now, I would say, one instrument = one instance, this is imho according with the spirit of OSC. if I take 100 instances of a x-synth and 100 EQs, limiters, pannings etc. , the sound may be with all synths the same, no differences between different synths. I would say, this is NOT according with the spirit of OSC. but, if everyone want in his entry 100 instances and phat sounds and get his voting, who cares. I have a feeling, in older challenges was music more important as now (imho).zarf wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:54 am ...
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…
One Synth Challenge #128: OB-Xd from discoDSP (mmGhost wins!)
-
- KVRist
- 94 posts since 26 Apr, 2019 from CZ
-
- KVRian
- 639 posts since 20 Jan, 2013
Yeah, I know what you mean as I said earlier in my post. At first I also thought it is not 'the spirit of OSC'. But then I noticed very many of the entries that people vote highly do exactly this, and it made me realise, of course, that 'the spirit of OSC' is not one thing, but it is interpreted differently.basa333 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:15 am now, I would say, one instrument = one instance, this is imho according with the spirit of OSC.
if I take 100 instances of a x-synth and 100 EQs, limiters, pannings etc. , the sound may be with all synths the same, no differences between different synths. I would say, this is NOT according with the spirit of OSC.
I would be very happy with a rule for one instance = one instrument personally
But I think the majority would disagree.
Well, now you are going too far for me! Just because people like to make layered sounds, does not mean that the music is not important to them, or that they are just doing it for votes! It's about finding creative ways to use the synth to make the sounds you are trying to make. I don't think there is any need to question people's integrity or motives just because they see it differently to yourself
-
- KVRian
- 506 posts since 10 Nov, 2018
-
- KVRAF
- 3008 posts since 17 Apr, 2010 from Croatia
I only ever see the danger in artists being led astray by feeling compelled to compete for the "wrong reasons", if you know what I mean. Or- what would be far worse- being demoralized by the seemingly unattainable fidelity of some of those hyper-engineered arrangements, stopping to believe in the power of music and falsely assume this was all about the power of sound. Seems to be a recurring topic this month as we've had a similar conversation in the very beginning of this thread, I think.
It's always good to remind yourself what YOU want to do, why you are here and why you wanted to be here in the first place. I am willing to believe that every single one of us is here, because we love to make "music"- regardless as to what that means to each one individually- and love to play with synths. Whenever you feel overwhelmed by the quality of somebody's creation for whatever reason, just remind yourself of what brought you here and feel that love and that fire within you again!
You are a channel of the source of existence. Your heart leads the way and you must trust it even more than your mind! For your mind always has to learn that to which your heart is leading you. Just because you find yourself in front of a mountain or the occasional abyss doesn't mean you went into the wrong direction, but it does ask you to listen to your heart again so you will know what to do from there and you can receive the strength you need.
And inside I'm laughing so hard, wondering how those "giants" among us feel about being compared to mountains or mountain-makers, hahaha.
...but you are! 
It's always good to remind yourself what YOU want to do, why you are here and why you wanted to be here in the first place. I am willing to believe that every single one of us is here, because we love to make "music"- regardless as to what that means to each one individually- and love to play with synths. Whenever you feel overwhelmed by the quality of somebody's creation for whatever reason, just remind yourself of what brought you here and feel that love and that fire within you again!
You are a channel of the source of existence. Your heart leads the way and you must trust it even more than your mind! For your mind always has to learn that to which your heart is leading you. Just because you find yourself in front of a mountain or the occasional abyss doesn't mean you went into the wrong direction, but it does ask you to listen to your heart again so you will know what to do from there and you can receive the strength you need.
And inside I'm laughing so hard, wondering how those "giants" among us feel about being compared to mountains or mountain-makers, hahaha.
...but you are! -
- KVRian
- 575 posts since 27 Oct, 2015
I call myself a Mountainé, but I'm actually a pebblé.
All Ted Mountainé's Songs on Spotify | Soundcloud | Twitter | His Latest Videos
The Byte Hop, the virtual home of Ted Mountainé – news as they might have happened.
