One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[ontrackp]

That's my opinion on why this change has lost my interest in OSC, because it essentially removed the main aspects that attracted me to these contests in the first place. I really enjoyed the limitation and posts people would make allowing others without loads of plugins to learn and practice specific techniques. I would have preferred more limitation, like raw synth and only the use of one free set of plugins consisting of maybe a comp, eq, limiter, verb, and delay. Ah well, count me out.

WIth all due respect, I completely reject your argument. In my 3+ years of participating in the OSC, other than some tongue-in-cheek comments about OTT (which is free) I have NEVER heard any of the winning producers comment on the plug ins they were using, or attribute their success to the plug ins. They are helpful tools for better sounding mixes is all. It's ALWAYS about the creativity of sound design and composition. There is no such thing as "loads of plug ins" that prevent producers from learning and practicing specific techniques.

If a participant uses only synth presets and does no sound design, that's a much worse wasted opportunity for learning than using commercial plug ins. The plug ins don't affect the creativity of sound design or composition at all. The appeal of the OSC is having to use one synth, make new sounds and write a creative and interesting song.

All that being said, if next month BJ wants to go in the other direction, and limit the plug ins to a single set of readily available free EQ, Comp and RVB, and not allow us to use efx that are built into the DAW (which will be very hard to monitor), that's fine, too. Also interesting, but is not going affect how creative the sound design or compositions are. It will just be kind of a pain in the neck to make good production and make the least interesting aspect of OSC take longer.

[ontrackp]

Hey Everyone!!

Hope ya all doing?

I have been reading and lurking a loooong time in this forum... and few things grabbed my attention..

That there are awesome and even commercial composers that takes part in this competition. . And that's great... except when people are decondescending towards newbies or upcoming composers that maybe don't have the skilset as the regular top five that seem to place highly and poised for positions every competition.. this is extremely discouraging towards those who also tries their best at their work.. my point being this... to encourage growth in the competion maybe to award prizes not only to the top 5 placed but what about encourage those that has shown great improvements in their compositions... maybe also for those that the track arrangements were not that great in production value but their sound design was great... or maybe those whom had good melodies and arrangements but just couldnt putthe mix together.... and then maybe my most controversial suggestion seeing that we are running a controversial competition this month with commercial plugs.. if a person wins more than twice.. they should maybe be not permitted to take part in the next 3 competitions to level the playing field for others.. just a thought...

Prohibiting people from participating because they frequently win is a terrible idea. First -- most of the time they don't take the prizes so they prizes filter down. Second -- everyone in the competition learns from the winning tracks, why would we possibly want to remove our beat "teachers"!

[Frostline]

- The same, simple, logical, common sense, easy to understand rule -- DON'T USE SOMETHING THAT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGES THE SOUND THAT COMES FROM THE SYNTH -- applies. No chorus, phasers, distortion, etc.... This is not hard to understand and the amount of debate and misunderstanding is incomprehensible to me.

Well as one who still does not understand this rule maybe you (or someone else) can explain it to me.

I would argue that mosts tracks that place in the top 10 would sound SIGNIFICANTLY changed if the "dry" version of the track was also submitted. Bypass all the effects and render it out. Paid or free effects would not matter, the sound at the end render is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the dry signal coming out of the VSTi.

Or for example let's looks at chorus. If a VST has chorus written on the tin I can't use it, but making two instances of a track and some hard panning and detune results in a chorus like effect that is perfectly fine. Huh?

Or pitch shifting. Can't have pitch shifting. Pitchbend on my controller or automating the pitch or detune controls of the synth are ok though. The difference there is what?

Or the keep reverb use to a minimum. Who doesn't use the minimum as their personal taste dictates? It's not like I get the reverb where I want and then double it so I am not at the minimum needed any more.

[opoint]

I say remove all the prizes, remove all plugins allowed except eq and limiter, and make it really challenging.

What are you afraid of hmmmmm? Chicken? bawk bawk.

[z.prime]

I say remove all the prizes, remove all plugins allowed except eq and limiter, and make it really challenging.

What are you afraid of hmmmmm? Chicken? bawk bawk.

