One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[wagtunes]

Ace bass, leads, pads, etc, but then the drums just doesn't do it justice, it's kinda hard to really want to promote the song outside the osc. Just my opinion of course....

Well, it isn't called a challenge for nothing...

In the current situation, I'd be inclined to simply remix the track with additional percussion.

Overall, I think we're dealing with the wrong question. The OSC has mutated significantly since the early days and I don't think the assumptions used then still hold. Then it was really about the synth and its raw sounds - how much mileage could you get out of just doing that? My reading of many of the more recent comments (though not from everybody) is that it's now more about making a finished track using just one synth, which has made the issue of DAW features and FX options much more prominent.

Decide the real purpose of the contest and I think the decision over the individual rules gets easier.

There is one other thing. If you relax the sampling and commercial FX rules, it gets somewhat easier to enter. What kind of song count are you dealing with before the voting as it is becomes unmanageable and descends into a popularity contest? It's already 50-plus on a quiet month.

This is a very good point. What would it be like trying to score 100 or more tracks? I know I couldn't do it and most likely would end up not competing any longer as I'd only end up being disqualified for not voting for every track.

[Touch The Universe]

Ace bass, leads, pads, etc, but then the drums just doesn't do it justice, it's kinda hard to really want to promote the song outside the osc. Just my opinion of course....

Well, it isn't called a challenge for nothing...

In the current situation, I'd be inclined to simply remix the track with additional percussion.

Overall, I think we're dealing with the wrong question. The OSC has mutated significantly since the early days and I don't think the assumptions used then still hold. Then it was really about the synth and its raw sounds - how much mileage could you get out of just doing that? My reading of many of the more recent comments (though not from everybody) is that it's now more about making a finished track using just one synth, which has made the issue of DAW features and FX options much more prominent.

Decide the real purpose of the contest and I think the decision over the individual rules gets easier.

There is one other thing. If you relax the sampling and commercial FX rules, it gets somewhat easier to enter. What kind of song count are you dealing with before the voting as it is becomes unmanageable and descends into a popularity contest? It's already 50-plus on a quiet month.

Yeah, I think I'd definetely have to agree with you on that last point especially. Like I said, the osc is good as is and I think I can live with the samples part. I usually do a remake of it with updated drums afterwards if its needed, but synths like synthmaster, hive, etc, are pretty much spot on as is. Eclipsis, Odsay, and a one or two more I've entered I'd really like the above rule at first, but the other factors pretty much negate it... cheers

[z.prime]

I'd say at least allow a kick-- maybe possibly extend it to other freeware samples. Not the entire realm, mind you, maybe a really short list of aloud samples. Then again, the osc is good as is, but some synths really are very hard to work with to get good drums-- the mix would just fall short. Ace bass, leads, pads, etc, but then the drums just doesn't do it justice, it's kinda hard to really want to promote the song outside the osc. Just my opinion of course....

But this is at least 25% of the challenge - getting good percussion!
I would definitely vote against using anything other than the synth as a sound source. To me, that is absolutely over the line in regards to the spirit of the competition.

Sampling the synth, I could go either way on... it would have to include a way to prove the sample came from the synth - e.g. leave the original patch in the project or something. Again, I would like the contest to be as accessible to as many people care to participate as possible rather than preventing people from entering due to the regulations.

A lot of excellent arguments for and against. I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make the decision. I don't envy those guys at all.

It could always end up as a community vote rather than forcing one person to make these decisions. Most major changes have happened this way.

There is one other thing. If you relax the sampling and commercial FX rules, it gets somewhat easier to enter. What kind of song count are you dealing with before the voting as it is becomes unmanageable and descends into a popularity contest? It's already 50-plus on a quiet month.

Don't worry about this, the voting and/or submission system could be changed to support contests with more tracks and/or anonymity (which has been another periodically ongoing debate). I think you'll find the modest prizes and lack of a large promotion prize will keep this particular contest small. I believe most people are looking for instant fame in the large remix contests and such.

To me, these points illustrate why commercial effects should be allowed:

1:

... mandatory for all to use Tracktion 4 and it's stock plugins, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. Fair and square for everyone?

And what are people supposed to do who own Cubase for the last 2 years and don't know how to use Tracktion 4, or for that matter never even heard of it?

E.G.: What about people who know how to use Pro-Q really well and now are forced to use something else?

