>>48386596 People only use presets. Why bother making sounds, if someone much more talented than you does a better job. Have you looking into synthesis and music theory? It ridiculous. No one can be expected to waste time on that. If the the presets suck, download another synth.
After all, why have to make every instrument from scratch? It makes sense to modify sounds to make them fit better into your intention but otherwise composition and mixing is really the thing that you need to do good music
>>48386852 I understand that you would encourage that, but let's get real, someone who's not experienced already in production doesn't need to get too much into it and may still make good music if he's talented
>>48386888 Guitar players don't actually understand how sound waves work either, they just know their finger techniques. Percussive instruments you can just hit and make a sound. It's intuitive.
>>48386975 I used to never use structure and just recorded as I went. I used to play something that's a mix of post-rock and dream pop. People apparently liked that. I started doing something electronic music mixed with those other elements. The latest song sounds very generic according to those people. It's around 4 minutes. One person said they lost interest early on.
>>48387043 When you structure a song you're using your rational mind, when you do things as you go you're using your intuition. Different ways to go about music.
>>48387088 That may or not be true, but I do know good musicians who just grabbed their instrument and learned how to make music intuitively, they don't actually "know" how their instrument works or any kind of theory
>>48387130 I know that but I see where they're coming from myself. They liked a song I did earlier which was my first when moving towards the electronic genre. It's just that my latest one has been much of a success.
>>48386999 why? that's the most appealing part of making this kind of music for me, being able to create completely new original compositions. following your logic, everyone should just use loops all the time and not even bother with synths. fuck it just sample other peoples songs. because why bother making anything when someone already does it better?
>>48387195 >>48387240 How big was that sample pool of people who told you it was generic? Do they like the kind of music you're trying to produce now or are they friends/listeners who mostly like stuff closer to your older material?
Not trying to shift the blame, but you might be getting feedback from/trying to please the wrong crowd
>>48387323 A small amount which is the amount of listeners I have anyway. Mostly friends. They liked the first electronic track I did, as did many other people in the chiptune community (it was chiptune mixed with dreampop). I sent the new track to friends who give good opinions. They said it's okay but it just sounds generic and lacks the charm of my usual stuff. I also posted it on /mu/ and instantly got railed on.
>>48387314 but where does that logic end? if you shouldn't bother trying to make your own synths, why bother making your own drum patterns? etc i'm not saying dont use presets but discouraging it and saying it's a waste of time is kind of stupid. it's not like a cool synth sound is always going to be super complex and hard to make.
>>48387351 Your friends opinions are worthless. Might as well show it your mom. /mu/ is probably more honest, because they don`t like you. >>48387400 The sarcasm just went over your head. Just let it go.
>>48387625 Yeah, fuck. I used to be one of those "guitar rock is the only way to go" and "hurr durr analog production takes talent". I think my problem is finding my niche and trying to come up with good material based on that.
>>48387479 Unless you want to be a money making faggot like Avicii. Fuck that guy. He just uses presets and samples from his real producer friends.
There's nothing wrong with using presets for inspiration. Sometimes I'll have an idea in my head and flip through a bunch of presets til I find something close. From there you just fuck with some settings *I'd recommend knowing a little bit how synths work before going nuts* but always be sure to make that sound yours. You can easily do it with effects/filters/a few tweaks of the preset. Hope that helps
>>48388455 Who cares if he uses presets? It's not like using an premade timbre composes the track for you. Avicii, despite being pleb, clearly can do that by himself. >From there you just fuck with some settings *I'd recommend knowing a little bit how synths work before going nuts* but always be sure to make that sound yours. You can easily do it with effects/filters/a few tweaks of the preset. Hope that helps Sure, you can do that if you want something different from, but close to, the preset. But fucking with something you already like just because of preset stigma is retarded. No need to reinvent the wheel, you know.
>>48388499 Honestly I think that thing would ultimately be more of a toy in the way that it's probably better for having fun than actually making music. Having to fuck around with all the cables and then remembering how all the knobs were and what was plugged where for a certain sound wouldn't be condusive to a good workflow.
>>48388572 >Why would you need to remember everything? If you're working on something over the course of several sessions, obviously. >>48388572 >You sound like you don't know much about actual studio workflow, just bedroom workflow. And you sound like a condescending prick. Sure if you're doing the final recording in a studio then you only need to set it once, but when you're actually writing there's a good chance you're going to do it in bursts, which would be a pain if you wanted to use it for several different sounds.
