivalent due to licensing (Live/Glue for example), so it does somewhat negate the non-commercial rule.

For me, one of the biggest and most challenging hurdles for the OSC was in fact the "no sampled audio" rule (frozen/complete tracks being excluded of course). This is due to the simple fact that for synthesizers with free running oscillators it's a chore to create decent percussion that doesn't really speak to the quality of sound design and composition. I'd love to see the ability to sample percussion hits from the synth (without, of course, effecting them in a sampler in any way) just to be able to create consistent hits across a track. Any DAW can do so and I think it's still in keeping with the intent of the competition.

[bluerobot]

For me, one of the biggest and most challenging hurdles for the OSC was in fact the "no sampled audio" rule (frozen/complete tracks being excluded of course). This is due to the simple fact that for synthesizers with free running oscillators it's a chore to create decent percussion that doesn't really speak to the quality of sound design and composition. I'd love to see the ability to sample percussion hits from the synth (without, of course, effecting them in a sampler in any way) just to be able to create consistent hits across a track. Any DAW can do so and I think it's still in keeping with the intent of the competition.

This is quite an interesting point. Had not considered that before.

Also wanted to mention: I've got what sounds to me like a pretty decent submission for this month, and it was made under the old rules, so no rush to change anything on my account!

[Gamma-UT]

I'd love to see the ability to sample percussion hits from the synth (without, of course, effecting them in a sampler in any way) just to be able to create consistent hits across a track. Any DAW can do so and I think it's still in keeping with the intent of the competition.

To some extent, this rule keeps a lid on the practical number of instances people can use to build up a sound. If you render you avoid a lot of potential automation hassle if you're trying to control volume envelopes for each hit plus it makes layering a lot more profitable, because you can line up phase so accurately in a sample window. You also have more possibilities for flanging, phasing and comb filtering, which are ruled out as plugins but technically allowed if handled using the DAW. So I can see good reasons for continuing to rule out sampling other than full track freezing.

On the commercial plug-ins side, there are some big differences between what is available free and for money in some areas - particularly when you get into mastering and multiband treatment. You can do some crazy sh*t with Flux Alchemist that would be tough to pull off using the current free options. You can also successfully destroy a track using the same tool.

[wagtunes]

A lot of excellent arguments for and against. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make the decision. I don't envy those guys at all.

[Touch The Universe]

I'd say at least allow a kick-- maybe possibly extend it to other freeware samples. Not the entire realm, mind you, maybe a really short list of aloud samples. Then again, the osc is good as is, but some synths really are very hard to work with to get good drums-- the mix would just fall short. Ace bass, leads, pads, etc, but then the drums just doesn't do it justice, it's kinda hard to really want to promote the song outside the osc. Just my opinion of course....

[Gamma-UT]

Ace bass, leads, pads, etc, but then the drums just doesn't do it justice, it's kinda hard to really want to promote the song outside the osc. Just my opinion of course....

Well, it isn't called a challenge for nothing...

In the current situation, I'd be inclined to simply remix the track with additional percussion.

Overall, I think we're dealing with the wrong question. The OSC has mutated significantly since the early days and I don't think the assumptions used then still hold. Then it was really about the synth and its raw sounds - how much mileage could you get out of just doing that? My reading of many of the more recent comments (though not from everybody) is that it's now more about making a finished track using just one synth, which has made the issue of DAW features and FX options much more prominent.

Decide the real purpose of the contest and I think the decision over the individual rules gets easier.

There is one other thing. If you relax the sampling and commercial FX rules, it gets somewhat easier to enter. What kind of song count are you dealing with before the voting as it is becomes unmanageable and descends into a popularity contest? It's already 50-plus on a quiet month.