One Synth Challenge #128: OB-Xd from discoDSP (mmGhost wins!)

[zarf]

I think it would make more sense to have a "purist" category -- allow 1 instance per sound, no plugs outside the DAW, no DAW automation and let people decide how they want to work. A big part of this is the fun - and limiting to one synth has been proven to be a great idea - let's please not put a lid on creativity by being overly limiting.

How would a 'category' work in this idea? Are you suggesting that the challenge is split into 2 every month and you have to state which category you are entering? With two sets of winners?
I share Jasinski's concern over splitting the focus and user base and this doesn't sound like a good way forward to me, if I have understood it correctly? There would also be a lot of details to agree about (e.g. why no automation? how about 'no hands'? )

One-off challenges with varied rules have been shown to work and be engaging and fun for people, so I think that would be a great place to explore variations to the rules should we want to.

I also like the reminder of the 'wow factor' - and liqih's way seems very apt for that. If someone voluntarily adopts greater restrictions, and then produces something great, that makes us say 'wow', then we all have the opportunity to reward that with our votes. We can implement this system right now with no need to change any rules

The idea that One Synth means One Synth == One Instance per 'Instrument' is a perfectly reasonable suggestion but it is a different idea to how the challenge has always been so far, and as z' and others have shown here, there are a lot of very good arguments for why it would not be a good thing to adopt.

Regarding commercial effects - if it would make it more enjoyable for people, I would happily agree, (even though it is a non-issue for me personally and I like the rules as they are). What about expensive reverbs like Aether, would that be fine then? Would that be an 'unfair advantage'?

Regarding FX use in general - I sometimes wonder if I'm 'cheating' when I use Ableton's EQ to really shape a kick drum, rather than take the time to work out if I could create a similar result using only the synth. I shy away from Abletons 'Drum Buss' mixing tool because it feels like cheating if I add distortion outside the synth. But then I use OTT on the drums I don't know...

[schiing]

Regarding FX use in general - I sometimes wonder if I'm 'cheating' when I use Ableton's EQ to really shape a kick drum, rather than take the time to work out if I could create a similar result using only the synth.

I'd hesitate to call EQ cheating under most circumstances I can think of. But yeah, it's a good feeling when you get a decent curve using only the synth filters - I always like to aim for that.

A useful rule of thumb for me, even outside the OSC: If I need to move beyond 3-4dB with my external EQ, I try to go back and tweak the sound(s) again.

[mclstr]

I'd hesitate to call EQ cheating under most circumstances I can think of. But yeah, it's a good feeling when you get a decent curve using only the synth filters - I always like to aim for that.

A useful rule of thumb for me, even outside the OSC: If I need to move beyond 3-4dB with my external EQ, I try to go back and tweak the sound(s) again.

Agreed. But, when people go so far as triggering highly resonant filters, comb filters, etc ... with a percussive sound from the synth to generate another sound that can't possibly be produced by the synth, that to me seems like cheating.

I know I caught myself heading that direction at some point, but didn't in the end.

[schiing]

I'd hesitate to call EQ cheating under most circumstances I can think of. But yeah, it's a good feeling when you get a decent curve using only the synth filters - I always like to aim for that.

A useful rule of thumb for me, even outside the OSC: If I need to move beyond 3-4dB with my external EQ, I try to go back and tweak the sound(s) again.

Agreed. But, when people go so far as triggering highly resonant filters, comb filters, etc ... with a percussive sound from the synth to generate another sound that can't possibly be produced by the synth, that to me seems like cheating.

That's true. Not the way I work, so it didn't even occur to me. But I wouldn't be comfortable with that. If significant distortion is off-limits, surely this is.

[ThePresent]

I'd hesitate to call EQ cheating under most circumstances I can think of. But yeah, it's a good feeling when you get a decent curve using only the synth filters - I always like to aim for that.

A useful rule of thumb for me, even outside the OSC: If I need to move beyond 3-4dB with my external EQ, I try to go back and tweak the sound(s) again.

Agreed. But, when people go so far as triggering highly resonant filters, comb filters, etc ... with a percussive sound from the synth to generate another sound that can't possibly be produced by the synth, that to me seems like cheating.

