|
extra innings lovin posted:Do you use Ableton Live for sequencing, too, or just generating the parts? I use Ableton for absolutely everything. I would probably use Pro Tools if I recorded stuff, but all of it is 100% soft synth so there is no real need to. That and probably four or five VSTs is all I use. Thanks for the compliment man  .
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 06:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
Which software synth do you all use? Which would be the easiest for a beginner to learn? I've never made custom sounds before, and I've been doing Live's Operator lessons.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 07:13
|
|
|
Mannex posted:Which software synth do you all use? NI Komplete 5 DiscoDSP Discovery ASynth (well, I donated and got the license) Freebies: Synth1 Polyiblit U-He Zebra CM (CM stands for Computer Music, a mag that includes full "branded" versions of softsynths) Linplug Alpha CM quote:Which would be the easiest for a beginner to learn? I've never made custom sounds before, and I've been doing Live's Operator lessons. So you have made your own sounds, only as part of a lesson  . Anyway, from that list, Synth1 is probably the easiest. Yes, it doesn't look pretty. Yes, without effects it's not going to sound "professional" (stupid term anyway). But, if you understand it, you have a solid basis to work from.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 08:14
|
|
|
Yoozer posted:NI Komplete 5 If you had to choose only one synth from this package, which would it be?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 08:34
|
|
|
Phew. Tough choice, but I think Massive. I love Absynth's pad sounds - some great material in there. I love FM8's options to import DX7 sounds and the weird stuff you can make. I like how Pro-53 is just simple and doesn't slaughter your CPU. But I love, love, love Massive's interface and it's become a yardstick for other software in that aspect. Arturia? Good ideas and lovely looks, but god, the interface sucks. However, if it's not a meticulously rendered replica, people won't buy it (they put the looks above the sound).
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 09:45
|
|
|
Mannex posted:Which software synth do you all use? Which would be the easiest for a beginner to learn? I've never made custom sounds before, and I've been doing Live's Operator lessons. IMO, it's very hard to say which one is the easiest. I find z3ta+ to be the easiest, because that's what I learned synthesis on. That said, z3ta+ is more complex than most synths thanks to its modulation matrix. I hear people talking about how V-station is very easy, but I could never grasp it. My recommendation to you is to download a few demos, see which one most easily gives you the results you want just by twisting a few knobs. Try learning exactly what everything means (like, what does Amp EG mean? What does an LFO do? What's the difference between a square and a pulse?) and then you can try out some other synths. Those other synths may have the same functionalities but with another name. For example, resonance can be called Q or quality (although both are very uncommon). Learning one synth at a time is the best thing you can do, imo. Just use whatever gives you the best results. Preferably let us know what genres you're looking to make. Chances are there's a few synths most people in that genre already use and have made presets for. Presets are invaluable and a great resource to learn from. For example, Minimonsta and Minimoog are used a lot for electro house, whereas Vanguard, z3ta+ and Sylenth1 are used a lot in trance. You can use those synths for lots of different genres, but if you're going for a trancy sound, it's probably easier to make in Vanguard than in Minimoog, which brings me back to my first point; choose whatever you get the best results with.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 09:59
|
|
|
The Fog posted:Hi there, ML! Recreating a waveform based on how it looks rather than how it sounds is more than a little bit unintuitive and I'm not sure what you expect to gain by doing this but I am still confused about what you are showing me. Both pictures you posted show the same number of cycles. However the zoom ratio/scale is different. For this to make sense you need to read off the x axis and tell me what the start time of your selection is and what the end time of your selection is (picture 1). Subtract the start time from the end time to get the length of the selection. Then tell me what the start time is and what the end time is in picture 2. They should be exactly the same length. If they are not then it means that one of them has a shorter or longer period. For instance: 3 cycles of a sawtooth wave in 1 second = 3hz. 3 cycles of a sawtooth wave in 0.5 seconds = 6hz. If the second image shows a waveform that peaks at -6dB compared to the first image then I don't see what the problem is because you can just add 6dB of gain to the second image to make it as tall as the first. Looking at the both images side by side I can see a large spike just before the middle and another large spike towards the end in both waveforms so I don't quite understand why you are trying to recreate them when they appear to be already there. Finally, for any useful side by side comparison you would need to use the same scale on both axis in both pictures and you need to show the scale. I can't make out individual harmonics in the second picture. I can't tell how long the selection is in both pictures.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 13:46
