One Synth Challenge #128: OB-Xd from discoDSP (mmGhost wins!)

[photonic]

Has SC a problem with comments?
I see only a few comments on the tracks. And when I started voting now, I wrote some comments, but they do not appear on the tracks.

[liqih]

Wow! Great compositions.

While working on my composition, I often found myself using effects to almost replace the sound of the synth.
The OBX needs this stuff to overcome the limitations of the design.

I could get some amazing sounds with addition of filter effects, wave shapers, phase modulations, resonators, ... but then realized that I was altering the sound of the synth too much and had to leave a lot of it out because of the rules.

I ain't pointing fingers though:-)

I had the same issue with this synth: "limitations of the design."
But I avoided to use wave shapers and modulators as external effects,
yes they are against the OSC rules. Therefore I did as much as I could using the synth features
and many equalizers and compressors, <grin>. I also used few instances, 12,
using many more instances you would end up in doing Additive synthesis technique,
which I think should be also against the rules. I would put a limit, maybe 20, of instances that can be used. Our friend Jasinski and the like got enough skills to make awesome tracks even with just 20 instances. We could limit the number of FXs as well.

Cheers.

[Carl_saved]

I also used few instances, 12,
using many more instances you would end up in doing Additive synthesis technique,
which I think should be also against the rules. I would put a limit, maybe 20, of instances that can be used. Our friend Jasinski and the like got enough skills to make awesome tracks even with just 20 instances. We could limit the number of FXs as well.

I really like to do additive stuff, I find it really interesting to see how complex sounds can be made up from relatively simple parts. E.g. our plucky melody is 3 parts. One bottom tone, one upper "buzzy" tone and one attack bump, plus a non-trivial EQ to shape the sound and give it the feeling of a "body" of the instrument. I felt like using an EQ for sound design purposes might be a bit off-road...

I think what some people are expecting from "One Synth Challenge" is something closer to writing a track for a SID chip where you really have only, and only once, the SID chip with its 3+1 voices and no effects.
I actually like the Idea you presented there. Limited number of instances means: you can do additive stuff, but then you'd have to live with less instances in other areas of the track. I'd really like to encourage more efficient synth use!!
Limited FX number will be difficult, because then the focus will move towards Multi-Purpose-FX that can do several jobs at once. Would leave that part of the rule away, or spell it out differently.

[L-EctroBit]

Has SC a problem with comments?
I see only a few comments on the tracks. And when I started voting now, I wrote some comments, but they do not appear on the tracks.

I just wrote a comment without problems.

[liqih]

...I think what some people are expecting from "One Synth Challenge" is something closer to writing a track for a SID chip where you really have only, and only once, the SID chip with its 3+1 voices and no effects.
I actually like the Idea you presented there. Limited number of instances means: you can do additive stuff, but then you'd have to live with less instances in other areas of the track. I'd really like to encourage more efficient synth use!!
Limited FX number will be difficult, because then the focus will move towards Multi-Purpose-FX that can do several jobs at once. Would leave that part of the rule away, or spell it out differently.

Yeah, like with music itself each of us got slightly different interpretations of what the OSC should be, or in other words how much challenging the challenge should be, <wink>.
Glad you agree with pushing the "efficient synth use"

[Rellik]

An instance limit could be a really fun twist - I'd be into it! As someone who uses a ton of instances/layering (I think maybe the most?), I never considered whether it was against the OSC spirit, I'll have to think about it. My intent is never about "bypassing" the synth - I'll give examples of where all my instances are going, I'd be receptive/interested in feedback on if I'm being "cheap" or "try-hard"?

(REAPER file if any interest - should probably mute the drums initially, without my tweaked keysplit script they may all play at once... http://www.adamlederer.com/junk/rellik_osc_128.zip).

Baglamas(?)-ish plucked instrument (entering at 1:33) - six layers - pluck layer + sustain layer + sitar-ish slow-attack drone layer - times 2 each for a detuned octave unison feel. The layers themselves use sync + xmod + pitch env - I used this technique on 75% of my patches (sync + xmod was to me the superpower of OB-Xd, I don't know if I've ever used a synth that had this? Synth1 goes crazy if you try ). This line is also doubled by a separate "instrument", a single-layer high-resonance synth lead (by doubled I mean same notes but separate performance).

