One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[574X]

the OSC is the losing it's spirit ...

I often like to use stock plugins for OSC.

There are countless reasons for this, including that I share my project files.

Unfortunately, Reaper's stock reverbs are harsh and unnatural in my comparisons to many other reverbs.

The simplest way to make Reaper's reverb sound good is to load a free reverb impulse response, of which there are many online. This is thanks to a fairly recent Reaper update.

I suggest using a simple reverb impulse response.

There are countless reverb impulses which would be completely unacceptable for the OSC because they are not a simple reverb.

There's a conspiracy theory that many reverbs are actually impulse response reverbs masquerading as something simpler, because most people aren't going to delve into this subject.


The spirit of the One Synth Challenge
was "friendly" musical composition using a single synth for all sounds, in real time, while not using additional modulating plugins.

Disqualification was extremely rare, with several winning entries using gratuitous EQ filter automation, and amp sims. The former would be absurd to limit, and the latter seeming to only make a significant difference if they use heavy distortion.

Things have clearly changed.




Cabinet simulation includes the frequency curve of the microphone, the relative location of the microphone, the speaker, the cabinet resonance, and the room, which can all be sculpted and replicated with a single precise equalizer. There are subtle nuances that occur depending upon when the frequencies interact with several forms of clipping and distortion, most of which are negligible, as long as there are multiple stages of saturation so that it's not perceived harshly, and that the mids are emphasized prior to significant clipping, so that the lower frequencies don't eclipse the frequency spectrum with excessive harmonic content.
Enjoy some of what Jim Lill brilliantly has to share:
https://youtu.be/wcBEOcPtlYk
https://youtu.be/y8GiF-GVLgg

Apologies, I don't have the luxury of responding to any further dissent from you regarding these matters.

[aciddose]

We've gone into this topic countless times in the past; suffice it to say that it's a question of the intended purpose of the OSC. When I listen to "synth demos", I want to hear a 100% clean version of that synthesizer using standard and practical features. I do not want to be listening to something extremely misleading using dozens of effects that make it impossible to hear what the synthesizer itself actually sounds like.

When I'm listening to music, I prefer lightly processed sounds with minimal amounts of EQ. Heavily processed tracks are interesting for their own aesthetic timbres, but such has its limits in terms of creativity and entertainment. Generally the best tracks have minimal amounts of processing and extremely high quality input: the maxim being "Garbage in, Garbage out".

These two aren't incompatible. You can further mix and process a track after entering it into OSC ... but these limitations while they impact your ability to produce a "commercial" timbre are a great advantage to those who want to judge a synthesizer from its raw output. So the OSC isn't merely a music competition, of which you can find plenty of examples online. The rules of the OSC are very particular to the attitude of those who are the most prolific producers here on the KVR forum. There were discussions of the idea I believe back in ~2006 or so and I recall posting in those discussions myself regarding online "one hour compos" on IRC and the rules therein. Sometimes these limitations can allow you to avoid "Choice paralysis" when you have too many options to pick from. After all, the focus of the competition is supposed to be: What can you do with one synthesizer?

[] Peter:H []

We've gone into this topic countless times in the past; suffice it to say that it's a question of the intended purpose of the OSC. When I listen to "synth demos", I want to hear a 100% clean version of that synthesizer using standard and practical features. I do not want to be listening to something extremely misleading using dozens of effects that make it impossible to hear what the synthesizer itself actually sounds like.

When I'm listening to music, I prefer lightly processed sounds with minimal amounts of EQ. Heavily processed tracks are interesting for their own aesthetic timbres, but such has its limits in terms of creativity and entertainment. Generally the best tracks have minimal amounts of processing and extremely high quality input: the maxim being "Garbage in, Garbage out".