|
|
|
The Fog posted:Just use whatever gives you the best results. Preferably let us know what genres you're looking to make. Chances are there's a few synths most people in that genre already use and have made presets for. Presets are invaluable and a great resource to learn from. For example, Minimonsta and Minimoog are used a lot for electro house, whereas Vanguard, z3ta+ and Sylenth1 are used a lot in trance. You can use those synths for lots of different genres, but if you're going for a trancy sound, it's probably easier to make in Vanguard than in Minimoog, which brings me back to my first point; choose whatever you get the best results with. Is this the general attitude on presets? I read up on basic synthesis and made a few tunes in Reason with Subtractor and Maelstrom's initial patches and tried to make my own synths, but they sounded very 8-bit and chiptuney (not at all what I want). Then yesterday I made a track using some presets, which I modified both on the synth and through external effects, and the track sounded so much better. I'm definitely of the mindset that whatever works easiest is best, but it seems like programming the synth yourself is the best way to get original tones. So when someone says something like Massive is a great synth, do they mean it allows you to create the best synths from scratch, or it comes with the best presets? Basically is using presets cheating, or shortchanging myself by using tones that everyone else with that piece of software is possibly using? Terrible Horse fucked around with this message at 13:58 on May 23, 2008 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 13:55
|
|
|
Use whatever you have to get the job done. The problem with presets isn't that it constitutes cheating because it doesn't. If you are looking for a very specific sound and there happens to be a preset that fits exactly what you want then use it. This rarely happens to me because I find that I want to make a very specific sound and there isn't always a preset that fits exactly what I want. I find this is the case most of the time actually. If you are used to always using presets you never learn to program a synth. This is a problem for example on synths which don't have presets or have really lovely ones that do not reflect what the synth is capable of. It can lead people to simply not use them or not make the most out of what they have because they don't know how they work. Nearly all of the Access Virus presets for example are interesting sound design tests that show you what you can use the synth for but most of them are unusable. They are in fact designed to show you how to achieve certain sounds and the idea then is to apply that knowledge to create sounds that you want. For examples theres a patch called Peanuts which sounds like a human voice making nonsensical vocalisations. If you break it down and study it you find that it uses specific wavetables and both resonant filters to simulate vocal formants and the vowel sounds are made by modulating the filter and amplifier envelope. However, if you never learn any of this you will never be able to simulate human voice sounds because you won't know what you have to do to create them. This creates alot of problems in the long run because you do get people that have alot of synths and do not have the knowledge to use them to achieve what they want. In the end, the only way they can expand the palette of sounds they can create is to buy more synths and get more preset libraries. That or actually learn how to use their synths. In some cases, certain presets are so recognisable and used so often that if you use them, it can be difficult to shake the idea that you are remaking a song you have heard before (with the same presets). For example, I can't use any of the stock pluck presets on Virus B because they were all used wholesale on VNV Nation records and when I use them for arps it sounds like I am just remaking a VNV Nation song except its not as good. I consider presets on signal processors like compressors to be universally bad because when you want to compress something, how much compression you use is entirely dependant on the sound you stick in the input and its peak amplitude. i.e. The settings you will want use will change every time you change anything on the channel before the compressor and it will change for every sound you want to compress. I've seen people with compressors on their multitracks and they are actually redundant because I look at the settings and see a threshold of -3dB and output gain of +5dB but the peak channel level is -6dB or something. Basically, the compressor is never triggering and may as well not be there because no part of the signal is sounding over threshold. The reason why they think it sounds better is because theres +5dB of gain and its louder but no compression is actually going on. The simpler solution is to take off the compressor and just bump up the channel gain by 5dB. Stuff like this is bad because when you see it happen you realise that the person making this project doesn't know what hes doing. It doesn't matter if it sounds great because all that matters is the end result but if you truly don't know what you are doing then you won't be able to recreate or better your successes. You are taking shots in the dark and whether you make a tune that sounds good or not is all fluke. I can't work like that and I don't want to work with others that work like that. I found that in the long run I only need presets to show me what a synth can do. Whether it can realistically simulate acoustic instruments, human vocalisations etc and other complex but specific sounds that are traditionally difficult to synthesize. I rarely use them in practice. I also found that I don't need alot of synths to create 90% of the sounds I want. I only ever really use 2 or 3 for a single song, mostly impOSCar, minimonsta and a Virus B. WanderingKid fucked around with this message at 14:27 on May 23, 2008 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 14:17