Nylon guitar (heard at 0:38)- three layers - one metallic pluck layer for attitude, one softer sustain layer for warmth, one "special trick" layer to create a bright scraping sound on attack and release. I also pulled out the sustain layer and used it as a lead on its own during the intro, and as a doubling part to the nylon guitar melody lines.

Slap bass (heard throughout - very prominent at 4:29) - three layers - a sustain layer that sounds like a traditional fingered bass + a sharp-decay layer for the metallic pop, and an extremely-short-decay "mute" layer that's actually on a key-split from the others on a higher octave (based this trick on a bass patch I love in Kontakt 3). This one does use multiband compression and some severe EQ to emphasize the high highs and eliminate 4k-6k (this is where the super synthy "sync scream" was living).

Bells and cymbals - many layers (3-4 layers per "patch", across 2 slightly different vibraphones, 2 slightly different chimes, 3 hi-hat variants, 1 ride)! This is the only way I know how to do bells/cymbals that I like: each layer is an xmod of two inharmonic pulse oscillators through a low-pass. I play with pitches/ratios until they all mesh together in a way that sounds right. Then vary the filter + amp decay times across each layer until it sounds good.

Bongos + djembe - 4 bongo patches key-split on 4 MIDI notes (high hit, high slap, low hit, low slap) - same patches pitched lower for djembe. Each of these patches is 3 layers of pretty much the exact same technique as the cymbals.

Sorry for the spam, it's an interesting topic! If I was a better sound designer I probably wouldn't have to use so many instances - maybe that's an argument for not allowing much layering, to let the better sound designers win . On the other hand I'm also proud of the effort I put in, it's always a struggle and I really have to push myself. In any case I don't take it personally if anybody thinks I'm using too much, I'm in OSC to learn from y'all so I'll adapt to wherever the community standards/rules lead

[EDIT: also posting the classical guitar patch (or layer 1 anyway) - http://www.adamlederer.com/junk/obxd_gu ... _layer.FXP]

[ilmai]

Voted! Some really nice tracks there, I will add feedback later if / when I have time

[schiing]

Re: instances:

I like the variety here. I think I would get a bit bored as a listener and a participant if we streamlined the rules too much. I would probably feel the same way whether it was a maximum of 20 tracks or a minimum of 50. But I like the idea of extreme one-offs without any effects and/or few instances.

And I definitely think it's true that the better we get at programming, the less instances we need to get the timbres we want. I've also noticed that I use a lot less eq now than when I started out, which I suppose is another sign that things are going in the right direction.

[Taron]

Yeah, I love the challenge of having single instances create a sound rather than layer the heck out of them. But that's partially a sort of laziness of mine and I want to work with the synth, see what it can be tickled up to do, hehehe.
So, yeah, soundcloud still won't let comments go through... lucky y'all! ...nah, killer tracks already!

[mclstr]

Yes. What about an OSC with a strict limit on the # of instances of a synth. Requires a little more work because of all the parameter automation and/or the morph features of many synths it would require for transitions, but that could be a good challenge and learning experience.

[Taron]

Well, one has to wonder what the challenge really is, though:
A) is it about the power of the synth and what we can do with "it" and not 100 of it, you know.
B) is it about how many synths does it take to make a convincing cowbell ( ), you know what I mean.

[schiing]

It's the beauty of this thing, Taron - so many challenges, all at once! Micro and macro! Floor plans and world maps!

I enjoy shaping as many of the frequencies as I can from a single instance when I create, say, a baritone sax.

But I also relish setting up a 12-piece horn section with the individual instruments - panning and compressing them, playing out the parts without quantizing so you get a bit of the imperfections you would from a real section - tuning each of the three trumpets differently, creating little differences in tone for each instrument...

