Software vs Hardware

[Hyperbole]

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.

Although mixing (or rather blending) the levels of different oscillators with their own waveforms and tuning offsets doesn't require a PhD in Neuroscience, it is nevertheless part of the sound design process when creating a synth patch.

Any adjustment to a synth's parameters is "sound design." If the term is too lofty and precious for you, call it patch programming or something similar.

[IvyBirds]

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".

Of course the Legend is a virtual synth recreation of the Minimoog which was my example

Mixing tracks is a very different process than layering sounds in a synth patch and happens much later in the process of music creation

Generally speaking for professional releases the mixing process happens after the artists have finished recording the album and is done by a professional engineer

If you are going to argue semantics you need to be consistent.

[Gam456]

Ten CC - I'm not in love.

Not a synth, only vocals and a mix console to create an amazing pad intro.
Probably the most greatest ever

Creativity, layering, skills, mixing, sound design

[BONES]

Although mixing (or rather blending) the levels of different oscillators with their own waveforms and tuning offsets doesn't require a PhD in Neuroscience, it is nevertheless part of the sound design process when creating a synth patch.

None of it does. It's the easiest thing in the world if you understand how synths work, which is kind of my point.

Any adjustment to a synth's parameters is "sound design."

No, it is not. At best it might be a minor aspect of programming a synth. I will draw your attention, again, to the Wikipedia page on the subject.

Mixing tracks is a very different process than layering sounds in a synth patch and happens much later in the process of music creation

No it isn't and no it doesn't. The physical process of each is largely the same - you adjust the levels of each thing so that they give the desired result. In both cases you may want/need to tweak the individual timbres of each "layer". The major difference is that you have a lot more tools (effects) at your disposal when mixing in a DAW than mixing oscillators within a synth patch.

As for mixing, that starts as soon as you add a second track in your arrangement. e.g. If you have a bassline you like and you want to add drums, you don't just throw 'em in, you spend at least a few seconds getting the relative levels right so they work together. That's your mixing process started. It's not a separate part of the overall production process, it all happens together. Usually by the time I am happy with an arrangement, the mix is 90% done. In fact, quite often I'll be tinkering with the arrangement long after I am happy with the mix. e.g. Yesterday I was working on integrating vocals into a song for our new album and after I got it all working, I decided that the arrangement was a bit cramped, so I added a few extra bars into each verse to give it a bit of room to breathe. Even making patches is a process that continues throughout production. Sometimes the best way to improve a mix is to tweak the filter settings in a part or to play with the envelopes and modulation to make it sit in better. None of them are discrete steps, they all happen concurrently from one end of the production process to the other.

Generally speaking for professional releases the mixing process happens after the artists have finished recording the album and is done by a professional engineer.

Actually, engineers do the recording, producers do the mixing. That's why they are often done as separate tasks. But it's not relevant to electronic music, where we can continually refine the sound of each part throughout the process. It's especially not relevant to us, mostly working alone, so to imitate the way it would be done in a commercial studio environment makes no sense at all. I'm sure if you bothered to think about it for just a few seconds, you'd see that.

[Hyperbole]

Although mixing (or rather blending) the levels of different oscillators with their own waveforms and tuning offsets doesn't require a PhD in Neuroscience, it is nevertheless part of the sound design process when creating a synth patch.

None of it does. It's the easiest thing in the f**king world if you understand how synths work, which is kind of my point.

I gather you are somewhat older. And yet you argue for the sake of arguing even when your "point" is nonsensical. Hmm...

Perhaps we can at least agree that Ultravox (both the John Foxx and Midge Ure versions) put out some great music? My favorite album is Rage in Eden. It's arty, yet accessible. Billie Currie is one of the most underrated "rock" keyboardists, IMO. He brought a cool "classical" sensibility to Ultravox's music, as in the song "Serenade."

[IvyBirds]

As for mixing, that starts as soon as you add a second track in your arrangement. e.g. If you have a bassline you like and you want to add drums, you don't just throw 'em in, you spend at least a few seconds getting the relative levels right so they work together. That's your mixing process started.

But that's not the way it works mixing is the final stage of production before mastering and you can't mix until every track is recorded and finished

You are the one who decided to be dogmatic about terms and you record, then mix, then master

Anything done before the mixing stage is just a temporary production technique that will be changed

Are you saying it's silly to be dogmatic about terms and semantics? I most certainly think so but I am also not the one arguing that laying synth parts together to form a timbre is not synth programming in the pursuit of designing a sound that would be you, who wants to call it mixing, which is not done until the next to the last step

[elxsound]

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?

Who has time for that these days!

[Shabdahbriah]

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 they'd have nothing to argue about and would have to use their time doing something else maybe music?

Who has time for that these days!

IKR? ... I'm all like, "golly, I wonder if I could in fact, 'maybe music', or would using my time doing something else detract from my having fixed and immovable definitions on PRODUCTION RELATED TERMS like 'layering', 'mixing' ("or rather blending"), 'sound-design', and 'programming'?"

Should I question the naming convention used for the 32 channel MIXING CONSOLE I was using in the late 60's, and many others since then? Gosh, I just don't know. I just don't know. I'm thinking of all those poor post-pubescent "bedroom producers" who are curled-up in a fetal position, in the corner of their makeshift studio's, plagued by the incapacitating magnitude of these very mysteries.

If only there were a medium through which they could express their feelings of futility, hopelessness, and angst. Or JOY in being free of such impediments.

[elxsound]

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 they'd have nothing to argue about and would have to use their time doing something else maybe music?

Who has time for that these days!

IKR? ... I'm all like, "golly, I wonder if I could in fact, 'maybe music', or would using my time doing something else detract from my having fixed and immovable definitions on PRODUCTION RELATED TERMS like 'layering', 'mixing' ("or rather blending"), 'sound-design', and 'programming'?"