|
|
|
WanderingKid posted:Recreating a waveform based on how it looks rather than how it sounds is more than a little bit unintuitive and I'm not sure what you expect to gain by doing this but I am still confused about what you are showing me. Shh, picture 1 is zoomed into the selection shown in picture 2.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 15:21
|
|
|
 This is my second finished drum and bass tune, and I'd love to get some real constructive criticism - mostly in the EQ/mix down department. If I could get some suggestions/criticisms about the tune/flow of the tune as a whole as well, that'd really help me out. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 15:26
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:Is this the general attitude on presets? I read up on basic synthesis and made a few tunes in Reason with Subtractor and Maelstrom's initial patches and tried to make my own synths, but they sounded very 8-bit and chiptuney (not at all what I want). Then yesterday I made a track using some presets, which I modified both on the synth and through external effects, and the track sounded so much better. I'm definitely of the mindset that whatever works easiest is best, but it seems like programming the synth yourself is the best way to get original tones. So when someone says something like Massive is a great synth, do they mean it allows you to create the best synths from scratch, or it comes with the best presets? Presets aren't cheating. In music, the only thing that counts is the end result. Whenever you think that using a certain method to achieve what you want (be it using presets, premade samples or ripping/sampling stuff from another record) is cheating, you need to remember that that's how every successful producer does it. You can't let your morals get in between you and a hit. Also, most of your audience are casual listeners, not experienced producers. They'll never know that you used a preset, nor will they care. What they care about is strictly the end result, not how you got there. I'm with WanderingKid on this one, whatever you do, learn why you do it. Taking shots in the dark will only yield good results if you're lucky, which most of the time you won't. Don't worry about that at this stage though, just get to learn the synths. Use presets as inspiration and learn from them. If you're using them for your own tracks, you'll probably want to disable or alter a lot of stuff. Reverbs are a good example, cause most synth's reverbs sound like poo poo (except Nexus, which uses ArtsAcoustic's) so you'll want to replace that with another reverb which you use as a send effect, like a convolution reverb. Another example is bass sounds. Most bass presets are for example drenched in reverb, delay and phasing to make them sound big and impressive when listening in solo and stereo. The problem doesn't arise until you listen in mono (phase cancellation problems) or cut it to vinyl (needle jumping) or try to make it work in the mix (lacking bass/definition/tightness/consistency). In reality you want a bass that's synched/retriggered in mono without phasing problems and effects like delay or reverb to make it work in the mix. As WanderingKid already wisely stated, presets on compressors are a generally bad idea, because it depends on the loudness and character of the sound to begin with. Only use it if you know why you need it. In my inserts and sends I usually try to keep all my outputs and inputs at -0dB so I don't get tricked by thinking louder sounds better and so I can find any clipping immediately.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 16:22
|
|
|
haha oh man i hear that so often from producers nerdraging about loops and presets. They go out of their way to create new patches from scratch, because ORIGINALITY. meanwhile all their finished tracks sound like stock pieces of poo poo, but nevermind that because they made all their patches themselves, rite? same with drumloops, some people will rant about this untill the unicorns come home, how using loops in your music is "cheating" beacuse you didnt actually program every single sound or drumhit yourself. I say gently caress that. I hear released tracks all the time with loops i can actually recognize from certain collections that I own myself, but it fits well with the track so whatever you know. Theres also an ironic trend going on.. all those originality whiners are often people thats been producing for loving years without actually finishing a single track, ever. I kinda disagree with the compressor preset argument though, I use certain compressor presets all the time, but I know them well. I only use like 3 compressors on a regular basis, I know how they will affect the sound im applying it too, so whats wrong with using it like that. If its something really dynamic like a bassline or some poo poo then yeah, im gonna tweak it, but other times when i just want some more punch and growl into one, i just slam on a vintagevarmer with the bassline preset and tweak the drive knob to get the sound im after. My point is that after a while you get to know your gear and what it does to your sounds, this applies to all vst's and effects and what have you. you develop your own sound, and thus get a certain routine you use to develop that sound. This is why when you sometimes see a new artist emerging out of the blue, but over the course of the next few mounts they suddenly drop track after track. They have locked down their own routine, and have figured out how to emphasise on their own sound, and can therefore produce new tracks rapidly. Deadmau5 is a good recent example of this.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 16:50
