One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[wagtunes]

@BlitBit

I agree. It ultimately comes down to talent and skill, 2 commodities I am sorely lacking in.

And no, it's not from lack of trying. It's from 36 years of doing something that you absolutely love but have very little aptitude for.

Just one of the many cruel ironies of life.

[MTLE]

Found good points in pros and cons. I can't really decide for YES or NO. As I remember I didn't purchase any of my FX. It's not neccesary to think about it at this time.

But I had a look to the current KVR Mix Challenge before reading this. They have Add-On Rules on each contest. That would be a nice solution. Lets say we have a full FX built-in Synth, we could put a "no other FX" in the round rules. If it's a "poor" synth with dry sound lets have a round with commercial plugins allowed. That could be interesting. Maybe one of the sponsors wants to promote his FX, we can have a round allowing his plugin.

This way we can make the OSC more interesting for people with commercial FX without fix it to the rules.

[z.prime]

... KVR Mix Challenge ... have Add-On Rules on each contest. That would be a nice solution. Lets say we have a full FX built-in Synth, we could put a "no other FX" in the round rules. If it's a "poor" synth with dry sound lets have a round with commercial plugins allowed. That could be interesting. Maybe one of the sponsors wants to promote his FX, we can have a round allowing his plugin.

This way we can make the OSC more interesting for people with commercial FX without fix it to the rules.

I definitely like this idea... tailor the rules per contest based on the synth... as it's definitely true that no two synths are created equal by any means. That could keep even the veteran OSC'ers on their toes each month, learning different approaches to things.

[BlitBit]

I agree. It ultimately comes down to talent and skill, 2 commodities I am sorely lacking in.

I agree that making music is in part talent and skill. Talent I would define as how easy or natural it comes to someone to make music or to come up with something that impresses people. For example some people might have perfect pitch. Of course they will have some kind of advantage over people who don't have that talent. If they hear something in their head and have the technical skills they will be able to very quickly transfer this to something "real" or "usable". A talent is very hard to learn if it can be learnt at all.

However, there is also the skill aspect to making music and fortunately a skill is something that you can learn more easily than a talent. Here I think the main problem is to get an overview of what there is to learn and where to get the information. Fortunately in times of the internet and YouTube there are tons of sources for that information.

So I'd propose that you make a plan of what you want to learn next and to apply it in the next OSCs. For example do you really know everything that I have listed in my previous post? If you don't, select one topic and just dive into it. Use simple examples which are not very musical or ambitious. It is just about learning the skill. For example if you want to learn how to EQ just take a simple bass and some lead or pads and then use the EQ to carve out the important and not so important bits of these instruments. Then compare the before and after versions. Always reflect on what you do and why you do it.

And no, it's not from lack of trying. It's from 36 years of doing something that you absolutely love but have very little aptitude for.

Perhaps you love music a little too much and make it out to be something "magical" that you either master or not. I thought like this for a long time and fortunately I have gotten over this kind of thinking. I know that I will (likely) never write an epic orchestral piece but just in the last few months I'd say that I have progressed quite a bit from where I was before to where I am currently just by thinking differently.

I did so by starting to focus rather on the technical side and not so much on the musical side. The reason is that at least for me the technical side has a very large skill aspect (albeit there is a talent aspect as well of course). Therefore it is easier for me to learn something in that area, I see some progress and in general keep motivated. When, at a certain point, I will think that I have mastered lots of the technicalities (which are a prerequisite to good sounding song IMHO) I will focus more on the musical stuff again (music theory, song writing, etc.).

As you can see it is also a matter of how you structure your learning process.

Just one of the many cruel ironies of life.

Just don't give up. It is never too late to learn something (sounds cheesy I know). The important thing is to know where you want to go, to keep focussed and to take one step after the other.

[wagtunes]

I agree. It ultimately comes down to talent and skill, 2 commodities I am sorely lacking in.

I agree that making music is in part talent and skill. Talent I would define as how easy or natural it comes to someone to make music or to come up with something that impresses people. For example some people might have perfect pitch. Of course they will have some kind of advantage over people who don't have that talent. If they hear something in their head and have the technical skills they will be able to very quickly transfer this to something "real" or "usable". A talent is very hard to learn if it can be learnt at all.