The Byte Hop, the virtual home of Ted Mountainé – news as they might have happened.
-
- KVRAF
- 3008 posts since 17 Apr, 2010 from Croatia
-
- DASH Guy
- 7951 posts since 20 Sep, 2001
Whatever the rules I will keep limiting my OSC tracks to 12 instances. Makes more sense and more fun for me, that's all.
-
- KVRian
- 860 posts since 13 Jan, 2013 from United States
Chiming in on the "limitations" conversation.
1) I am not in favor of limiting # of instances that people can use. If someone wants to wrestle with 100 instances, or are the type of sound designer that uses multiple sounds to create one whole - fine, that's a perfectly normal and professional way of working with synths -- has been pretty much from the beginning of synths and multi-tracking, and certainly from the beginning of midi-sequencing. And of course, this being OSC, it provides a learning experience for those who don't work that way.
2) EFX -- I am in favor of using commercial effects (not part of this conversation but I say it whenever I can). The spirit of the OSC is for efx to not substantially change the sound - that seems pretty straight forward to me. If you distort something past recognition, it's not ok -- if you give the sound, which is completely recognizable a bit of an edge so it sits better in the mix, fine by me (although I personally choose not to use distortion efx). So what if you can't use a chorus. You can put two instances slightly out of tune (reminds me of lightly putting pressure on tape reel to create flange effect). Often you can create the effect with layering within a synth patch and doing some de-tuning. So there is plenty of creative opportunity using eq, compression, reverb, delay. Plus more and more synths have built in efx that mangle their sounds anyway.
I like liqh comment -- he chooses to use 12 instances and that is his personal challenge. That is the spirit of the OSC.
It's a One Synth Challenge -- so let's just keep it as one synth and not get too concerned about how many instances -- the people with the most instances don't necessarily win, but the learning provided by the explanations is very valuable to people new to sound design.
So please don't complicate it with more rules - except of course to allow commercial plug ins so it's more fun.
1) I am not in favor of limiting # of instances that people can use. If someone wants to wrestle with 100 instances, or are the type of sound designer that uses multiple sounds to create one whole - fine, that's a perfectly normal and professional way of working with synths -- has been pretty much from the beginning of synths and multi-tracking, and certainly from the beginning of midi-sequencing. And of course, this being OSC, it provides a learning experience for those who don't work that way.
2) EFX -- I am in favor of using commercial effects (not part of this conversation but I say it whenever I can). The spirit of the OSC is for efx to not substantially change the sound - that seems pretty straight forward to me. If you distort something past recognition, it's not ok -- if you give the sound, which is completely recognizable a bit of an edge so it sits better in the mix, fine by me (although I personally choose not to use distortion efx). So what if you can't use a chorus. You can put two instances slightly out of tune (reminds me of lightly putting pressure on tape reel to create flange effect). Often you can create the effect with layering within a synth patch and doing some de-tuning. So there is plenty of creative opportunity using eq, compression, reverb, delay. Plus more and more synths have built in efx that mangle their sounds anyway.
I like liqh comment -- he chooses to use 12 instances and that is his personal challenge. That is the spirit of the OSC.
It's a One Synth Challenge -- so let's just keep it as one synth and not get too concerned about how many instances -- the people with the most instances don't necessarily win, but the learning provided by the explanations is very valuable to people new to sound design.
So please don't complicate it with more rules - except of course to allow commercial plug ins so it's more fun.
-
Leonard Bowman Leonard Bowman https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=422028
- KVRist
- 193 posts since 4 Jul, 2018 from the nest
I'm usually too lazy too make sounds with more than one instance and some very gradual FX,with one big exception:
any time I'm writing microtonal/macrotonal/xenharmonic stuff, I need the power to adjust tuning of each note in a chord. Unless the synth can properly load tuning files (which is rare in free synths), I need about one instance per note. Is this "against the spirit of OSC" because i'm using a lot of instances? Is it "against the spirit" because the synth wasn't originally designed to play in a given musical scale? Is it "in the spirit" because I'm using it for a musical purpose? does anybody really care?