|
|
|
So this is kind of a weird question, but I'm curious to any answers: What was the "Eureka!" moment, per se? When did you make the switch from "loving around, making cool noises" to "making a conscious effort towards a specific sound, and knowing how to go about making that sound"? Was it a certain piece of gear or software? Rearranging your workspace or work ethic? Becoming more disciplined about producing? Or was it just a natural progression over time? I know that it's an ambiguous question with no single kind of answer, but I ask because I myself am having some trouble getting everything off the ground. I'm in school, so I'm extremely limited in terms of time, finances, and even space (dorms). I'm really hoping that having an apartment next year and a better-paying job will help with both the space and the gear, but I'm interested in how other musicians got to where they are.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 17:49
|
|
|
extra innings lovin posted:When did you make the switch from "loving around, making cool noises" to "making a conscious effort towards a specific sound, and knowing how to go about making that sound"? The Fog posted:Preferably let us know what genres you're looking to make. I listen to a lot of Boards of Canada, Animal Collective, and The Books, so I'm ultimately trying to make more organic-sounding patches that wouldn't sound out of place with traditional instruments. Although for the music I listed I should probably learn how to use a sampler instead. I'm not trying to make any club music or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 19:35
|
|
|
extra innings lovin posted:So this is kind of a weird question, but I'm curious to any answers: This isnt a weird question at all, in fact its extremely relevant to any music producer. I never had an eureka moment in terms of sound design and such, or in terms of making any kind of sound. That either came natural to me, or I didnt percieve it as an obstacle from the beginning. My problem was harnessing all those sounds into something that sounds complete, and musical. Getting poo poo beyond that everpresent 8 bar loops that everyone has millions of projects of lying around. Most concepts and practices reveal themselves to you gradually over time, and there wasnt really that many EUREKA moments for me, in that sense. Its just your good old fashioned wax on-wax off mindset that applies here. Familiarity through repetition, I guess. But you need a direction! If you never have goalposts on the horizon, you will forever be making those 8 bar loops, and never really go anywhere. If your problem is with sound design, getting that synth to squeel just the way you want it to, you're gonna have to make a concious effort into learning how to use a synthesizer. My breakthrough per se, in that regard, was when I decided to stop loving around and dropping presets all over the place, focus on ONE single synth, and start learning every aspect of it. I mastered the concept, the signalpath of synths, and how sounds are shaped, but I never really used that knowledge extensively. So I sat down with ImpOSCar, and started loving with it in every way I could. Reading the manual, figuring out every single knob and setting, and mapping ALL the fun knobs to my midi controller so I could mess with it in realtime. After a few days with this I started feeling very comfortable with it, and I could pretty much do whatever I pictured in my head with whatever preset I had loaded. I never bothered making patches from scratch, so I just took the one closest to what I wanted, and tailored it to fit. So, thats the tip for you I guess. Focus on your favourite synth, and learn it inside out. You will soon realize that many concepts are shared by mosth synths, and whatever you learn from that experience, can be applied to many other synths. As for samples, thats another story, as I havent really found one that covers ALL my needs yet. I use Halion for the fancy AKAI images and patches I have, and If i just wanna mangle samples I just drop them onto an audiotrack in cubase. I feel this gives me enough flexibility, for what I want. You will find that whenever you stagnate, a different approach might just be what you need to break out of whatever rut you may be in at the time. In a way, its just like lifting weights!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 20:33
|
|
|
Mannex posted:
You should look into layering patches. Listening to Boards of canada, they seem to use alot of looped guitar sequences, rhodes keys, bitchrunching, distortion and TONS of delay. You should check out Ulrich Schnauss as well, if you havent. e: http://youtube.com/watch?v=k6d-iB9KcfE&feature=related Quincy Smallvoice fucked around with this message at 20:44 on May 23, 2008 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 20:41
|
|
|
