Software vs Hardware

[frag]

There you go, Ultravox. "Dancing with tears" is a kind of track which sticks - even if you don't like it, it's very difficult to forget. It's got this eschatological, apocalyptic atmosphere.
Every age has its "sound". I suppose that Ultravox track would be uninteresting & forgettable to ancient Romans.
Software and hardware are easy part, but understanding your time and reflecting it in music...

[BONES]

Definitely not one of my favourite Ultravox songs and I don't think it ever charted here. Mind you, I don't like Vienna either, because it re-uses a riff from Maximum Acceleration, from their previous album, which is just lazy. We had a cover of Sleepwalk on our third album and we'll have The Man Who Dies Every Day on our new one. Also, I do All Stood Still, The Voice and I Remember (Death in the Afternoon), as well as John Foxx's Underpass, in my 80s side-project, which means Ultravox are now neck-and-neck with The Sisters of Mercy as my most covered bands (Alice, Temple of Love, Dominion, Body Electric, Lucretia My Reflection and the Sisterhood's Giving Ground). To keep it on topic, only Temple of Love and Dominion were done with hardware, the rest were 100% ITB, so software wins 10 to 2!

[michelangelo]

I had a Virus TI in my studio for 10 years… but now software plugins completely replace it.

[seafire]

Definitely not one of my favourite Ultravox songs and I don't think it ever charted here. Mind you, I don't like Vienna either, because it re-uses a riff from Maximum Acceleration, from their previous album, which is just lazy. We had a cover of Sleepwalk on our third album and we'll have The Man Who Dies Every Day on our new one. Also, I do All Stood Still, The Voice and I Remember (Death in the Afternoon), as well as John Foxx's Underpass, in my 80s side-project, which means Ultravox are now neck-and-neck with The Sisters of Mercy as my most covered bands (Alice, Temple of Love, Dominion, Body Electric, Lucretia My Reflection and the Sisterhood's Giving Ground). To keep it on topic, only Temple of Love and Dominion were done with hardware, the rest were 100% ITB, so software wins 10 to 2!

Where can I hear the Sisters covers?

[BONES]

Alice is from our second album, Kill Everyone, so you can listen to it anywhere, including YouTube -



Those old Sisters songs are perfect for sequencers.

Temple of Love and Dominion were things I did 30+ years ago and are gone forever now. Body Electric was something we did in the early days of NOVAkILL to fill out our live set. I haven't even thought about it in 20 years.

I've revamped Alice with sampled guitars, along with Lucretia and Giving Ground, for my 80s side-project. I'll probably be recording some vocals for the latter two, which I've only worked up in the last 6 months or so, after we get our new album out the door. They should be up on Bandcamp later this year, all things being equal.

[HAL76]

It's really stupid that people will still be arguing about their words in 2025.

I didn't read everything, but it was apparently also about layering... and that was initially a production technique that was also taken up in the later upcoming discipline of sound design.

And the protagonists are by no means talking about the same thing when they rave about it.

It's always been used as a sound design tool, it's just technology makes it easier now than back in the day when hardware synths could only play one timbre and didn't have MIDI, or when we didn't have DAWs that could layer instruments

It's amazing that people are arguing that layering two sounds together to make a new sound is anything but sound design

This stement tells me that you don´t have that much experience with layering. But you know what - I´m too old and educated to debate about terms. You´re not wrong. OK. But what people do with layering is very often more a part of the production process than dedicated sound design.

Just think of two perfectly matching different phrases that complement each other in a way that you may not even suspect it´s different sounds if you don´t listen really close. Or variations in just one of the two phrases. That´s all closer to the term production technique than sound design - just because it´s not only about the sound.

Layering is much more than sound design. It can really generate "sense" if you use it within a track.

[HAL76]

I didn't read everything, but it was apparently also about layering... and that was initially a production technique that was also taken up in the later upcoming discipline of sound design.