I have no qualms with using 16 instances of Zebralette just to play harmonic 7th chords on a vibraphone. It's a lot more work for me to implement, but I would hate to be locked out of these things that are increasingly more important to my musical style.
If I read correctly, there was also a time when people were debating whether automation was in the spirit of OSC... At the very least I hope that we are always allowed to move knobs during a performance.
in other news, there are some great tracks this month and I look forward to hearing the rest!
any time I'm writing microtonal/macrotonal/xenharmonic stuff, I need the power to adjust tuning of each note in a chord. Unless the synth can properly load tuning files (which is rare in free synths), I need about one instance per note. Is this "against the spirit of OSC" because i'm using a lot of instances? Is it "against the spirit" because the synth wasn't originally designed to play in a given musical scale? Is it "in the spirit" because I'm using it for a musical purpose? does anybody really care?
I have no qualms with using 16 instances of Zebralette just to play harmonic 7th chords on a vibraphone. It's a lot more work for me to implement, but I would hate to be locked out of these things that are increasingly more important to my musical style.
If I read correctly, there was also a time when people were debating whether automation was in the spirit of OSC... At the very least I hope that we are always allowed to move knobs during a performance.
in other news, there are some great tracks this month and I look forward to hearing the rest!
mostly here for the One Synth Challenge
you can hear some of my newest music at: https://wrenharmonic.bandcamp.com/ or https://www.youtube.com/@wrenharmonic
you can hear some of my newest music at: https://wrenharmonic.bandcamp.com/ or https://www.youtube.com/@wrenharmonic
-
- DASH Guy
- 7951 posts since 20 Sep, 2001
-
- KVRAF
- 2133 posts since 29 Sep, 2011
Why on earth would it be a good idea to have some artificial limit of the number of instances?
liqih's personal challenge aside, there are basically 2 fundamental schools of thought here: 1) imagine a hardware synth and push that thing to it's limits without anything else ... or 2) use this virtual instrument as the sound source and do the most amazing things you can with it.
People who fall into the 1 camp should understand that saying don't use effects and limit instances and other sorts of things like this have a failure in their thinking, because if you're emulating the use of hardware, you would only have one synth... so you should be arguing for only using one instance, not other artificial limitations.
I also really can't understand comments for other artificial limitations for example like not using layering... you're saying don't use well known, well established production techniques! What? Once you get past allowing more than one instance, limiting by arbitrary restrictions is nonsensical; It simply doesn't compute.
As for the rationale for using commercial effects, one could easily argue that there really isn't an advantage and you can tell because there are so many very good DAW and free effects and that you can find very many examples of past OSC tracks with only free effects that can easily pass for polished commercial tracks. But beyond that, it goes back to the fundamental difference: is this a contest to pretend we have one hardware synth and nothing else and we push it to its limit or is this a contest where we use the synth as a sound source for an entire track to make the most amazing thing we can?
If you argue for the former (a hardware synth) then you should be arguing for a single instance. Otherwise you have a failure in your logic and we should allow commercial effects and layering and all the things you could possibly want to do using the synth as a sound source. I hope you see this now.
liqih's personal challenge aside, there are basically 2 fundamental schools of thought here: 1) imagine a hardware synth and push that thing to it's limits without anything else ... or 2) use this virtual instrument as the sound source and do the most amazing things you can with it.
People who fall into the 1 camp should understand that saying don't use effects and limit instances and other sorts of things like this have a failure in their thinking, because if you're emulating the use of hardware, you would only have one synth... so you should be arguing for only using one instance, not other artificial limitations.
I also really can't understand comments for other artificial limitations for example like not using layering... you're saying don't use well known, well established production techniques! What? Once you get past allowing more than one instance, limiting by arbitrary restrictions is nonsensical; It simply doesn't compute.
