One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[] Peter:H []

Suggestion for a Synth for upcoming challenges:
I have stumbled over this Video:
Synths can be found here: http://kx77free.free.fr/English-page-vst.html
It looks interesting, though I have to admit that I haven't checked out the Synths myself by now.

[] Peter:H []

In order to discuss about a potential "restricted set of allowed FX" for a future OSC round, I copied some posts from the original Thread of OSC 100 to set the context for the discussion
---
(Source: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=485642&start=195&p= ... w#p6819779)
Refering to 574X's post above (see viewtopic.php?f=1&t=485642&start=180#p6819573), where he discussed the plugins that are used by the contributions, I come back to my suggestion for a futur version of OSC, where

• Not only the Synth plug-in is given but also...
• a set of FX is given, which does mean that only the given plug-ins must be used, but does not restrict how they where used, be it inserts, sends and how many instances are used.
• built in FX or built in mixer channel stuff like in Cubase should then be forbidden

The Set should be a comprehensible set of all sorts of FX (dynamics, EQ, reverb,...) and they must be available in 32 and 64 bits.
Fun would be to see what people would do when the FX set also places some challenges on them, i.e. no reverb, or no delay?

Just think about it - If we all use the same FX then I would say there's no problem to open even for a simple distortion FX.

And for the fun of it - I would also suggest that the winners of the previous challenge as well as the bottom five choose any FX, that they haven't used in their track

Appart from a simple search in KVR, you can scan the following thread for potential candidates to the OSC set of FX, where a number of 64 Bit free plugins have been collected by KVR users: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=390110&start=240

Best regards
] Peter:H [
---
(Source: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=485642&start=195#p6819803)

The Set should be a comprehensible set of all sorts of FX (dynamics, EQ, reverb,...) and they must be available in 32 and 64 bits.
Fun would be to see what people would do when the FX set also places some challenges on them, i.e. no reverb, or no delay?

Just think about it - If we all use the same FX then I would say there's no problem to open even for a simple distortion FX.

Sounds like a fun time yea. But then I think... stuff like delay is real easy to do with midi. Sure you could just program the synth to respond to cc or velocity. But if it can't do that? You need a ton of instances. Seems like it's only gonna hurt people who have shitty computers you know?

Love that idea of a restricted arsenal anyway. Cool stuff.

Your right about the Delay, haven't thought about it that way...

Anyway what do you think if we two just start and come up with list and try out if it works?
Should we start with a list of what classes of plugins we would need like eq, dynamics, reverb and then choose a plugin per class?

[Armagibbon]

I'm def not the guy to list free plugs for stuff. Like I only use what's in the box already or I run out and buy what's missing haha
Gonna say anyway the hyakken and tal stuff is pretty hq. All that is def osc pool material.

[Taron]

I'm sure this will become a tricky brainstorm session. Maybe we should somehow setup a kind of table with the different types of desirable fx such as:
EQ | Compressor | Limiter | WaveShaper | Delay | Reverb | Psycho Acoustics | Amp SIM

...and whatever else one might use without violating the general OSC principles.

[ontrackp]

Sorry.... I just don't buy into that the brand of reverb, delay, compressor, DAW channel strip, really makes enough of a difference to skew the score of an OSC piece. I don't believe there is anyone out there who is writing and producing great tracks but getting poor scores because they don't use Cubase, or Logic or FL Studio or whatever. I'm in favor of more OSC's that have no restrictions on use of commercial compressors, EQ, reverb, etc....

[aciddose]

Those restrictions (free, or DAW) are to ensure that anyone entering the contest has equal access. For example you couldn't use an unreleased effect that isn't available to all the other entrants.

The DAW rule is really just a relaxation of the rule that doesn't make a whole lot of sense due to the fact anything could be considered a DAW plug-in as the authors of DAWs could include any arbitrary effects they like. The barrier then is the price of the DAW itself. The alternative is to ban DAW effects outright, but this is also a problem due to the fact any arbitrary effect could be considered a DAW effect.

Given this resulting conflict it makes sense that the rule was set to allow DAW effects with the specific limitations which apply in order to make things more simple (easier) for entrants.

So it's the result of the difficulty of establishing sensible limits on effects without specifically defining the allowed effects. Ultimately it comes down to what is reasonable or not which is wholly subjective.

[Taron]

Oh, it's not about comfort zone stuff- at least for me- it's all about just another curious experiment. Every OSC is an experiment of sorts, so this could add another little nudge to learn different things by both doing AND observing. Any such chance I find exciting.
When people use their DAWs special plugs, it's never quite clear for anyone, who doesn't use that one. But if we all were using the same effects, we could more easily learn from each other.

