One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[wagtunes]

I propose there be a test --- one month allow using any plug ins that we own and see how it goes.

The fact is, you can own and use all of the most expensive efx plug ins there are, and still make a crappy track that gets low scores. OSC combines composing, sound design and production. If someone has a masters degree in composition they have an advantage over me in that area -- I don't consider that unfair -- it's just part of the game.

Wag, and probably some of the other participants are pro sound designers -- so they have a built in skill set that many of us don't have. Is that an unfair advantage?

Some people use DAW's with better features... it's by nature a slightly uneven playing field?

Kind of my point. The playing field is about as even as the Cleveland Browns playing the Packers.

In fact, talking about things like compressors, reverbs, delays and EQs, the only really major differences aren't so much in the sounds between free and paid but because of all the presets you get with the paid that you don't get with the free. In short, it cuts down the amount of time you spend and not so much improves the sound.

[Mechanought]

One thing that I would be curious to see is an OSC with no effects, no automation. See what you can make with just the synths and the envelopes.

It would require a really good synth to be enjoyable, but I think the limitations would really inspire some awesome creativity.

[bjporter]

One thing that I would be curious to see is an OSC with no effects, no automation. See what you can make with just the synths and the envelopes.

It would require a really good synth to be enjoyable, but I think the limitations would really inspire some awesome creativity.

That sounds fun

[fairplay]

> See what you can make with just the synths and the envelopes.

It will end with a pile of chiptunes

[bjporter]

Or even no effects, just built in, and automation allowed would be fun

[rghvdberg]

Any One Synth
All plugins
Othe rules still apply

[ATN69]

Any One Synth
All plugins
Othe rules still apply

Sounds logic

[photonic]

Or even no effects, just built in, and automation allowed would be fun

Yeah, but than it should be a synth with build in reverb. There are not much I guess!
You can simulate a delay or chorus with other instances. But not a reverb.

[psmacmur]

The issue of fairness comes up repeatedly. It is true that the current rules give an unfair advantage to those who spring for a decent DAW,

I disagree with this almost 100%.
Those who regularly place in the top 10 would probably place in the top 10 regardless of the DAW they used. They might not be as efficient as usual but talent and skill will shine through. Give them time to get to know a tool and a true artist will make the most of it.
Those like me who place in the bottom tier would probably place in the bottom tier even if they had access to the most expensive feature rich DAW. I am not self-deluded enough to claim it is my "inexpensive" DAW or the plug-ins that come bundled with it that is holding me back from dominating the competition.
I know I just don't have the necessary skill set and am not looking to blame my deficiencies on something else. Realistic self-awareness can be a handy thing.

The thrust of my argument for uniform tooling is that, if the tooling were 100% fair, then it'd truly be a competition between people only. Yes, absolutely, the same people would still come out on top. Musical training will win out over expensive kit almost every time. But, factor the kit out of the equation, and I'd argue it is "fair" in that it is only a contest of skills (and maybe time, see below).

However, true fairness would require everyone to have identical tools, not just synth and plugins, but also the DAW and even down to the CPU. Otherwise, someone would complain that someone who can afford a hex core Xeon has an unfair advantage over someone who can only afford an APU or i3.

Why stop there? Why not demand equal musical background and training? Or equal time available to devote each month to the competition? (not claiming you psmacmur are suggesting this, but rather curious why you draw the "fairness" line at tools but not training or time). Personally I think training, ability and time management are much greater indicators of potential success rather than tool availability.

I'd totally stop at fair tooling for two reasons: one, because everything else is people, which is what matters, right? And two, everything else is basically unsolvable. Training? Not feasible to prove. Specifically, it'd virtually impossible to verify that someone who claims they have no training hasn't, in fact, had 10 years of piano and theory lessons, or youtubed for 3 years, etc. Sure, large competitions (e.g. sports) have novice and advanced categories, to try to get similarly-skilled people competing against each other, but that sort of thing just seems out of scope for a compo with under a hundred monthly entrants. And again, how do you sort people? Time available each month is, indeed, a really big factor, and maybe the hopelessness of that one alone makes it pointless to argue for fairness. Then again, what each person can do in, say, two hours, varies dramatically... at least as much as time available...