I was hoping I'd get my microbrute on friday, but it turns out it won't arrive until wednesday so I'm pretty bummed. I'm really interested in just spending a good 4-5 hours straight with my headphones on making as many wicked strange sounds as I can. I'm also interested in just how fat and warm I can make the bass sound, but sound effects are really fun too and it's going to be so fun getting out of the box and working with one-knob-per-function hardware for a change.
Fun being the key word. We need to use it more. People need to stop taking music so super seriously, if you're not having fun you're doing it wrong.
>>48388521 If you like it, why change it? You're right there. Don't change your sound just because of a stigma. What I meant is if you're only using it for inspiration it can be very helpful. If you lay down a melody and flip through presets, the sound changes quite a bit and something might grab your attention more than another and I'll work from there. This could be because I work inside ableton using their presets which are pretty EDM-ish imo
>>48388603 You realize it was always intended as a studio tool? It's not meant to be taken to a stage. >and you sound like a condescending prick I was making an observation, you're just hurling insults
>>48388630 >It's not meant to be taken to a stage. I never said anything about the stage. I'm talking writing the actual songs. They do have to be written before you can record them after all. >I was making an observation An unfounded observation. >>48388641 nice shitposting :^)
Even if guitar players don't know the technical terms for things, they still understand how sound waves work and music theory, even if just on an intuitive level. Just like how you could have a hardware synth and just play with the knob for a few years and never learn the technical aspects of it, but figure out how to make all sorts of sounds by ear and experimentation.
It's like how a football player or martial artist might not understand the technical aspects of the Physics involved, but they still know how to punch or kick or throw in just the right way, or how to tackle somebody or throw the football with spin and at a certain angle so it lands in the right place for someone to catch it.
In a similar sense: I know many people (myself included) who take presets and then tweak them to death to create entirely new sounds, and use them as a starting point. The point of that other anon's original joke was that you shouldn't JUST use presets, as-is. They're usually flat and boring, and anyone can use them so they often wind up sounding unoriginal.
They can certainly make good starting points, though.
>What happens when you think of a sound you'd like to use and there's no preset that matches it?
And also this is important to consider, too. With greater understand of sound synthesis, it becomes far easier to create interesting new sounds that you like. But you could theoretically start with a variety of presets and tweak them and shape them into what you need, which might end up sounding nothing like the original preset btw.
It's like how a person who has an indepth understanding of music theory can probably write a more complex and interesting orchestral piece than someone who knows nothing. Thinking otherwise is like thinking a person who has never picked up a hammer and chisel before in his life could create a work of art as well as Donatello. I mean, I suppose it's possible, but extremely unlikely unless that person is an autistic savant or something, and even then I'm sure they'd need to get used to handling the tools and practice a good deal to get a feel for how to sculpt the stone (just like we need to do with sculpting sounds).
You aren't just gonna hit a rock and have the luck of all of the pieces suddenly falling off in such a way as to create a masterpiece, know what I mean?
Hey guys, I know these threads are more just analog gear threads than general production threads now but I was wondering if you could help on a more general production topic...
Are there ways of determining a poor mix / master without listening to it? I.e. could one look at a waveform of a track and decide that it was badly mastered or from a spectrogram / spectrum, or from that stereo field thingy in Ozone?
Really depends on which preset we're talking about here. The reason why everyone berates them is that they're all, for the most part, shit.
To each his own, though. Kinda kills the creative process imo, though. Making new sounds no one has thought of before is a big part of the process to me. You just aren't going to get that with presets since they're available from the get-go for anyone who owns the software.
It was at my university. They had a room in the corner of the music school rarely ever used, with maybe $2,000,000 worth of classic synths. I was the only person in the whole goddamn school who could make that Moog work.
>>48388865 >Are there ways of determining a poor mix / master without listening to it? No. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about, because even if you use a reference track, it will have different elements with different frequency ranges and levels. It's not a one-size-fits-all kind of thing.
>>48388742 why don't they make more effects pedals like this? i feel like they would sell really well by 'like this' i mean with a bunch of synth-style knobs with their real function written on them- ideal for anyone that owns a guitar and enjoys tinkering.
>>48388865 >>48388888 yeah, nice point. clipping, in or out of Ozone/your respective plugins, typically means your mix has issues >>48388900 http://www.schneidersladen.de/en/knas-ekdahl-moisturizer-spring-reverb.html
>>48388903 IIRC Malekko makes some nice spring reverb pedals...