2:

saying the preconditions would become uneven across the participants is probably correct, but we already have that situation anyway, due to the different DAWs (i really like Logic's Space Designer.. but i don't even have a MAC) and even different hardware capabilities (better CPU = more instances = more layers = more freedom in being creative) of our PCs, Laptops, etc.

When I used REAPER I felt this way constantly. The plugins are good, but they're nowhere near as good as Live's set, IMO, especially when you talk about Live's studio bundle or whatever it is with all the Max/Msp stuff... I still feel this way to some degree with Bitwig, although overall I prefer to use the plugins they provide, there are some that are sorely lacking when compared to some other DAW's offerings. Should people be penalized for being accustomed to a DAW and a particular workflow? ...

[Reefius]

There could also be a rule to NOT use any of the DAW's FX, only external freeware. That way everyone can still use their DAW of choice and for FX we will all have access to the same plugins. The DAW is then only used as a pure sequencer.

[z.prime]

There could also be a rule to NOT use any of the DAW's FX, only external freeware. That way everyone can still use their DAW of choice and for FX we will all have access to the same plugins. The DAW is then only used as a pure sequencer.

Things used to be this way. But, like anything else, people know how to use the DAW fx... and now have to learn a different tool.

[bluerobot]

There could also be a rule to NOT use any of the DAW's FX, only external freeware. That way everyone can still use their DAW of choice and for FX we will all have access to the same plugins. The DAW is then only used as a pure sequencer.

Things used to be this way. But, like anything else, people know how to use the DAW fx... and now have to learn a different tool.

And the same freeware Fx are not available for all platforms. I'm on a Mac, but I often come across interesting looking freeware plugins that are Windows only.

You just can't win!

There will never be a level playing field, unless everyone's on the same platform/DAW/$$$.

Limits are good, though. I think that's why I enjoyed the challenge. Sometimes we have too many options and drown in over-choice.

[satYatunes]

In Tennis they don't give out the same racquet to players before the match, right? In Golf, players bring their own clubs. Similarly, if someone wants to use the commercial FX that they own then what's wrong with that?

For these two sports you may be almost right. But in others are different. E.g. Boxing gloves are defined before the fight (maybe not always). Soccer has an official ball for each season or a championship. And even in Tennis you can't show up with a rectangular racket In sports all the equipment has it's strong regulations. The difference to this competition is, the manufacturer of sports equipment know about the regulations and build it's product according this. This is impossible for any plugins. It's not comparable at all.

I disagree to some extent. The basic functionality of a compressor, eq, delay, chorus, etc. remains same. One may have some extra knobs/slider for additional tweaking but the basic functionality is same. However, it's different for special type of FX, for example Glitch, Artillery, etc.

Anyway, I just gave that example to make my point that attempting to make the playing field even for all contestants is not possible until you restrict everyone to use the same thing.

[bjporter]

Awesome points everyone. Very interesting pro and con positions to this.

For those who missed it here is the post of pros and cons: http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 6#p6128736

[z.prime]

Note: I think #7 in the "con" list belongs in the "pro" list. And don't quite understand #5 in the con list... "don't allow them because we already are, basically" ???

And #4 on the "pro" list belongs on the "con" side. Although, I would say, allowing commercial plugins would potentially help small devs. E.g., I might buy the TDR EQ, but I won't at the moment because I can't use the paid for version in OSC.

[bjporter]

Note: I think #7 in the "con" list belongs in the "pro" list. And don't quite understand #5 in the con list... "don't allow them because we already are, basically" ???

And #4 on the "pro" list belongs on the "con" side. Although, I would say, allowing commercial plugins would potentially help small devs. E.g., I might buy the TDR EQ, but I won't at the moment because I can't use the paid for version in OSC.

#7 cons - It's about perspective. It works both ways. One could see it as - why have commercial if it's about skill - let's just use freeware / native? Someone else may see it like - why NOT have commercial if it's all about skill.

#5 cons - Perspective: Some daws have better plugins than others, which could be seen as unfair. Adding commercial plugins on top could make it even more unfair, especially for those without a large GASY collection.

I'll update these for more clarity

[bjporter]

And #4 on the "pro" list belongs on the "con" side. Although, I would say, allowing commercial plugins would potentially help small devs. E.g., I might buy the TDR EQ, but I won't at the moment because I can't use the paid for version in OSC.

It's more philosophical: Why do you want to support the indie freeware scene but allow native commercial daw plugins? Therefore, we should allow commercial, since it's already contradictory, it should be ok.