I know I caught myself heading that direction at some point, but didn't in the end.

Considering this rule “Any effect that transforms the sound to make them unrecognizable as being from the synth (Overdrive, heavy distortion, bit crushing, or related). Never go full 11 “ what you describe would indeed be plain cheating, agreed

[liqih]

I'll chime in!

I hear in this dialog an appeal to "fairness" (If I'm wrong please correct me). It think this is a poor justification for increasing limitations. OSC has had the basic rule set for years and has flourished pretty well with these rules.

I speak only for myself of course, when I thought that we could limit the number of instances
it was not for fairness in my mind, but to have entries where the synth of the month could have been more recognizable, for its own spectral characteristics. Thus making each OSC month a more unique experience.
After reading the OSC creator message reported here, even the mentioned WOW factor would even be boosted by a reduction of the max allowed instances. Anyway I see that it's not a viable rule to be added, as the majority don't agree. Democracy wins.

[zarf]

A useful rule of thumb for me, even outside the OSC: If I need to move beyond 3-4dB with my external EQ, I try to go back and tweak the sound(s) again.

Thanks! That is helpful. On this basis, I must admit that I tend to over-use EQ

[z.prime]

A useful rule of thumb for me, even outside the OSC: If I need to move beyond 30-40dB of resonance to cheat and get new sound with my external EQ, I try to go back and tweak the sound(s) again before applying 30-40dB more of resonance to cheat and get a new sound.

Yeah, I feel the same way! ... oh wait, was this not your quote?

[schiing]

And now I feel like a prude! No, z.prime, my EQ is very, very low.

[MrKarolus]

Voted.

[jasinski]

Remember. It's not the size of the Q that matters, but how you use it.

[ThePresent]

Voted. Thanks again, 2Dat and discodsp
By the way, SoundCloud is messing up my comments, if you see double comments, please blame SC

[z.prime]

Actually, if you have any problems, just blame SC! They dangle dreams in front of you and then crush them like they crush the groups feature out of existence. Simply gone, like a black hole. Like a runaway bride, or like your brother with your wallet. So sad, requires medication to dig yourself out of the severe depression they have put you in. Bastards!

[TrojakEW]

Well I did not have time to enter this round but I want to contribute do this discussion about limiting OSC more. I think adding limits is pointless. It is mostly about user workflow. Some users are used to layer instances to get desired sound and some like me are too lazy and use just one instance for the sound. Ofc it all depend on user skills but still some synthesizer don't have that many option to treat the sound without using external effects like EQ especially with synth like (for example) Noisetar. While some synths can be used just as they are. Here is example a made during making some presets for Fathom synth especially strings. No layering of instances, no external effects (more description on SC)
https://soundcloud.com/trojakew/sounds- ... test-naked

It doesn't matter what limitation is added always the better wins and those who just blame the rules and said that they can do better if the rules will be different will not get any advantage. You want to use 200 instances and your computer can handle it then why not. If you want to use only one instance for whole track do it. Even using the payed FX do not change things too much, since some of you guys here are really awesome and can make even fart sounds like symphony. It is that human behind is responsible for good track and not tool used. Don't blame tool, blame yourself and move forward and improve your skills. This is the great place for this. So forget about points and challenge yourself and not others.

[mclstr]

... and now that synths like Poly-Grid, and many other modular polyphonic software synths are becoming popular, you are seeing people compose huge complex compositions with just one synth. Of course this synth may have 20+ sequencers, 50+ oscillators, 20+ envelope generators, 20+ VCOs, randomness generators, data, math, samplers, additive, subtractive, FM, Karplus-Strong, wavetable, mixers, numerous effects, etc... all in one software synth.

Compare the possibilities between the U-He challenge and the OB-Xd challenge. I hardly used any outboard effects with the U-He synths because they have almost everything built in. That is what they do in modern software synths anymore.
Zebra as an example has the ability to be split into four synths in one. You don't see many people doing this, but the potential is there.

OB-Xd on the hand needs external effects and could use some stacking to compete with modern soft synths.