These two aren't incompatible. You can further mix and process a track after entering it into OSC ... but these limitations while they impact your ability to produce a "commercial" timbre are a great advantage to those who want to judge a synthesizer from its raw output. So the OSC isn't merely a music competition, of which you can find plenty of examples online. The rules of the OSC are very particular to the attitude of those who are the most prolific producers here on the KVR forum. There were discussions of the idea I believe back in ~2006 or so and I recall posting in those discussions myself regarding online "one hour compos" on IRC and the rules therein. Sometimes these limitations can allow you to avoid "Choice paralysis" when you have too many options to pick from. After all, the focus of the competition is supposed to be: What can you do with one synthesizer?

Thanks for the valuable insight a.) into the discussions of the - so to say - past of the OSC and b.) what makes the C in OSC.
I'm actually overprocessing my tracks ... but I figure you're right that in my case overprocessing is a symptom of ... "Garbage in, Garbage out" ... went to a friend studio a month ago ... we went through the bass of a track and he was like "what the heck is all this plugins doing" ... "another EQ, really"

[574X]

... intended purpose of the OSC. When I listen to "synth demos", I want to hear a 100% clean version of that synthesizer using standard and practical features...

When I'm listening to music, I prefer lightly processed sounds...

...the focus of the competition is supposed to be: What can you do with one synthesizer?

The OSC is not a synth demo with no effects. It's a music competition. The focus is music.

For some, a friendly music competition could mean a primary focus on being friendly or being competitive. However, the most significant and permanent result of this endeavor is the music.

What separates this music competition from others is the specific way that the sound generating is limited. You would expect that the primary result is a focus on synth sound design, however many entrants don't have a deep understanding of synth sound design and are here for the primary purpose: A friendly synth music competition.

We are discussing minor nuances and aesthetics.

Additionally, the winners consistently use conventional mixing techniques at the minimum, and often use gratuitous compression and automated external filtering, which can also be considered standard modern mixing techniques. This demonstrates an objectively higher success rate for music that is made to sound more interesting and appealing being favored over accurate synth demos.

What I prefer, not that it's relevant, but while we're sharing, is unique, powerfully emotional music. Entrants occasionally win here with simple formulaic copies of pop edm, produced with 80% of the production quality of a commercial release. If they use a convolution reverb that sounds like a realistic room, it would make almost no difference. If someone has an obvious distorted guitar tone, listeners will often instantly know that the synth was fed through an ampsim style chain. OTOH it takes considerable experience to dial and mix guitar tone. Voters can factor these considerations into their rating if they so choose. The most important thing is that they enjoyed a friendly synth music competition.

[Tj Shredder]

Of course anybody who enters also wants to win, but taking a challenge is the more important part which every entrant will win anyway. If you ever listened to a beautiful performance of someone on stage with nothing but one single acoustic instrument, you know all those sound enhancing tools are not the core of music. Its easy to make one ping only to sound great by just adding a long reverb. But its also possible to make music without that reverb. Its a challenge which will lead you to the essence of music. If you succeed to utilize a one ping only without the reverb, you gained the skills to be a better composer. Its not in the tools, though we love them and get so much inspiration out of them…
Do not underestimate the Challenge part for your own growing…

[IV!]

By the way, DC'23 is coming, and we haven't used the interesting Win/Mac Nettle synthesizer from DC'21 yet. Works well on Windows at least, makes unusual sounds, would be a great candidate I think!
https://www.kvraudio.com/product/nettle-by-fellusive

[mehum]

I ask because it appears amp simulations have been banned entirely, which is usually just several stages of a variety of frequency filtering and clipping, followed by an impulse response of a cabinet/room.

I looked at the rules and did not see anything about amp sims being banned?
This is the only one that seems to apply:

Distortion: Please use distortion / tape saturation / bit crushing sparingly. Use your best judgement. Try to keep the original sound recognizable. Note that this does not apply if the distortion is built in to the synth.