I believe the typical counter-argument is to swing the other way and open up the rules to allow commercial plugins. That makes it very hard to verify that someone hasn't cheated...

First just let me say that anyone who would knowingly cheat at this competition is a sad individual indeed. Seriously.

Agreed, but we've seen some very suspicious voting in the past (that lead to promoting the open spreadsheet and adding a "Generosity Score" to it) that suggest there are people willing to at least bend the rules. I suspect the decent prizes are part of the reason.

And again I don't believe that a paid vs free effect plug-in is going to have that great of an impact on the final result. Without the skill to put the plug-in to best use the cost of the plug-in is irrelevant. The top people in this competition are making amazing music with free effects. I predict those on the bottom will still be on the bottom even if commercial plugs were allowed. Those on top 'might' sound a bit better with paid plugs but the divide between those with skill and those lacking skill will still be there.

I actually agree 100% here. Absolutely for sure. Commercial plugins would make it more fun for those of us who collect them: more chances to play with our new toys, or save time by leveraging our familiarity with our favourites. But the results would stack up virtually identically. Ultimately, I personally think fairness is intractable and anyone whining about fairness is naive. I was just trying to point out the ramifications of thinking that way.

[Frostline]

The thrust of my argument for uniform tooling is that, if the tooling were 100% fair, then it'd truly be a competition between people only.

Ah but the rub there is how does make the tooling "fair"?

Take something as basic to the process such as melody creation in a DAW.
Person A draws everything in piano roll, has no real knowledge or skill with keyboards yet can make wonderful melodies and is very successful.
Person B has been playing piano for longer than they could walk. A well seasoned and excellent musician.
Person C is not comfortable using keyboards or piano roll at all. But they have been using a great midi guitar setup for years to make amazing music.

Would it be "fair" to make all three people draw in piano roll? Would it be "fair" to make all input notes exclusively with a keyboard or exclusively with a guitar-midi system?
Or in the pursuit of "fairness" for all where all must use the same tools has it become a situation where 2/3rds are at a disadvantage?

Commercial plugins would make it more fun for those of us who collect them: more chances to play with our new toys, or save time by leveraging our familiarity with our favourites. But the results would stack up virtually identically.

The big issue I see with commercial plug-ins is how it factors into the other rules.
As it sits now certain types of effects are not allowed(pitch-shifting, granular etc) .
Also per the rules a contestant must make their project file available should there be suspicion that a forbidden type of effect was used(but perhaps not listed in their submission post)
To open the project file and to be able to A/B the project versus the submitted track the judge would also need to have the used plug-ins installed(otherwise the project probably will not work).
A contestant cannot simply let the judge "borrow" their commercial plug. Most paid plugs come with rather imposing language about redistribution of the plug software being a definite no-no.
Some "free" plugs also have similar language about distribution which is why I think the rule about a "free" plug needing to still be distributed by an authorized source is in place.
So opening the contest to either commercial or no longer legally distributed free effect plug-ins could have some serious legal issues should a judge's ruling on an effect use be needed.

The reason I personally like the rules as they are now is that when I hear someone do something with an effect that I have no idea how they did it I can ask them and then experiment with the same exact tool to create the same sound for myself. And hopefully learn something in the process.
Paid plugs or plugs no longer distributed for free do not provide that same learning experience (at least to the same degree) for me.

All that said I personally would not be against opening up the contest to paid plugs in the interest that others might enjoy it.
I have no paid plugs (since I don't feel I am yet at the skill level to use them effectively) so the addition of commercial effects would not alter my submissions.

[psmacmur]

The thrust of my argument for uniform tooling is that, if the tooling were 100% fair, then it'd truly be a competition between people only.

Ah but the rub there is how does make the tooling "fair"?

Take something as basic to the process such as melody creation in a DAW.
Person A draws everything in piano roll, has no real knowledge or skill with keyboards yet can make wonderful melodies and is very successful.
Person B has been playing piano for longer than they could walk. A well seasoned and excellent musician.
Person C is not comfortable using keyboards or piano roll at all. But they have been using a great midi guitar setup for years to make amazing music.