Should I question the naming convention used for the 32 channel MIXING CONSOLE I was using in the late 60's, and many others since then? Gosh, I just don't know. I just don't know. I'm thinking of all those poor post-pubescent "bedroom producers" who are curled-up in a fetal position, in the corner of their makeshift studio's, plagued by the incapacitating magnitude of these very mysteries.

If only there were a medium through which they could express their feelings of futility, hopelessness, and angst. Or JOY in being free of such impediments.

I love the term ‘maybe music’

Probably requires lots of layering.

[Shabdahbriah]

I love the term ‘maybe music’

Yeah, too good to pass up. Made me smile.

Probably requires lots of layering.

I believe you are on to something, which solidly determines the difference/distinction between what "MAY BE" and "IS". Fascinating.

[BONES]

I gather you are somewhat older. And yet you argue for the sake of arguing even when your "point" is nonsensical.

What? Explain to me where there is any real skill involved in patching a synth. I'd love to hear what's so difficult.

Perhaps we can at least agree that Ultravox (both the John Foxx and Midge Ure versions) put out some great music? My favorite album is Rage in Eden. It's arty, yet accessible. Billie Currie is one of the most underrated "rock" keyboardists, IMO. He brought a cool "classical" sensibility to Ultravox's music, as in the song "Serenade."

Interestingly, my take on Billy Currie was that he did some amazingly innovative work that would have had guitarists' jaws dropping all over the world. His ARP Odyssey solos were unbelievable and unlike anything anyone else had thought to do with a synthesiser at the time. One of the better examples would be from . They were very much shaped by the instrument he was using, things like the two octave drops he used a lot were necessitated by the Odyssey's transpose switch but instead of trying to work around that, he embraced it fully. His orchestral style string arrangements gave Ultravox a distinctive sound but it's those solos where I think he did his best work.

Systems of Romance is my fave Ultravox album, by far. The Midge Ure era albums have some great stuff on them but also a lot of filler. e.g. The first side of Rage in Eden is awesome but I rarely listen to anything after The Thin Wall, it goes down hill rapidly from there for me. (Of course, a lot of the things I call "filler", like Astrodyne from Vienna, are probably some other people's favourite tracks, it's all very subjective.)

But that's not the way it works mixing is the final stage of production before mastering and you can't mix until every track is recorded and finished

Maybe for a rock band but not for Electronic music. With a DAW, everything remains editable and changeable right up until you send your final mastered version to your label or upload it to Spotify or whatever. Even if you are working with hardware, you can keep your channels/tracks live until the very end.

You are the one who decided to be dogmatic about terms and you record, then mix, then master

No, I really don't. The very first things I add to any project are my mastering plugins. They are there from the very first note that gets played, it doesn't make sense to me to leave them until the end, when they can have a big effect on your mix.

Anything done before the mixing stage is just a temporary production technique that will be changed

So you'll be revisiting all those early steps during what you choose to call a separate stage, just as you'll be setting levels and such before you enter the mixing stage. All of which goes to show that there are no stages, that we do all of it throughout the production process and that your way of thinking about it is largely, if not totally obsolete.

Maybe it's not obvious if you've not done what I did for 15 years - when the way I worked at home was totally different to the way I was forced to do things in a studio. It's only when you experience the limitations of spending a few days putting all your parts down onto a multi-track before you sit down at the console and start mixing it all - when you are used to working at home in a far more integrated way - that you appreciate that thinking of it as a multi-stage process, rather than a multi-discipline one, is not the best way to go about it and will never lead to the best results.

Are you saying it's silly to be dogmatic about terms and semantics?

No, I'm suggesting that it is unhelpful to use inappropriate terms just to make yourself feel better about what you're doing. It limits your thinking and constrains your ability to do your best work.

[Hyperbole]

What? Explain to me where there is any real skill involved in patching a synth. I'd love to hear what's so difficult.

Ah, I don't think I understood what your point was. If you are saying that programming synths as an "art form" is overblown and of far less importance than writing great music, I agree with that 1,000%.

[HAL76]

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

I think the difference between the terms can primarily be found in the approach. Your example with Halion, for example, describes a process typical of sound design. As a production technique, layering tends to be applied to musical elements—and, as already mentioned, not only in the sense of classic doubling (e.g., vocal doubling), but also beyond. Doo Wop is perhaps a good example.

[IvyBirds]

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

I think the difference between the terms can primarily be found in the approach. Your example with Halion, for example, describes a process typical of sound design. As a production technique, layering tends to be applied to musical elements—and, as already mentioned, not only in the sense of classic doubling (e.g., vocal doubling), but also beyond. Doo Wop is perhaps a good example.

Only in this context we are talking about two synth parts used together to make a singular timbre not layering vocals

Again you layer a DX7 for the attack portion of a timbre with a Juno for the rest, and you use a DAW

And be careful of calling anything sound design unless you are doing music for the same people will call you out because apparently it's wrong for synthesists to use that term when it comes to designing sounds in synthesizers

[BONES]

Again you layer a DX7 for the attack portion of a timbre with a Juno for the rest

Or you find a different instrument that can do what you need without having to be propped up by something else. Alternatively, you keep working on your DX-7 patch (which often feels like alchemy, I know) or your Juno patch until one of them works on it's own. Mostly I do the former, although sometimes the latter gets the job done faster/better. Layering always feels like admitting defeat to me. Given the flexibility of the tools we all work with, I always feel like I should be able to do any/every job with just one instrument. Sometimes finding the best instrument can be time-consuming but it is vanishingly rare that I give up and layer two synths on a single MIDI part. In fact, off the top of my head I can't think of any song where I've done it. Drum samples, sure, but never with synths.