I Dig Gardening posted:I use Ableton for absolutely everything. I would probably use Pro Tools if I recorded stuff, but all of it is 100% soft synth so there is no real need to. That and probably four or five VSTs is all I use. Thanks for the compliment man How much do you use Live's onboard synths? I ask because I use Operator for 90% of sounds.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 21:26
|
|
|
http://download.yousendit.com/8BD0336C2892D115 So here's a loop I grabbed from a MIDI file. I'm not making a project out of it, but what I'm trying to do is to get Operator to reasonably sound like a guitar. Operator is still one of the more unique instruments I've used, so I'm trying to experiment with it to see exactly what I can come up with. Every instrument is Operator, except the drums, which are just some of the samples that come default with Live. The project file is zipped there, as well as an MP3, for the other software users, if they still want to listen. 1.1 meg download. I think the guitars sound like they're supposed to be guitars, but I especially think the attack on the solo sounds really sudden Made with Live 6.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2008 21:53
|
|
|
On the subject of presets: Normally I'm all about completely making everything totally from scratch. The thing is that I just really enjoy the process of sound design, I love hearing a sound take shape and I really love when something unexpected happens and I end up with a sound I'd never even dreamed of before. With all the possibilities of synthesis, it seems like a waste to limit yourself to stock sounds. That said, I actually just recently was in a situation where I was working on a track, loaded up a softsynth, played a little melody right when it came up and it just sounded absolutely perfect, and I knew that I couldn't make a better sound for this specific song no matter how hard I tried. So of course I am not wholly opposed to using presets, but I could never imagine using them exclusively. And even in the case above I found it necessary to put my stamp on that sound with reverb, EQ, filtering etc. to get it just right. One of the issues is that electronic music is becoming a very crowded field. Anyone can download a copy of FL Studio or something (not to diss FL Studio - just using it as an example of well-known production software), fire up generic trance lead #1423 and off they go. Sound design is now more than ever an extremely crucial aspect of the production process. I think when you take the time to get things just right it will be apparent to your listeners. The Fog was correct when he said that most of your audience probably isn't going to be calling you out for using a preset or stock loop or something, but I think if you consistently ABUSE the usage of presets or stock loops then they will, on some level, notice that your tracks are starting to sound stagnant and lifeless. The bottom line for me would be that the amount of effort you put into your work is always apparent, whether that means making every single sound on your tracks from scratch or just finding creative ways to make a preset sit just right in your mix.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2008 00:42
|
|
|
I think it's more the fact that new producers think that more is better, and having a stack of 80 plugs is far superior than just using three or four. Plus, it's far easier to get a stacks of plugs than it is to get hardware, which I think makes some people not appreciate what it can do as much. The issue then comes in the fact that most people like that never take the time (or in most cases, have the knowledge) to learn how different devices sound, and how to best utilize them to make the sounds they want, including learning how things work. This is a reason a lot of scrubs stay away from Reason, since a lot of the time you're forced to do certain things by hand, which means knowing how devices work. Instead, they just scroll through a list of presets until they find something close enough. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that--after all, that may be the sound they were looking for (I use reverb presets all the time), but it limits their ability to be able to create a sound if needed. Either that, or they settle for the "close enough". I think some people collect plugs just for the sake of collecting plugs. Unless you're some hotshot studio owner, there's no real reason to have six different DAWs and 25 compressors. PRADA SLUT fucked around with this message at 01:39 on May 24, 2008 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2008 01:36
|
|
|
Kai was taken posted:How much do you use Live's onboard synths? I ask because I use Operator for 90% of sounds. I use them fairly often, I think Operator, Analog and Electric are all loving awesome synths. Minimalistic yet powerful, just like I like them. My three big VST synths are Predator, Pro-53 and Vanguard which I probably use more than Operator though. Operator is just such a bitch to program, I usually end up scrolling through presets and then mutilating that preset until I get something I like. I think tension sounds like absolute poo poo as much as I really, really want to love it. The violin and cello just sound terrible. But it's AWESOME for guitar sounds, especially distorted guitar. I've used it several times for a "solo electric guitar" type feel.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2008 02:07
|
|
|
On presets: There is no fairy dust involved in presets. None. There's no single thing that makes a preset somehow more magical or more bland than something you've made yourself. The exceptions are of course, samples - where the source material -is- fairy dust; and when everyone's used PROG 00: Universe and you end up doing the same after it was already played out after 5 years. The range of sounds in a synth is like an ocean: presets are islands you can use to dive off from. They do not impede you if you want to swim.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2008 02:30