I recently watched Rick Beato's interview with Hans Zimmer and I noticed something very interesting - he never uses the term "sound design", he always calls it what it is - synth programming. Sound Design is a completely different discipline that requires a much higher level of skill. Programming synths is something anyone can do if they can be bothered, like taking out the bins. Hans actually thinks it's the thing he is best at (programming synths, not taking out the bins) but he doesn't try to tart it up with some fancy name.

[/quote]
I think the point is that nobody has the power of definition to define the term in an undisputable way (for allt times). But I think similar. Programming snths of making bloops and blops is not what makes a moovie or game sound designer. Sound design may even have nothing to do with music at all - while musicians often layer stuff and I guess if you´d ask them they´d probably say that they´re just making music

[IvyBirds]

It's really stupid that people will still be arguing about their words in 2025.

I didn't read everything, but it was apparently also about layering... and that was initially a production technique that was also taken up in the later upcoming discipline of sound design.

And the protagonists are by no means talking about the same thing when they rave about it.

It's always been used as a sound design tool, it's just technology makes it easier now than back in the day when hardware synths could only play one timbre and didn't have MIDI, or when we didn't have DAWs that could layer instruments

It's amazing that people are arguing that layering two sounds together to make a new sound is anything but sound design

This stement tells me that you don´t have that much experience with layering. But you know what - I´m too old and educated to debate about terms. You´re not wrong. OK. But what people do with layering is very often more a part of the production process than dedicated sound design.

Just think of two perfectly matching different phrases that complement each other in a way that you may not even suspect it´s different sounds if you don´t listen really close. Or variations in just one of the two phrases. That´s all closer to the term production technique than sound design - just because it´s not only about the sound.

Layering is much more than sound design. It can really generate "sense" if you use it within a track.

You are right I have only been doing it since 1984.

I am still waiting to have someone of your obvious genius explain why layering two sounds together to create a new sound is "production" but layering two Oscillators where one of a sawtooth and the other a square is somehow now sound design and not production? If I lawyer a Sawtooth and a Square in a two oac synth is that Sound Design? If I did it using two single Oscillator Synths is that a production technique? What if I used a Juno and layered that with a Minimoog and routed the audio from the Juno into the audio input of the Minimoog? Is that a production technique or sound design?

So maybe you can explain why one is a production technique and the other sound design?

If I use HALion7 to layer an FM patch, with a sample based patch is that sound design or a production technique?

If I load that same sample in Kontact and layer that with the same exact FM patch in HALion7 is that sound design or a production technique?

If I use the Wavetable synth in HALion7 and layer that with an FM patch is that Sound Design or a Production technique? What if I load the same Wavetable in Serum and build a patch that sounds exactly the same and layer that with the same FM synth on HALion7? Is that sound design or a production technique

Furthermore where does sound design stop and production technique begin? If I use a Wavetable in Serum to create the attack part of a timbre, Diva for the sustain and Kontact for the release and trigger them with the same MIDI note is that sound design or a production technique?

Where do you draw the line? What if I loaded those three in Gig Performer and used the built in Autosampler to sample all of those together and play it back using the DecentSampler preset it builds. Did I design a sound? Or was it just a production technique?

It sounds like you have very little experience with sound design and don't understand that you can use a myriad of techniques to build and create different timbres. It's OK it takes experience and creativity to try different things and think outside the box you have created for yourself

[mambo888]

The argument started when someone foolishly replied that layering sounds together is not sound design, a real man and professional can generate every sound using just an oscillator and a filter. Soon everybody jumped in and proved beyond doubt that layering sounds is indeed part of sound design and not inferior to knobtwisting. It can be used in mixing but that was not the original issue.

Also some people like to create every patch from scratch, whereas others just want to make music and perfectly happy to use a well-designed inspiring preset from someone else.

[BONES]

The thing is, we already have a term for that - mixing. It doesn't need to be brought under a different heading that makes no sense in the context of what it actually is. Many synths even have a "mixer" built in so you can layer your oscillators with noise and maybe ring mod. Should we now start labelling that section of the GUI "sound designer"? FFS!