However, there is also the skill aspect to making music and fortunately a skill is something that you can learn more easily than a talent. Here I think the main problem is to get an overview of what there is to learn and where to get the information. Fortunately in times of the internet and YouTube there are tons of sources for that information.

So I'd propose that you make a plan of what you want to learn next and to apply it in the next OSCs. For example do you really know everything that I have listed in my previous post? If you don't, select one topic and just dive into it. Use simple examples which are not very musical or ambitious. It is just about learning the skill. For example if you want to learn how to EQ just take a simple bass and some lead or pads and then use the EQ to carve out the important and not so important bits of these instruments. Then compare the before and after versions. Always reflect on what you do and why you do it.

And no, it's not from lack of trying. It's from 36 years of doing something that you absolutely love but have very little aptitude for.

Perhaps you love music a little too much and make it out to be something "magical" that you either master or not. I thought like this for a long time and fortunately I have gotten over this kind of thinking. I know that I will (likely) never write an epic orchestral piece but just in the last few months I'd say that I have progressed quite a bit from where I was before to where I am currently just by thinking differently.

I did so by starting to focus rather on the technical side and not so much on the musical side. The reason is that at least for me the technical side has a very large skill aspect (albeit there is a talent aspect as well of course). Therefore it is easier for me to learn something in that area, I see some progress and in general keep motivated. When, at a certain point, I will think that I have mastered lots of the technicalities (which are a prerequisite to good sounding song IMHO) I will focus more on the musical stuff again (music theory, song writing, etc.).

As you can see it is also a matter of how you structure your learning process.

Just one of the many cruel ironies of life.

Just don't give up. It is never too late to learn something (sounds cheesy I know). The important thing is to know where you want to go, to keep focussed and to take one step after the other.

I understand everything you're saying and it all makes perfect sense.

Here is my problem with all of it. The best way to explain is with an example.

When I hear a piece of music that I admire as far as its production, I'll say to myself "How do they get it to sound like that?" I know what I want to do but I don't have a clue as how to go about doing it.

So what do I type into the search engines? "How do I make my song sound like this?" Of course not. So where do I begin? I need to know what questions to ask if I'm even going to have a chance of getting an answer.

Questions like "This piece sounds so clean and open, yet has a deep bottom. How do I get that sound" probably won't get me anything useful. In fact, I typed that very phrase into Google and got nothing back that was of any use.

So I tried typing in this.

"how do I get a clean and open sounding mix"

The results I got back were too general. Kind of like a checklist of procedures. EQ, Compression, Limiting, etc. I need something that goes into step by step detail on how to get what I'm looking for. I'm not finding it.

What I need is a mentor. I need somebody to sit down with me and show me how to get a good mix.

When I've raised the $3,000 it will probably cost me to get that service (if not more) I'll do that. But there is no question I can't figure this out on my own.

That is my problem.

[BlitBit]

When I hear a piece of music that I admire as far as its production, I'll say to myself "How do they get it to sound like that?" I know what I want to do but I don't have a clue as how to go about doing it.

Do what you are already doing now: ask KVR. I think this is exactly the type of question for the "Sound Design" and "Production Techniques" subforums.

What I need is a mentor. I need somebody to sit down with me and show me how to get a good mix.

When I've raised the $3,000 it will probably cost me to get that service (if not more) I'll do that. But there is no question I can't figure this out on my own.

This might be a solution as well although a quite costly one. There are also online courses like the one from the Berklee college of music offered at Coursera.

[wagtunes]

When I hear a piece of music that I admire as far as its production, I'll say to myself "How do they get it to sound like that?" I know what I want to do but I don't have a clue as how to go about doing it.

Do what you are already doing now: ask KVR. I think this is exactly the type of question for the "Sound Design" and "Production Techniques" subforums.

What I need is a mentor. I need somebody to sit down with me and show me how to get a good mix.

When I've raised the $3,000 it will probably cost me to get that service (if not more) I'll do that. But there is no question I can't figure this out on my own.