[z.prime]

Yes, I understand how these points work, but as currently worded, they aren't supporting the 'pro' / 'con' as they're in currently, IMO.

And personally, I think #5 re: "already being generious for DAW plugins" doesn't belong in this list, but rather confusing allowing disallowing DAW plugins; a valid but different discussion.

[ontrackp]

There will never be a level playing field, unless everyone's on the same platform/DAW/$$$.

Limits are good, though. I think that's why I enjoyed the challenge. Sometimes we have too many options and drown in over-choice.

+1. Totally agree. Limiting the OSC to one synth and only the efx in your DAW or freeware, and no changing sounds with effects has been great, and I hope it can continue.

[bjporter]

Yes, I understand how these points work, but as currently worded, they aren't supporting the 'pro' / 'con' as they're in currently, IMO..

Each person in this entire thread has a certain perspective, and one that can be countered by another person. So I wanted to list out various perspectives and counters. It's interesting to think about some of these questions. They seem to cancel each other out at first, but it's deeper.

[mehum]

not to mention some additional sonic capabilities in those paid plugs that aren't typically available by the DAW effects.

Could you, or anyone else for that matter, give an example? I can see how it matters for reverb...

One that springs to mind is Waves Renaissance/Max Bass. That plug uses a psychoacoustic harmonic trick that you could probably emulate with a decent EQ, if you grok the seminal paper on the subject. Even then, you'd be manipulating a dozen parameters vs the plugin's 2, and you might have to automate them or something. I've looked at its results in a frequency spectrum; it's a lot thicker than just a bump at twice the target frequency. It's a *major* time saver, vs. the many subtle tweaks I need for OSC.

Hm, yeah that one's rather unique. I've never seen it as an effect though, more like a tool to salvage a dull recording (dull as in lacking frequency range). Of course no EQ in the world will do what this do and I've heard it used with decent result on recorded kick and bass. I don't really see any use for it in OSC where we can easily (at least if your CPU allows) just layer the bass with another instance playing an octave up or open up the filter to allow more overtones. Sure, your result won't be exactly the same but you probably have way more control.
Anyway, are there any free alternatives?

Many of the hardware emulations being done in software for compression and EQ. I've used quite a few from IK Multimedia and PSP. The Noble EQ from PSP is a Pultec emulation which does some really cool things at the EQ points, but adds some nice harmonic distortion. Many of IK Multimedia's EQs and some comps include input and output gain even without actually using the EQ or Compressor functionality. PSP VintageWarmer as a compressor/limiter does the same. Could you accomplish these with a combination of DAW plugs? Probably, but one would have to know what's going on, and I'd argue it would be damn difficult to replicate the functionality of a Pultec EQ.

I agree you wouldn't get the exact same results. But I do put "harmonic distortion" and the specific push-pull behaviour of the Pulteq in the mojo category that perhaps affect 3% compared to having good technique with just about any EQ or compressor. Saturation can easily be dialed in when needed in what I think seem like a more controlled fashion with specific plugs. VoS stuff and IVGI comes to mind.
However, it might be that my ears are just not sensitive to what they do. I still very much doubt that using these would give a real edge in the competition. Unless we're talking about workflow and knowing your stuff. If you know and love to work with the Noble EQ I don't doubt you will produce a better result than with another EQ but it's not really down to some magic sonic properties of the plug itself. You're just giving yourself too little credit!

On the commercial plug-ins side, there are some big differences between what is available free and for money in some areas - particularly when you get into mastering and multiband treatment. You can do some crazy sh*t with Flux Alchemist that would be tough to pull off using the current free options. You can also successfully destroy a track using the same tool.

I've always felt that multi-band compression was a way to fix problems at a late stage that should have been sorted out at the source but perhaps I'm just old fashioned...
That's the way I see mastering as well while most people seem to see mastering as "let's see how hard we can push this limiter".
But really, when it comes to mastering it's 99% technique (and that last 1% only matters to other mastering engineers). If you know what you're doing, you'll get a good result whatever brand of tools you use (although it might take a little more work if working with stuff you're not used to). If you don't know you will most likely make a mess. I'll grant that some tools are more forgiving in this area though...

Regarding the question at hand, I still don't really care on way or the other... Perhaps make a trial where you allow anything but with even more emphasis on not changing the original sound too much. Which would put resonant filters on the forbidden list