Not sure where you got the "brand" stuff getting from, but that sure shouldn't be about such things.
See, I'm actually likely the most liberal as all I truly care about is the music and the experience of playing around with a different "toy". Well, and maybe a bit of showing off, too, if at all possible, haha. But any opportunity to grow, especially if it's out of my comfort zone, but inside a legitimate ensemble of tools, I find desirable.
That ensemble, however, should really be "good". Like a solid foundation.
Could be interesting to have a kind of frequent experimental round for such things, like every 3 months or 6 months there would be a special OSC with either "commercial plugs/everything goes"-type of scenario or "Fixed set of plugs" or what ever else might be reasonable. I'd like it.

[zarf]

I'm coming round to the feeling that because there is no way it would be possible to establish one set of rules that everyone prefers (because quite naturally what is important to one person isn't necessarily what is important to another, because we all come to the OSC for our own reasons), then I think a promising way forward is to just have more months with altered rules so that everyone has some OSC months that suit them.

e.g. we vary between
Normal month (where normal just means how it is now)
Commercial fx allowed (like when we did that fairly recently)
Only freeware fx allowed - any
Only freeware fx allowed - from a decided list
(maybe if enough demand, occasionally) - Just fx in the synth (I know some have argued for that and it sounds fun to me, but I wouldn't want to do it very often)
+other suggestions that people want to see.

Maybe 1 month 'normal' followed by 1 month 'variation' of some kind, and repeat? Or as Taron suggested, maybe less often than that?

Just mix it up a bit more to appeal to as many people as possible maybe?

[] Peter:H []

Sorry.... I just don't buy into that the brand of reverb, delay, compressor, DAW channel strip, really makes enough of a difference to skew the score of an OSC piece. I don't believe there is anyone out there who is writing and producing great tracks but getting poor scores because they don't use Cubase, or Logic or FL Studio or whatever. I'm in favor of more OSC's that have no restrictions on use of commercial compressors, EQ, reverb, etc....

Understand your point, ontrackp. My point, why I suggested this is last months submission of the guy that doesn't use any FX at all and succeeded with it. That made me think about what the challenge in OSC really is? Is it the use of FX? Is it mastery of automation? Or is it the synth...To be honest, I've used a lot of presets and completely bent the sound with massive EQ, Multiband-Whatever and Automation that comes with cubase. If I then also use my Melda-Plugins like MultiBand-Granular or weird MXXX combinations I can have a single-key-press-song...Just my point of view and background to the suggestion. Hope you understand the background a bit better...

I mean for a first attempt I would start with a voluntary self restriction anyways. If there's enough people supporting the idea and would take part it would be fine for me.

BTW: If you had to choose - What single plugins would you definitely want to use?

I'm sure this will become a tricky brainstorm session. Maybe we should somehow setup a kind of table with the different types of desirable fx such as:
EQ | Compressor | Limiter | WaveShaper | Delay | Reverb | Psycho Acoustics | Amp SIM

...and whatever else one might use without violating the general OSC principles.

Yes, deciding on the the FX categories, that is a good 1st step . I would suggest these categories (added just some plug-ins candidates 574X was refering too)

1. Frequency (EQ and Filter): Nova67p, Luftikus
2. Dynamics (Compressor, Limiter, Gate, EnvelopeShaper):
3. Room (Delays, Reverbs, Pan): Auburn Panagement, U-He Protoverb
4. Modulation (From Chorus to Tremolo)
5. Distortion (Waveshapers, Amp Sim, Tube Simulations, ...)
6. Anything else (any left overs not covered in the other categories )

...and I would say pick 5 categories and max 2 plug-ins each?

[] Peter:H []

I'm coming round to the feeling that because there is no way it would be possible to establish one set of rules that everyone prefers (because quite naturally what is important to one person isn't necessarily what is important to another, because we all come to the OSC for our own reasons), then I think a promising way forward is to just have more months with altered rules so that everyone has some OSC months that suit them.

Good point! As I said in another post - I would not make the restricted fx set a ruling but a voluntary thing, at least for the first attempts. Everybody who has fun to meet the additional challenge can do so, but nobody is forced to...

And let me ask you as well, zarf: If you had to choose - What single plugins would you definitely want to use?

[zarf]

And let me ask you as well, zarf: If you had to choose - What single plugins would you definitely want to use?

To be honest, there are lots of different combinations that sound interesting to try to me, so I don't have just one answer to that.

I would enjoy a minimal month where everybody had to make do with just a specified compressor, eq and reverb. I feel I would learn lots from hearing how the more skilled producers among us could craft a finished sounding mix using just the total basics.
Or that could work just with the same FX but free to choose whatever you like in those categories.

But being able to use more is fun too so more expanded moths with fx from all the categories you mentioned would be great for me. I've never been bothered by chorus and stuff not being allowed but would be happy to have it allowed sometimes.