This might be a solution as well although a quite costly one. There are also online courses like the one from the Berklee college of music offered at Coursera.

I didn't know the Sound Production sub forum existed.

Well, I know where I'm heading over to the first chance I get.

[bjporter]

Updated here with a few more points, and misc: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 6#p6128736

[psmacmur]

Regarding the freeware vs commercial fx plugin debate: I agree that the best freeware sounds as good as commercial plugins. Nevertheless, one huge advantage commercial plugins often offer over freeware plugins is that they save time. Time is of the essence in OSC.

One way commercial plugins save time, which I particularly appreciate with my tinnitus-addled ears, is visual feedback. I can dial in an amazing delay sequence in Waves SuperTap in like 2 seconds, and know it's doing what I want because of the visualization. The comparably-capable ToneCarver Delay8, on the other hand, features multitudinous dropdowns that are annoying to work with, driving parameters complex enough that auditioning alone leaves it hard to determine if the parameters are doing my bidding. Similarly, commercial reverbs that visualize early reflections and the tail, and/or the simulated room, are much quicker to dial in correctly than Freeverb3's undocumented 4-character parameter names.

[bjporter]

Just added another point. Something that concerned me in the Mix Challenge was that I wanted to use only free plugins, but I felt the judging may be bias if they see I'm using Kjaerhaus Classic reverb, when I could be using my UAD Roland Spring reverb:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 6#p6128736

[wagtunes]

Just added another point. Something that concerned me in the Mix Challenge was that I wanted to use only free plugins, but I felt the judging may be bias if they see I'm using Kjaerhaus Classic reverb, when I could be using my UAD Roland Spring reverb, so here' a new point:

[Cons] 9. Placebo effect: By using popular / exclusive / expensive / hotshot commercial plugins, people may be bias toward your track, or see your track as sounding better than it is.

Never thought of this but yes, this is quite possible. Conversely, if they see that you've used very few plugins and your track still sounds so great, they may be more impressed and score you higher.

I never look at the stuff people use. I just listen to the track. So I'm not influenced by that other stuff. But I guess some people could be swayed by the specs.

[bjporter]

Do UAD plugins count? UAD is a DSP card that you either put in your computer or use externally. It's basically like an external processor that runs software specially designed for that chip. It has several dozen plugins in vst format:
http://www.uaudio.com/uad-plug-ins/uad-2-pcie.html

It's kinda half software / half hardware. Then what about regular effects hardware?

[satYatunes]

If free effects are as good as commercial effects then why not allow the commercial effects? Does not make any sense to me. For someone who owns a lot of commercial effects, it will be just another option like "hmmm, let me try the Pro Q2 this month instead of ReaEq".

It all depends on how good you know your tools, be it commercial or free. If someone doesn't know how to use EQ then it doesn't matter whether you give them Pro Q2 or ReaEq, the output will be same.

I understand commercial plugins come with a lot of presets but I am sure a lot of producers will agree that it doesn't always work out-of-the-box, especially with effects (synths are different), you will have to tweak it to suit your need almost 99% of the time (at least in my case). At times it's actually time saving to create it from scratch than auditioning multiple presets.

Some commercial effects are as good as DAW effects, so allowing them will not make much of a difference.

[satYatunes]

Just added another point. Something that concerned me in the Mix Challenge was that I wanted to use only free plugins, but I felt the judging may be bias if they see I'm using Kjaerhaus Classic reverb, when I could be using my UAD Roland Spring reverb, so here' a new point:

[Cons] 9. Placebo effect: By using popular / exclusive / expensive / hotshot commercial plugins, people may be bias toward your track, or see your track as sounding better than it is.

Never thought of this but yes, this is quite possible. Conversely, if they see that you've used very few plugins and your track still sounds so great, they may be more impressed and score you higher.

I never look at the stuff people use. I just listen to the track. So I'm not influenced by that other stuff. But I guess some people could be swayed by the specs.

If their tracks sound shit then it can go other way also . Like "Man, what a waste of excellent plugins". I would give 1 to that contestant

[satYatunes]

Well, here is another thought. How about making it mandatory for all to use Tracktion 4 and it's stock plugins, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Fair and square for everyone?