Here's the thing... with only EQ and limiter you can dramatically alter the way the synth sounds.

[opoint]

HAHA tuche sir.

[SoundGoddess]

I say remove all the prizes, remove all plugins allowed except eq and limiter, and make it really challenging.

What are you afraid of hmmmmm? Chicken? bawk bawk.

Here's the thing... with only EQ and limiter you can dramatically alter the way the synth sounds.

I can do some pretty nifty stuff with Trash2's EQ, even with distortion disabled...LOL

[ontrackp]

- The same, simple, logical, common sense, easy to understand rule -- DON'T USE SOMETHING THAT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGES THE SOUND THAT COMES FROM THE SYNTH -- applies. No chorus, phasers, distortion, etc.... This is not hard to understand and the amount of debate and misunderstanding is incomprehensible to me.

Well as one who still does not understand this rule maybe you (or someone else) can explain it to me.


I would argue that mosts tracks that place in the top 10 would sound SIGNIFICANTLY changed if the "dry" version of the track was also submitted. Bypass all the effects and render it out. Paid or free effects would not matter, the sound at the end render is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the dry signal coming out of the VSTi.

DISCLAIMER: This is all my personal opinion, not official OSC interpretation of the rules.

I would hope so. A well produced mix should sound better than the raw tracks being simply played. We're producers so using those tools is a skill set that we have worked on (in some cases for many years) and utilizing them properly is part of the contest. Of course if you sripped away the EQ, Compression and Reverb it would sound more raw -- but the song itself, the sound design, composition and arrangement would still be there. Just no "spit and polish". For example, If you have a great looking shirt but it's dirty, wrinkled and covered with sweat stains and mud, and then you run it through the laundry and press it, it's still the same shirt but now looks great. If your hair is a mess you look sloppy, run a comb through it and you look better put together. You haven't changed the shirt or your hair, but they come off better. That's what using EQ, compression and reverb does to a mix.

Or for example let's looks at chorus. If a VST has chorus written on the tin I can't use it, but making two instances of a track and some hard panning and detune results in a chorus like effect that is perfectly fine. Huh?

Making chorus manually is more work intensive, but it's a time tested and traditional mixing technique and therefore allowed. You are using two instances of the sound that you have NOT CHANGED to create the effect that you want.

Or pitch shifting. Can't have pitch shifting. Pitchbend on my controller or automating the pitch or detune controls of the synth are ok though. The difference there is what?

Of course detune controls on the synth are ok - they're on the synth. Same with pitch modulation that's on the synth. Automation and controller effects are also ok because you're still working with the sound of the synth. Pitch bend on your controller is a performance feature that's been part of playing on synths pretty much since the beginning of time. Putting the sound thru a plugin that messes with the pitch is not a performance, it's changing the sound so it's not allowed. Pretty much all synths are set up so you can adjust any parameter with midi automation, including pitch, so that's ok -- because we're programming our songs using MIDI.

Or the keep reverb use to a minimum. Who doesn't use the minimum as their personal taste dictates? It's not like I get the reverb where I want and then double it so I am not at the minimum needed any more.

Reverb is a normal part of every mix. If you take a sound from the synth, put it into a reverse reverb and modulate it with additional controls that are part of the plug in, and run only the wet return into your mix, you have violated the spirit of the rules because the returned sound is something that the synth is not capable of making on it's own. Using reverb to create space and make your mix sound better if fine. If you want to use so much reverb that your mix feels like it's at a bottom of a well that's a personal choice and that's fine. You're not changing the sounds from the synth, just making it sound like your song was poorly recorded.

Here are some examples that might help you understand better....

Sidechain compression -- If you use some sidechain compression to help the kick and bass balance out it does not change either of the sounds. Just makes the mix sound better.

EQ -- many sounds from the synths have small amounts of audio in the low-mid range or other frequency areas that can't be dialed out with synth controls. Appropriate EQ that cuts in some areas of the mix does not change the character of any sounds, but can prevent a build-up of frequencies in areas that make the mix cleaner and more pleasant to listen to. Same theory applies to using notches your mix. A 2 db narrow notch does not change the character of a sound, but it can clean up your mix very well. Multi-band compression can help with this too, or it can totally screw up your mix, depending on your skill set as a producer.