Would it be "fair" to make all three people draw in piano roll? Would it be "fair" to make all input notes exclusively with a keyboard or exclusively with a guitar-midi system?
Or in the pursuit of "fairness" for all where all must use the same tools has it become a situation where 2/3rds are at a disadvantage?

Oh I see. Yes if we' re going for fair tools then everyone has the same PC, the same controllers, etc. (but can use them how they like) I'm not suggesting we do this, but if your point is that even fair tooling is intractable, then touché. The ultimate fair situation would be bjporter sets up a physical studio that everyone books time in, and once everyone's had, say, 20 hours in the studio, we vote on the results.

Commercial plugins would make it more fun for those of us who collect them: more chances to play with our new toys, or save time by leveraging our familiarity with our favourites. But the results would stack up virtually identically.

The big issue I see with commercial plug-ins is how it factors into the other rules.
As it sits now certain types of effects are not allowed(pitch-shifting, granular etc) .
Also per the rules a contestant must make their project file available should there be suspicion that a forbidden type of effect was used(but perhaps not listed in their submission post)
To open the project file and to be able to A/B the project versus the submitted track the judge would also need to have the used plug-ins installed(otherwise the project probably will not work).
A contestant cannot simply let the judge "borrow" their commercial plug. Most paid plugs come with rather imposing language about redistribution of the plug software being a definite no-no.
Some "free" plugs also have similar language about distribution which is why I think the rule about a "free" plug needing to still be distributed by an authorized source is in place.
So opening the contest to either commercial or no longer legally distributed free effect plug-ins could have some serious legal issues should a judge's ruling on an effect use be needed.

The reason I personally like the rules as they are now is that when I hear someone do something with an effect that I have no idea how they did it I can ask them and then experiment with the same exact tool to create the same sound for myself. And hopefully learn something in the process.
Paid plugs or plugs no longer distributed for free do not provide that same learning experience (at least to the same degree) for me.

All that said I personally would not be against opening up the contest to paid plugs in the interest that others might enjoy it.
I have no paid plugs (since I don't feel I am yet at the skill level to use them effectively) so the addition of commercial effects would not alter my submissions.

Yes the validation issue has been raised. TBH my paid plugs -- other than synths -- aren't that great. A few make it easier to dial in effects that are more work in free plugs. My DAW plugs, on the other hand, are totes amaze and I miss them severely when in DAWs that lack the equivalent.

[Daru925]

This month's challenge will end the year nicely!
one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one synth one

[Frostline]

Oh I see. Yes if we' re going for fair tools then everyone has the same PC, the same controllers, etc. (but can use them how they like) I'm not suggesting we do this, but if your point is that even fair tooling is intractable, then touché. The ultimate fair situation would be bjporter sets up a physical studio that everyone books time in, and once everyone's had, say, 20 hours in the studio, we vote on the results.

Except for those folks who can only get comfortable enough to be creative in their own environment. Not all that "fair" to them.
Fairness is an endless rabbit hole. All we can do is make the playing field as level as we can. Which I think overall this contest does with the rules that are normally in place.


As to the commercial plug-in use for this month all I will add is that I hope that it does not encourage people to use products that they don't actually own. Requiring all plugs to be free limited this temptation from previous contests.

[Wyrrdbryyngr]

I think a good solution to leveling the playing field in terms of allowing commercial plugs would be to limit the number of different plugs we can use. That, to me is a good test of skill, working with a limited toolset, which is also in line with the nature of a One Synth Challenge.

Say, One Synth and Up To 10 Other Plug-ins Challenge?

[mmGhost]

i'll give 2 cents here. part of the allure of the comp is that all the tracks that are heard were made essentially at zero cost, aside from the initial DAW investment. so many forum posts on kvr, and other production sites are along the lines of "dude, you need PSP vintage warmer then your track will be DOPE!" and that's just nonsense. this competition is proof that bedroom producers don't need thousands of dollars of kit to make some killer tunes.