I think the point is that nobody has the power of definition to define the term in an undisputable way (for allt times).

That's only true if the term doesn't already have a widely accepted definition and Sound Design is a very different discipline/skillset from what it gets used to describe around here. It has it's own Wikipedia page and there is a category at the Oscars for excellence in that field. For people around here to call themselves "sound designers" because they can be bothered spending time making patches for synths, just to make themselves feel a little bit important, is equal parts sad and laughable.

[IvyBirds]

The thing is, we already have a term for that - mixing

So if use a synth like the Minimoog that has a mixer section and you use it to mix the sound of the three oscillators, are you engaging in the practice of synth programming to design a new sound which people on a forum such as this, not related to film scores, often refer to as sound design?

Or is it a production technique?

There is a giant difference between mixing tracks and layering synths while engaging in the practice of synth programming to design a new sound which people on a forum such as this, not related to film scores, often refer to as sound design

But I get the fact that as you have stated in the past you just use presets and don't engage in the practice of synth programming to design a new sound which people on a forum such as this, not related to film scores, often refer to as sound design

[justin3am]

I think we can take context into account when we discuss these kinds of things. It doesn't hurt to be a little generous in interpretation.

I've taken job applications where people listed 'patch designer' as part of their qualifications and others who listed 'sound designer'. I may need to ask a few follow up questions to get an idea of their specific skills but I can get an idea of what they mean from their other experience. Based on other qualifications, I'm unlikely to mistake someone who's background is designing patches for someone who's involved with sound design for film... but I try to leave myself wiggle room in case I'm wrong. If someone posting in this forum is calling themself a sound designer in the context of people talking about synthesizers patches, I think we can understand what they mean. But hey, I can be a real stickler about language too sometimes. I just don't talk too good, so I figure I'm the last person who should be casting aspersions.

I'd say there are lots of multi-layer synths, where layering sounds is an integral part of the patch design process. Mixing sounds, in that context is still part of the overall patch design process. Mixing being a task within that process. A person creating a multi-layered patch is certainly not necessarily mixing a song but then, I don't suppose you are suggesting they are. I guess sometimes terms like 'mixing' don't mean precisely what we want to describe.

[vurt]

I think we can take context into account when we discuss these kinds of things. It doesn't hurt to be a little generous in interpretation.

then theyd have nothing to argue about and would have to use their time doing something else maybe music?

[syntonica]

I think we can take context into account when we discuss these kinds of things. It doesn't hurt to be a little generous in interpretation.

then theyd have nothing to argue about and would have to use their time doing something else maybe music?

What is this strange Earth custom of "making music"of which you speak?

[BONES]

So if use a synth like the Minimoog that has a mixer section and you use it to mix the sound of the three oscillators, are you engaging in the practice of synth programming to design a new sound which people on a forum such as this, not related to film scores, often refer to as sound design?Or is it a production technique?

FFS, the answer is in the name. Look at The Legend's GUI, the section is labelled "MIXER". You are mixing the oscillator outputs. It's the same with an arrangement - you create all the tracks and then you mix the output of the individual tracks together. The result is also called a "mix". That's why we call it "mixing", not layering and as sure as shit not sound design, although sound design will inevitably involve mixing most of the time.

There is a giant difference between mixing tracks and layering synths while engaging in the practice of synth programming to design a new sound

Not really. It requires similar skills and a good ear. e.g. On a new song we created last week, we chose to use a filter effect on one of the synth parts, rather than automate the instrument's own filter. We could have done it either way because, ultimately the processes and knowledge/skills required are exactly the f**king same. I think we did it that way simply because we were keen to play around with Filtron, to see what it had to offer.

which people on a forum such as this, not related to film scores, often refer to as sound design.

Yes, in a pathetic attempt to give it some totally undeserved credibility. Doesn't make them right.