In my opinion, production is the "third leg" of the OSC. We (1) sound-design, we (2) compose/arrange, and we (3) produce / mix / master. The basic tools of production (EQ, Compression, Reverb, level automation) are part of the game. If we were to remove that aspect of the competition, it would just be less fun and interesting.

[wagtunes]

- The same, simple, logical, common sense, easy to understand rule -- DON'T USE SOMETHING THAT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGES THE SOUND THAT COMES FROM THE SYNTH -- applies. No chorus, phasers, distortion, etc.... This is not hard to understand and the amount of debate and misunderstanding is incomprehensible to me.

Well as one who still does not understand this rule maybe you (or someone else) can explain it to me.


I would argue that mosts tracks that place in the top 10 would sound SIGNIFICANTLY changed if the "dry" version of the track was also submitted. Bypass all the effects and render it out. Paid or free effects would not matter, the sound at the end render is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the dry signal coming out of the VSTi.

DISCLAIMER: This is all my personal opinion, not official OSC interpretation of the rules.

I would hope so. A well produced mix should sound better than the raw tracks being simply played. We're producers so using those tools is a skill set that we have worked on (in some cases for many years) and utilizing them properly is part of the contest. Of course if you sripped away the EQ, Compression and Reverb it would sound more raw -- but the song itself, the sound design, composition and arrangement would still be there. Just no "spit and polish". For example, If you have a great looking shirt but it's dirty, wrinkled and covered with sweat stains and mud, and then you run it through the laundry and press it, it's still the same shirt but now looks great. If your hair is a mess you look sloppy, run a comb through it and you look better put together. You haven't changed the shirt or your hair, but they come off better. That's what using EQ, compression and reverb does to a mix.

Or for example let's looks at chorus. If a VST has chorus written on the tin I can't use it, but making two instances of a track and some hard panning and detune results in a chorus like effect that is perfectly fine. Huh?

Making chorus manually is more work intensive, but it's a time tested and traditional mixing technique and therefore allowed. You are using two instances of the sound that you have NOT CHANGED to create the effect that you want.

Or pitch shifting. Can't have pitch shifting. Pitchbend on my controller or automating the pitch or detune controls of the synth are ok though. The difference there is what?

Of course detune controls on the synth are ok - they're on the synth. Same with pitch modulation that's on the synth. Automation and controller effects are also ok because you're still working with the sound of the synth. Pitch bend on your controller is a performance feature that's been part of playing on synths pretty much since the beginning of time. Putting the sound thru a plugin that messes with the pitch is not a performance, it's changing the sound so it's not allowed. Pretty much all synths are set up so you can adjust any parameter with midi automation, including pitch, so that's ok -- because we're programming our songs using MIDI.

Or the keep reverb use to a minimum. Who doesn't use the minimum as their personal taste dictates? It's not like I get the reverb where I want and then double it so I am not at the minimum needed any more.

Reverb is a normal part of every mix. If you take a sound from the synth, put it into a reverse reverb and modulate it with additional controls that are part of the plug in, and run only the wet return into your mix, you have violated the spirit of the rules because the returned sound is something that the synth is not capable of making on it's own. Using reverb to create space and make your mix sound better if fine. If you want to use so much reverb that your mix feels like it's at a bottom of a well that's a personal choice and that's fine. You're not changing the sounds from the synth, just making it sound like your song was poorly recorded.

Here are some examples that might help you understand better....

Sidechain compression -- If you use some sidechain compression to help the kick and bass balance out it does not change either of the sounds. Just makes the mix sound better.

EQ -- many sounds from the synths have small amounts of audio in the low-mid range or other frequency areas that can't be dialed out with synth controls. Appropriate EQ that cuts in some areas of the mix does not change the character of any sounds, but can prevent a build-up of frequencies in areas that make the mix cleaner and more pleasant to listen to. Same theory applies to using notches your mix. A 2 db narrow notch does not change the character of a sound, but it can clean up your mix very well. Multi-band compression can help with this too, or it can totally screw up your mix, depending on your skill set as a producer.