The key thing for me really would be to not get too worried about the details, view it as a creative learning opportunity, and just try different stuff out. I think it is cool as it is, and the longer I have spent on OSC the more respect I have for the way it is set up know that has come from years of trial and discussion. I remember the rules seemed a bit odd and arbitrary to me at the start but they seem like a pretty good middle-way that keeps most people happy enough now. (Not that I don't want to mix it up too )

Even more exciting to me is if we could find more ways to share knowledge of how people have achieved what they have achieved, with whatever tools they used. But that's another story

Sorry Peter can't really answer in the way I think you want, I hope I've made some sense!

[] Peter:H []

And let me ask you as well, zarf: If you had to choose - What single plugins would you definitely want to use?

To be honest, there are lots of different combinations that sound interesting to try to me, so I don't have just one answer to that.

I would enjoy a minimal month where everybody had to make do with just a specified compressor, eq and reverb. I feel I would learn lots from hearing how the more skilled producers among us could craft a finished sounding mix using just the total basics.
Or that could work just with the same FX but free to choose whatever you like in those categories.

But being able to use more is fun too so more expanded moths with fx from all the categories you mentioned would be great for me. I've never been bothered by chorus and stuff not being allowed but would be happy to have it allowed sometimes.

The key thing for me really would be to not get too worried about the details, view it as a creative learning opportunity, and just try different stuff out. I think it is cool as it is, and the longer I have spent on OSC the more respect I have for the way it is set up know that has come from years of trial and discussion. I remember the rules seemed a bit odd and arbitrary to me at the start but they seem like a pretty good middle-way that keeps most people happy enough now. (Not that I don't want to mix it up too )

Even more exciting to me is if we could find more ways to share knowledge of how people have achieved what they have achieved, with whatever tools they used. But that's another story

Sorry Peter can't really answer in the way I think you want, I hope I've made some sense!

Sure it does make sense. It's completely okay if you don't have suggestions now, but feel free to contribute whenever you feel like so. Actually you have contributed already in your suggestion to do a minimal month with just EQ, Compessor and Reverb...that would work for me, would be a great learning experience

[Frostline]

RE:Sporadic limited rule sets.
I vote no, if we are voting.

It would end up being a complicated mess. Seems it is difficult enough to get people to follow the set rules that have been in place for a long time (hello 7 or so people who can't even follow a simple track naming rule this month as an example), having those rules vary from month to month would just exacerbate the issue.

Example 1 of why I don't like the idea.
Why would I want to be forced use Nova67P(which is way more than a simple EQ) or Luftikus as a track EQ when something simple like ReaEQ is sufficient? Or don't some DAWs (thinking Cubase but it was SX3 the last time I used Cubase so I could be very wrong) have a built in 3 band EQ on each track, so why be forced add an additional FX just to lop a bit of low end off when that handy built in EQ is right there already on the track?

Example 2 of why I don't like the idea.
Some DAWs (looking at you Mu-Lab) have amazing parameter modulation options that are built in that could take several FX for me to sort of replicate in Reaper. Why would I want my options taken away because they require secondary FX that are not on some 'list'? Or do you hinder the Mu-Lab folks by telling them all that nifty parameter modulation stuff in the DAW is forbidden?

Yes I do see the potential learning experience if all used exactly the same tools. But with any DAW being allowed that just can't happen(unless you own all the DAWs). I can't open someone's Cubase project and see how they used tool X relative to how I used tool X in Reaper to learn how to use tool X better. I can't see what the Logic person automated or changed to learn from it. So the learning/educational aspect is very limited unless all are using the same DAW.
And even with the same DAW it can be limited in education when someone uses mostly busses vs someone who uses mostly inserts since each method has strengths and weaknesses. I laugh to myself just imagining someone trying to decipher my oddball folder/bus/send system. I look at my older projects and have no idea what I was trying to do often times.

Example 3 of why I don't like the idea.
One of my favorite aspects of the contest is seeing the different FX people tried with a given synth and hearing the result. Hearing a great sounding track and then seeing an FX I had never tried before is wonderful. It suggests a new tool for me to experiment with. It is much more rewarding than my old method of paging through the KVR plug-in database looking for new toys.

[] Peter:H []

RE:Sporadic limited rule sets.
I vote no, if we are voting.

Thanks for your input. All valid points. That makes the direction clear - It will only work as a voluntarily self restriction approach. Good for me...

Suggestion: In order to avoid a PhD thesis style of in depth discussion, I myself am going to start with a ReaPlugs month in OSC102, i.e. I will just use only the ReaPlugs and maximal two different ReaJS scripts. I would use panning and volume controls of the DAW and try to avoid overly extensive automation

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

I don't believe there is anyone out there who is writing and producing great tracks but getting poor scores because they don't use Cubase, or Logic or FL Studio or whatever

Your argument makes the case for the contrary, also. If the tools are of no influence at all, then why wouldn't they be a from standardised selection?