|
|
|
I asked my dad if he had any easy-to-use hardware synths down in the basement and he dug out one of these. http://www.vintagesynth.com/misc/octavecat.shtml Any sound that comes out of it sounds really dirty. Maybe it needs recalibrated. I kind of like it. There's probably a shitload of dust inside. One time I got something that sounded like Black Moth Super Rainbow. Also, anyone who's trying to learn synths and has Ableton Live, try out their Analog instrument plugin. It's really easy to just start with one oscillator/filter and figure out what everything does. edit: Fixed! Sorry about that. Mannex fucked around with this message at 00:00 on May 25, 2008 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2008 09:57
|
|
|
Mannex posted:I asked my dad if he had any easy-to-use hardware synths down in the basement and he dug out one of these. Your link needs fixing, it just goes to the VSE main page. As a vintage synth enthusiast I'm eager to see what you've dug up here.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2008 10:07
|
|
|
Yoozer posted this link in the "Synthesis: I don't get it" thread. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2858274 It's a very extensive guide for learning synthesizers and how to make your own sounds. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/allsynthsecrets.htm Start from the bottom.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2008 00:01
|
|
|
Mannex posted:http://www.vintagesynth.com/misc/octavecat.shtml Oh man, that is really cool. Take care of that thing, maybe get it looked at if you've the cash for repairs/servicing. That's a really cool find for something that was just collecting dust in the basement. You should try to find out what else your pops has got down there.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2008 00:49
|
|
|
I just sat down and forced myself to finish working out the basic sketch of my first attempt at electro house. It wound up being very rock-meets-dance I guess, given that it's pretty simple pop structure. Thoughts? Keep in mind this is rough as hell -- I'm probably going to go through and redo the drums so that they better maintain interest (I've got some loops in the choruses right now that I want to replace, and I want to add some fills and flourishes to the drums), add in more glitches like the ones in the intro, add in automation, and maybe add some chopped up funky vocals or something for the listener to latch onto. The transitions need work too. I mostly just wanted to stop dawdling and get the basic song down before I started messing with all of that poo poo. nah thanks fucked around with this message at 07:30 on May 25, 2008 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2008 07:24
|
|
|
squidgee posted:I just sat down and forced myself to finish working out the basic sketch of my first attempt at electro house. It wound up being very rock-meets-dance I guess, given that it's pretty simple pop structure. Quite reminiscent of SebastiAn in the breaks at the beginning, but they feel too long at the break down in the middle. Pretty cool though. The clap could be harder, but its definitely catchy stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2008 09:26
|
|
|
Mannex posted:I asked my dad if he had any easy-to-use hardware synths down in the basement and he dug out one of these. He's got that in the basement? Holy crap, that's awesome. He's got any ideas of what it's worth on eBay? I hope it was treated well, but what you're saying about dust is  .If you say that it sounds "dirty" - as long as it's not out of tune it should be OK. Most software synths and modern synths sound a lot cleaner . You could try to replace some capacitors (older ones age badly) but then you're already getting into soldering territory.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2008 11:02
|
|
|
If I found that in my basement the first thing I would do is get a quote on getting it restored from places like http://www.synthrepairservices.com/ if you live in the UK. I would take it there in person rather than post it since analogues don't really like getting jostled in the mail. Dust shouldn't really be a problem and in most circumstances it is better that you don't persistantly clean your synth as you can sweep dust and dirt underneath rotary pots and clog them. I had a few scratchy pots that needed to be removed and cleaned because I kept clogging them with dirt which got there from overzealous cleaning. The important thing is you can get sound out of the thing. I would personally get it serviced and keep it but those things are quite rare so you could probably sell it for a pretty buck. If you choose to keep it you will probably have to take it in for servicing once every 1 or 2 years and you really shouldn't move the thing around alot because it will probably will go out of tune and develop all sorts of problems if it takes a knocking. I wouldn't ever gig with it because you will destroy it doing that. Also dirty sounding is good. I mean just take a listen to a Juno 60. Its filthy and I love it. Really want to buy one.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2008 13:05
|
|
|