[Taron]

Wowowooh, that's a WHOLE different story with the horn section. I totally understand that! ...though, I'd likely be too lazy to set that up. I'm talking about exactly what I meant: using multiple instances to create a single instrument.
I personally like to go as far as trying to make a single instance sound like half an orchestra, hahaha, so I'm like the exact opposite of that, but, again, I wouldn't shy away form having an orchestra section actually be a set of instances with variations to simulate those. At that point it's still true to the idea of using the synth to let it be itself, even if it is several of them.
But this could slip off into splitting hair, of course. I know you know what I mean and I also know that we do seem to think alike anyway, hehe.
However, what I wrote earlier I do still mean, too. It doesn't matter what people feel compelled to do, really, as long as what comes out of it is as marvelous as ...well... what comes out of it. I mean, Rellik is absurdly brilliant, as is Jasinski and the gang. I could not get myself to do a fraction of what they are doing and it's so damn far off my trajectory that it ends up forcing me to flat out ignore and try to forget it, just so I can relax and enjoy making music rather than allowing them to inspire me, hahahaha... dear god, please, don't! It's nuts and admirable, but ... I love music above all else and not this depth of engineering. Some of the "tricks" I would love to know about, that's for sure. But I also can imagine that even then I wouldn't go for this stuff. It's too... hmmm... untouchable, intangible, overpowering, distant. I love simple, heartfelt, approachable honesty, something I can allow to let inside, so to say. Their stuff is just...hmmm... monstrous, superior, yet somehow it just doesn't linger within me or makes me want to listen to it to enjoy myself.
After I have listened to those 70's synth musicians, like that "white noise II" album, or what it was, man...there's this organic innocence in there. I don't think I would listen to it twice either, haha, but still, it felt very inspiring to me. But so does listening to many of us, including yourself, actually. I love it, when it feels approachable and it feels like it was meant to be music in the first place.
Ugh, getting late here and I'm starting to write uncontrollably, haha... sry

[zarf]

Interesting chat! I would like to separate back out the two issues of acceptable FX usage, and Instances & Layering. I don't think they are the same at all and feel it might be useful to disentangle them.

Regarding mclstr's original point about 'borderline breaking the rules by sound mangling' - I fairly often hear sounds that I think are in that category, seemingly using FX in ways I don't because I would feel uncomfortable 'colouring the sound' that much. But these tracks often do very well so perhaps most voters are happy with more sound colouration and change through fx processing than I am, for OSC!

For a good while I wished for more clarity and consistency, and then I decided to relax, approach it in a way that I feel good about in terms of my own relationship to the rules, and just enjoy the learning... I have supported the idea of 'fixed fx' before, I like that idea, but given that there are also people here who tend in the opposite direction - wanting not fixed FX, but commercial FX every month - I don't see much hope of consensus on changing the rules in either direction

A 'fixed FX' one-off challenge would be super cool though, to try it out

The other issue - instances and layering.
Given how many winning tracks have made use of extensive layering to achieve their sound designs, it is clearly acceptable to the community as a whole and has been for a long time
It was a total eye-opener to me at the start when I realised that the way people were often getting their sounds was through lots of layers, and my initial feeling was that that was 'not in the spirit of it'. But then I started to wonder how it was 'not in the spirit' if so many winners were doing it?
For me it is a fascinating area to explore, I learn a lot from it and enjoy the sounds I can create that way a lot.
But I'm very happy to stop doing if the rules were clarified to stop it. I wonder how many people would prefer this?

Once people resort to using 40+ instances, you can tell that somehow there was a "rage against the machine", hahaha, like leaving no sound un-layered and a general sense that somehow they couldn'tfind satisfaction with what a single instance could provide to them.

Probably partially true, sometimes, insightful as always, and also rather over-simplified, imho

Rellik's great examples of layering strategies don't seem to reflect a failure to 'find satisfaction' in a single instance - rather a conscious and focused sound design strategy. There are many other examples from other OSC-greats, especially with percussion (modern and traditional). I have a related yet much less sophisticated approach with cymbals. I like to use about 4 layers of semi-random cymbal like components and muck around until it sounds interesting. It's fun but I'll give it up if we want to

Final point to make on instances - remember to take into account track duplication for workflow processes.

E.g. I might have 3 cymbal tracks, each with 4 instances. That's 12 already. Then I might duplicate all 3 in different sections to adjust the mix without bothering with automation. That's 24 in no time at all for a few crashes! So - is it about total instances, or about total instances that are playing at the same time? Can be pretty different if mixing this way…

[reusenoise]

Voted,good luck to all partecipants