In my opinion, production is the "third leg" of the OSC. We (1) sound-design, we (2) compose/arrange, and we (3) produce / mix / master. The basic tools of production (EQ, Compression, Reverb, level automation) are part of the game. If we were to remove that aspect of the competition, it would just be less fun and interesting.

Thank you for being the voice of reason.

[z.prime]

...

Thank you for being the voice of reason.

+1! Seriously, using commercial plugins according to the rules only increases your workflow (as an example, so I can use FabFilter Pro-Q2, which has a frequency graph - where Bitwig is a severe disadvantage from Live in that regard).

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Think it's probably five years since I last gave this same opinion, so about time for the rewind.

When I last participated, host/daw plugs were not allowed, and the only plugs that could be used were simple, free, cross-platform effects. Even if you are to allow people extreme sound-shaping toys, then those toys should be accessible to all, and without cost. The level playing field should be maintained. Why it would be any other way, I still don't understand

[ontrackp]

First - extreme sound shaping with plug-instead is not allowed. We merely would like to use the plug ins we know better and use on a daily basis for other projects. It will make for a faster workflow. Hobbling production by forcing everyone to use free, and often unfamiliar or lower quality plugins does not improve creativity or sound design skills. It does inhibit workflow and production. This is an experiment. If it fails we can go back to more draconian rules. The playing field is inherently uneven for many reasons that have nothing to do with commercial plugins.

[Frostline]

Or for example let's looks at chorus. If a VST has chorus written on the tin I can't use it, but making two instances of a track and some hard panning and detune results in a chorus like effect that is perfectly fine. Huh?

Making chorus manually is more work intensive, but it's a time tested and traditional mixing technique and therefore allowed. You are using two instances of the sound that you have NOT CHANGED to create the effect that you want.

As a relatively new person to this I am probably approaching this from a different mindset than a long time participant.
I read don't use a chorus effect as don't make things that sound like chorus.
Be it an actual chorus plug or clever DAW manipulation. Because if the final sonic result can't be distinguished (by most people) between one method or another then both should either be allowed or not allowed. To me anyway, but I don't make the rules.
It is sort of like saying you can't use yellow lights, but it is fine to mix all the red and green lights you want together and if that happens to look yellow then that is fine.

Reverb is a normal part of every mix. If you take a sound from the synth, put it into a reverse reverb and modulate it with additional controls that are part of the plug in, and run only the wet return into your mix, you have violated the spirit of the rules because the returned sound is something that the synth is not capable of making on it's own.

Well a reverse reverb would be illegal regardless of including any dry wouldn't it?

But a non-sampling reverb I don't understand why it would violate the spirit of the rules to just have it 100% wet only on a buss that I feed tracks into via additional sends. All it changes(from my perspective) is the number of instances of the reverb I use and it prevents doubling the dry part of the signal.

But you seem to be saying (and I could be wrong) if I only used the reverb buss output in a section and muted the dry track it would violate the rules spirit because the synth can't make the sound of the wet track on it's own.

Yet if I use an EQ (which mine are all 100% wet only I believe) that returns a sound that the synth can't produce on it's own it is fine.
If a synth produces a sound with the rough graphical representation of abCDEFghi and I run it through an EQ so it produces at the output aBCDef that is an output the synth can't create on it's own so it would also be a violation of the rule spirit wouldn't it?

Further on you seem to imply that it is not though.

Appropriate EQ that cuts in some areas of the mix does not change the character of any sounds, but can prevent a build-up of frequencies in areas that make the mix cleaner and more pleasant to listen to.

What makes something appropriate though? Where is the line where on one side the amount of EQ is appropriate whereas on the other side of the line it is too much and has changed the sound character and thus violated the rules? It is rather murky subjective territory.

I will at times EQ to a point where all but the fundamental frequency is -24db. The synth can't produce just that fundamental alone. To me that sound is drastically different than the original sound from the synth to the same degree that the sound is drastically different when I run the sound through a process that is not allowed like say a flanger.