extra innings lovin posted:So this is kind of a weird question, but I'm curious to any answers: In music, you don't have THE eureka-moment, it's all about several eureka-moments. Rome wasn't built in a day, as they say. You will learn how to make a conscious effort towards a specific sound once you've learned how to make them. A lot of people (including myself) think a good idea to learn to make sounds you like, by copying presets. Fire up 2 instances of the same synth. One with the preset you wanna copy, one initialized. Now play a certain melody for a few bars on the first synth, then the same melody on the second synth. Now the first synth will be your goal and the second will be what you have. Listen to the loop repeatedly and make a mental note of what knobs make a certain change in your patch as you twist the knobs. If you can't hear any difference when twisting a knob, I suggest you revert it and continue with the other knobs in the mean time. Chances are that the knob wasn't even used and was just residue and if not, in most cases you will be able to hear the difference later on. Once you've done that, you'll know a lot about synthesis and be able to recreate many of the other presets in that synth. Try concentrating on those patches that you think sound very complex and learn how to do those. You'll see it's not as hard as it seems at first. As for developing and becoming more efficient, there's a simple answer which takes a long time to master: Structure. Really, it's all about doing things in a structured manner. Have the goal ready before you even fire up your sequencer. You can practice by writing music on a piece of paper. Write down what parts you want to go where in the track. Then just make it sound as good as you can.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2008 15:30
|
|
|
extra innings lovin posted:What was the "Eureka!" moment, per se? When did you make the switch from "loving around, making cool noises" to "making a conscious effort towards a specific sound, and knowing how to go about making that sound"? I must say that the small version of this helped me a lot - a Juno is a one-oscillator synthesizer, and every sample-playback machine is one too (plus, it lacks the intuitive interface). The Nord made me change my thinking completely; you eventually learn to do the most with a minimum amount of tools (because of DSP power). Also, dumping Cubase and switching to Ableton helped a lot .
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2008 18:28
|
|
|
When I mean remix I meant more into the taking a song and making it fairly different in the long run I guess. That post wasn't entirely serious by the way.ManoliIsFat posted:I think you shouldn't make electronic music. But if you must, try FL Studio. You won't need the pimp edition with all the fancy synths. I'd really like to do my own stuff, but I'd don't know if I could do that starting from scratch. I'd like to try though. pengO posted:even though all your friends are totally into soulwax remixes and justice and remixing seems like a great way to get some rear end this too shall pass and you'll be left alone, sobbing and holding a battered midi controller, stripped of all your pride and wearing nothing but your 300 dollar dior jeans Oh god I have seen the future and it is terrible.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2008 05:39
|
|
|
IanTheM posted:It's decent, but it seems a but more like it'd make good backing music. Also, try to give a heavier kick drum. The second part is actually good too, though the last break down kind of kills it. One thing I've noticed is: try not to over-do the drums, busy drums can be extremely distracting if they're not meant to be. Keep going though, tonnes of potential. forgive me if this was already asked, but how does one go about making that talking guitar type sound that you're using in the second track? I love that and I've always wondered how it's done...
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2008 11:29
|
|
|
ThrillKiller posted:forgive me if this was already asked, but how does one go about making that talking guitar type sound that you're using in the second track? I love that and I've always wondered how it's done... It's a wahwah pedal/filter, kind of like what Hendrix used at the beginning of Voodoo Child (Slight Return). Just look for a wahwah VST, I personally used the one that came with Logic, but I'm sure they're out there.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2008 18:49
|
|
|
You can also hack a wah wah with automating an EQ if you're in a pinch.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2008 20:57
|
|
|
Does anyone know how to change the location that Reason searches for the default sound banks in? I tried to move them to my external drive because my macbook has a puny little hard drive but when I launch Reason after doing that, it tells me to install the Reason 4 disc, presumably to install the "missing" sound banks.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2008 22:26
|
|
|
I present to you YAEHWIP: Yet Another Electro House Work In Progress. Feedback etc would be super appreciated, since this is just a rough draft.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2008 09:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
squidgee posted:I present to you YAEHWIP: Yet Another Electro House Work In Progress. Its pretty good over-all, in terms of goals of being an electro track, but the drums I feel need way more power. The current drums remind me a lot of those presets you have on a Roland 808. Or at least the highhats feel really weak. Are you planning on keeping it that minimalist?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2008 09:57
|
|