I am of the opinion that the rules are a bit too limiting but I'm not running this and very rarely participates so my opinion shouldn't bear much weight

[Tj Shredder]

Nakst did it again. I propose his new Regency as the next OSC:
Free download: https://nakst.itch.io/regency
Chat on KVR: viewtopic.php?t=595992
Chat on Discord: https://discord.gg/aHnUxztsVe

[ElVincente]

Indeed would be great ! Clap only at the moment though, but hopefully clap-vst3 wrapper is ready now ?
Someone has experience with it ?

[silverpants]

My two pence on the spirit and purpose of OSC (having only been here 16 months)...

I think the balance is about right - with regards to effects. I think a synth developer should be able to showcase OSC tracks as demos of what the synth can do. So I totally agree no heavy modification effects should be allowed. OTOH - I think a competition which is 100% dry (no reverb, compressors etc) would make the songs difficult to listen to and would not allow any production/mastering skills to be used (a big part of a home musician's required skill-set).
Personally I don't like people using automation on external filters - that is misleading on what the on-board synth filters can do (some synths don't have any, like FM synths).

I think there is a good mix of people involved. Some love the deep understanding of synth design and they achieve amazing results. Some compose wonderful music. Some do some strange experiments, some try to achieve high quality in a known genre. It's a diverse group - which is a strength. And I always look forward to the new SC playlist being released. Something always makes me go "wow!".

I don't know if it's luck or some self governing system - but the amount of entries each month (30-40) is perfect. It's enough to be interesting and provide diversity, but also not so many that I can't listen to each one carefully over the month and provide feedback. With the internet being so huge - it's could easily be 1000 entries every month. And that would be unworkable. Perhaps the various forces keep the number orbiting 30. I'm glad it works like that.

I find OSC very valuable. I get to chat to fellow synth nerds. A hard deadline makes me finish work. And a group of people I respect listen carefully to my music (a difficult thing to achieve in today's attention economy). I'm very glad I found it (quite by accident)!

[MadMcMan]

Can i suggest a quilcom month https://flowstoners.com/quilcom any combo of quilcom synths.

[] Peter:H []

the OSC is the losing it's spirit ...

Cabinet simulation includes the frequency curve of the microphone, the relative location of the microphone, the speaker, the cabinet resonance, and the room, which can all be sculpted and replicated with a single precise equalizer.

You can "sculpt and replicate" room with an EQ? Okay, interesting ... I cannot do ER and Late with an EQ. BUt then when it's easy to do wih an EQ, please go for it.

[ELEX]

Can i suggest a quilcom month https://flowstoners.com/quilcom any combo of quilcom synths.

All good and well, but anything flowstone is Windows only, so pretty much a no go.

[574X]

the OSC is the losing it's spirit ...

Cabinet simulation includes the frequency curve of the microphone, the relative location of the microphone, the speaker, the cabinet resonance, and the room, which can all be sculpted and replicated with a single precise equalizer.

You can "sculpt and replicate" room with an EQ? Okay, interesting ... I cannot do ER and Late with an EQ. BUt then when it's easy to do wih an EQ, please go for it.

Peter, you clearly have lots of time on your hands, so definitely check out the videos I posted to educate yourself about guitar tone and the relevance of the room frequencies versus reflections.

[FrogsInPants]

You can "sculpt and replicate" room with an EQ? Okay, interesting ... I cannot do ER and Late with an EQ. BUt then when it's easy to do wih an EQ, please go for it.

Peter, you clearly have lots of time on your hands, so definitely check out the videos I posted to educate yourself about guitar tone and the relevance of the room frequencies versus reflections.

It's been a while since I watched those, but as I recall, he concluded the sound in the room had no noticeable effect on the signal coming from the guitar. That's a very different claim from being able to sculpt and replicate the sound of a room with EQ. And he tested some cabs vs. convolutions; I don't recall him claiming that could in general be replicated with EQs, either. He did conclude that amps could be well replicated by a series of EQs and distortion. Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I think you may be conflating some of his findings?