As for the rationale for using commercial effects, one could easily argue that there really isn't an advantage and you can tell because there are so many very good DAW and free effects and that you can find very many examples of past OSC tracks with only free effects that can easily pass for polished commercial tracks. But beyond that, it goes back to the fundamental difference: is this a contest to pretend we have one hardware synth and nothing else and we push it to its limit or is this a contest where we use the synth as a sound source for an entire track to make the most amazing thing we can?
If you argue for the former (a hardware synth) then you should be arguing for a single instance. Otherwise you have a failure in your logic and we should allow commercial effects and layering and all the things you could possibly want to do using the synth as a sound source. I hope you see this now.
-
- DASH Guy
- 7951 posts since 20 Sep, 2001
So why not allowing phaser and chorus? (not a request, but you get the point)
-
- KVRAF
- 2133 posts since 29 Sep, 2011
I am for allowing these as you can often get the same effect by stacking 2 or more instances, it's just more work (and doesn't necessarily work exactly without oscillator reset). I am 100% for less work instead of annoyances in production to accomplish the same thing.
-
- KVRAF
- 3008 posts since 17 Apr, 2010 from Croatia
Ask for what those layering masters are investing in terms of energy, experience and time and then ask yourself, if you were willing to do the same and then think about what may upset you in regards to "fairness" or "spirit"! Would be fantastic to have some more people do the awesome thing that MMGhost did a while ago with his fantastic youtube video. Dang, I want to find that again. I don't think I ever finished watching it...grrrr... but what I saw was just fantastic!
So, yeah, taking the OSC spirit to the next level would be some good, little showcases of technique. I thought about recording a session myself, too. I did that for Lord of the Springs, but that's not the same, of course.
Anyway, I think, what upsets people is the feeling of not working in a compatible or even playingfield, forgetting that this is not really "a game", but a sharing adventure of creativity and more. If one dares to look at the voting sheets at the end, it does sometimes appear that people get to vote, who literally "play" rather than treat this as a creative venture. That colors the results in such a way, that folks get uneasy.
If I may offer another idea as advice, I'd say: Free yourself and allow yourself to be fully honest as to what really bothers you, rather than jumping on your mind's explanation or justification for your anger regarding "rules"! I know, I know, it's super easy to fall right back into "isn't this a challenge to discover the power of a specific synth and not one that asks you to use whatever sound source to recreate your existing concepts, damn the costs"... ahm... and that brings me always right back to "relax and embrace whatever the OSC makes you do!"
So, yeah, taking the OSC spirit to the next level would be some good, little showcases of technique. I thought about recording a session myself, too. I did that for Lord of the Springs, but that's not the same, of course.
Anyway, I think, what upsets people is the feeling of not working in a compatible or even playingfield, forgetting that this is not really "a game", but a sharing adventure of creativity and more. If one dares to look at the voting sheets at the end, it does sometimes appear that people get to vote, who literally "play" rather than treat this as a creative venture. That colors the results in such a way, that folks get uneasy.
If I may offer another idea as advice, I'd say: Free yourself and allow yourself to be fully honest as to what really bothers you, rather than jumping on your mind's explanation or justification for your anger regarding "rules"! I know, I know, it's super easy to fall right back into "isn't this a challenge to discover the power of a specific synth and not one that asks you to use whatever sound source to recreate your existing concepts, damn the costs"... ahm... and that brings me always right back to "relax and embrace whatever the OSC makes you do!"
-
- KVRist
- 94 posts since 26 Apr, 2019 from CZ
because OSC is a challenge for one synth (OK, one synth/preset/automation for each instrument) and not for sound design with 100 instances for one kick drum (as example). with 100 instances you can create nearly any sound with any synth, it's not even real.
if you say, a concrete synth can't within one instance create f.e. kick drum, no problem, this will be a simpler track without kick drum, but it is real, a concrete synth can't do it.
but I understand, more participators want many instances, it's so and I accept this.