Honestly it is like there is some unwritten thing where one different is bad and one different is good and everyone but me knows the differences between the differences. All I hear is different.

In my opinion, production is the "third leg" of the OSC. We (1) sound-design, we (2) compose/arrange, and we (3) produce / mix / master. The basic tools of production (EQ, Compression, Reverb, level automation) are part of the game. If we were to remove that aspect of the competition, it would just be less fun and interesting.

Please don't think that I am advocating removing the basic tools of production. I am not wanting a synth plus EQ plus limiter challenge. I think the results would not be sonically pleasing overall. I just want more clarity to the reasons why some things are allowed and some are not.

Up until my entry for November I only used plug-ins that I had seen other constants use. But even then I was often concerned that I might somehow use too much of any allowed tool because I don't understand why one type of change to a sound is ok and another type of change is forbidden. Or why X amount of an effect is ok, but X+1 of an effect is not. From my perspective they are all just changes to the sound. But I figured that if other people were using the tools without issue then it would be ok if I did.

But in November I got brave and tried 3 new to me tools that I had not seen anyone else use on their submissions. They didn't have the forbidden words like chorus or distortion in their description so I hoped they would be ok. But to me they changed the sound dramatically so I was really concerned I would be DQed even though they didn't on the surface violate any written rule.
But since no one has said anything yet is it safe to assume I can use the new plugs even more next month?
I don't know because I can't see/hear that invisible line between the allowed different and the forbidden different.

[ontrackp]

For the interest of clarity and convenience, please se my replies in bold

Or for example let's looks at chorus. If a VST has chorus written on the tin I can't use it, but making two instances of a track and some hard panning and detune results in a chorus like effect that is perfectly fine. Huh?

Making chorus manually is more work intensive, but it's a time tested and traditional mixing technique and therefore allowed. You are using two instances of the sound that you have NOT CHANGED to create the effect that you want.

As a relatively new person to this I am probably approaching this from a different mindset than a long time participant.
I read don't use a chorus effect as don't make things that sound like chorus.
Be it an actual chorus plug or clever DAW manipulation. Because if the final sonic result can't be distinguished (by most people) between one method or another then both should either be allowed or not allowed. To me anyway, but I don't make the rules.
It is sort of like saying you can't use yellow lights, but it is fine to mix all the red and green lights you want together and if that happens to look yellow then that is fine.

I cannot dispute your logic other than to say that chorus has been lumped in with the other forbidden sound changing plug-ins so it has been traditionally prohibited. Perhaps it's because chorus plugs have the potential to make some very drastic changes that would not be achieved the old fashioned way. If this experiment does not work out, perhaps the rule makers could change it and allow chorus effects.

Reverb is a normal part of every mix. If you take a sound from the synth, put it into a reverse reverb and modulate it with additional controls that are part of the plug in, and run only the wet return into your mix, you have violated the spirit of the rules because the returned sound is something that the synth is not capable of making on it's own.

Well a reverse reverb would be illegal regardless of including any dry wouldn't it? No. If you're using it to create a space around a sound that is recognizably from the synth of the month I think it would be fine. If any of the other advocates of commercial plug ins want to chime in here with their opinions I would welcome that!

But a non-sampling reverb I don't understand why it would violate the spirit of the rules to just have it 100% wet only on a buss that I feed tracks into via additional sends. All it changes(from my perspective) is the number of instances of the reverb I use and it prevents doubling the dry part of the signal. You can use a reverb in line and mix the amount of dry/wet that comes down the channel if that's how you prefer to mix or you can use a send -- that's personal mixing preference. Personally, I always use sends because I was trained on traditional mixing boards where putting reverb in line on a channel was not possible and that technique is more comfortable for me when I'm figuring out how I want my mix to sound.

But you seem to be saying (and I could be wrong) if I only used the reverb buss output in a section and muted the dry track it would violate the rules spirit because the synth can't make the sound of the wet track on it's own.

Yet if I use an EQ (which mine are all 100% wet only I believe) that returns a sound that the synth can't produce on it's own it is fine.
If a synth produces a sound with the rough graphical representation of abCDEFghi and I run it through an EQ so it produces at the output aBCDef that is an output the synth can't create on it's own so it would also be a violation of the rule spirit wouldn't it?

Further on you seem to imply that it is not though.

OK. I feel like you're kind of dissecting my answer a bit too much. There is nothing wrong with using EQ to roll off unwanted low frequencies because they muddy the mix, or to bring up the essential character of a sound so it sits better in the mix, but the sound of your strings, brass or whatever is still essentially created by the synth. EQ, compression, delay and reverb is used to enhance the overall mix, not to create a sound that the synth is not capable of. I don't know how else to explain this but to say use common sense.

Appropriate EQ that cuts in some areas of the mix does not change the character of any sounds, but can prevent a build-up of frequencies in areas that make the mix cleaner and more pleasant to listen to.

What makes something appropriate though? Where is the line where on one side the amount of EQ is appropriate whereas on the other side of the line it is too much and has changed the sound character and thus violated the rules? It is rather murky subjective territory. Yes. It is subjective, but there is kind of an honor system that you will be sensible and not use effects to create totally new timbres. This is a friendly competition and people help each other with programming questions and advice. The challenge is to make sounds with the synth, not to take sounds from the synth and mangle them beyond recognition using effects.

I will at times EQ to a point where all but the fundamental frequency is -24db. The synth can't produce just that fundamental alone. To me that sound is drastically different than the original sound from the synth to the same degree that the sound is drastically different when I run the sound through a process that is not allowed like say a flanger. You should not be using EQ to drastically change the sound by having the EQ take the place of broad filters to create a fundamental sound that the synth is not capable of. Common sense should rule the day.

Honestly it is like there is some unwritten thing where one different is bad and one different is good and everyone but me knows the differences between the differences. All I hear is different. "Different" is subjective and covers a wide spectrum of subtle changes that help something sit in the mix to total change of timbre -- use your judgement (see below)

In my opinion, production is the "third leg" of the OSC. We (1) sound-design, we (2) compose/arrange, and we (3) produce / mix / master. The basic tools of production (EQ, Compression, Reverb, level automation) are part of the game. If we were to remove that aspect of the competition, it would just be less fun and interesting.

Please don't think that I am advocating removing the basic tools of production. I am not wanting a synth plus EQ plus limiter challenge. I think the results would not be sonically pleasing overall. I just want more clarity to the reasons why some things are allowed and some are not.

Up until my entry for November I only used plug-ins that I had seen other constants use. But even then I was often concerned that I might somehow use too much of any allowed tool because I don't understand why one type of change to a sound is ok and another type of change is forbidden. Or why X amount of an effect is ok, but X+1 of an effect is not. From my perspective they are all just changes to the sound. But I figured that if other people were using the tools without issue then it would be ok if I did.

But in November I got brave and tried 3 new to me tools that I had not seen anyone else use on their submissions. They didn't have the forbidden words like chorus or distortion in their description so I hoped they would be ok. But to me they changed the sound dramatically so I was really concerned I would be DQed even though they didn't on the surface violate any written rule. Regardless of what an effect is called you should not be changing sounds dramatically. That is the spirit of the rule.

But since no one has said anything yet is it safe to assume I can use the new plugs even more next month? Sure. Use whatever you feel that you need to help your mix work, just don't create new timbres that the synth can't make. As long as you list what you use, and you can demonstrate if asked that the plug ins did not drastically change the timbre or basic character of the sound I think (only my opinion) that you're ok.
I don't know because I can't see/hear that invisible line between the allowed different and the forbidden different.

[bjporter]

Good points ontrackp

I've posted this before, but it's an interesting comparison of what an OSC entry sounds like with zero effects (and... no compressor or eq) vs. Full:


It might pay to normalize the FX version, as the volume is quite low, but does it sound like the original to you? Probably my bias, but I think it sounds fairly close, especially if you ignore all the space / reverb effects.

No FX
https://soundcloud.com/bjporter/pancake ... no/s-j7PMk


Original Entry (full fx)
https://soundcloud.com/bjporter/pancake ... asion-1982