>>48388875 >that they're all, for the most part, shit. Disagree here. I've found that most big name VSTs come with at least a handfull of useful sounds. Especially basic things like simple pads and leads. >Making new sounds no one has thought of before is a big part of the process to me This, I guess, is just a difference of opinion. I'd rather write a solid song than spend a bunch of time on trying to be different for its own sake.
>>48388959 >I'd rather write a solid song than spend a bunch of time on trying to be different for its own sake. That's not what it is about. It's about making the sound the way you want it to. It's not trying to be different.
>>48388978 I guess. I was just referring to the "making sounds no one has ever heard before" thing. I just find that there's only so different you can get while still being very usable. Not that there's anything wrong with out there sounds by themselves.
I think the thing is that altering patches is part of the mixing/mastering process.
No one is saying you can't use presets, but you're gonna have to do SOMETHING to them to make them sound good. Whether fx or otherwise. If you just start playing a preset and that's it, it'll probably sound like ass no matter how good the composition.
But hey feel free to post some of your preset songs. Again, really depends on the individual preset.
>>48389086 I don't think the problem is the preset itself in a void, but how it sits in a mix. A lot of them sound very polished, for lack of a better term, and stick out a lot compared to user patches or whatever else you might be doing. Then there's the problem of using several presets from different sound designers, etc. Basically I think the sounding like ass bit is because of a lack of cohesiveness with the rest of the track.
Does anyone know anything good to read? I've read synth secrets. I'd like something that takes it a bit further, general production or even something about acoustics without going straight into equations and shit. Preferably without a focus on dance music either but whatever really.
>>48389058 Ok, how about things that might be worth avoiding (in most cases) if one wants a pro-sounding finished result.
For electronic / dance music (v. broad, I know), what kind of dynamic ranges are we talking, roughly? Would a middle section of a track that's -17dB quieter than the ending section be something a pro studio would do? What dynamic range is too small, too?
How about overall shape of the spectrogram? A downward slope from left to right or flat?
Stereo width on synths? Is totally flat mono with no variance something a pro studio would do or would they likely just narrow the stereo image rather than go full mono?
What about synths with overtones that extend past 20khz? And hi-hats that go that high too? Advisable or not?
>>48390319 What kind of sounds are you trying to create? I'd say the volume level and ratio of your operators and their envelopes are the main things to play with. As soon as you start detuning things will get messy very quickly.
I was thinking of picking up a MicroBrute for a cheap analog synth, but I'd also really like to get a polyphonic one instead. Anyone have any recommendations for a cheap (under $500) polyphonic synth? Doesn't have to be analog, but I'd prefer it
>>48390708 roland jx-3p or jx-8p. they're highly underrated because of their digital era inspired knob interfaces, but underneath are strong analog synths, and with a programmer like the kiwi patch editor you can't go wrong.
>>48390732 Not every day, but there's usually the assinine comment, like "can any of you actually play keyboard" or "why aren't there enough soundclouds in here" when it's obviously not a soundcloud thread.
>>48390753 I'm more like the guy taking a detour home because I've been driving the same route every day for years, and know how to avoid the traffic. I was "ahead of the curve" and didn't have to pay the stupid prices you see these days.
I meant the whole thing. Nothing you said would be something a pro studio would do. Huge gaps in volume, useless frequencies on things that will just complicate mixing and conversion to non lossless formats.
In down to talk about production but you could have answered those questions with Google.
>>48391308 there's just better bang for your buck. Korg is a brand name too, so with names like Korg and Moog you're often paying for more than just the hardware. Although I like Moog better than Korg..
If someone offered me a microkorg for 100 bucks, I would buy it no problem. but I already have everything I need on that level of synthesis so it'd just be a toy. It's also not that great for learning about synthesis
>>48391377 Korg doesn't have even half as much of a brand tax as Moog does, though. Moog gear is straight overpriced, especially for how boring their synths sound (to me at least) >>48391308 Alesis Micron sounds better
>>48391417 I feel like Korg is a much bigger company, and is willing to pour out a lot more consumer level products. I like the sound of moogs, although I could probably see you might think it's boring I like to think of it as "classic". I also like the mom and pop feel that Moog has to them, but that's another thing that we pay for, lol!
>>48391449 I've heard tons of demos of them and they just don't sound interesting to me. Not bad, just not inspiring. Maybe half of the appeal is in the hands on, but I just don't get the praise for them based on the sound alone. >>48391510 Korg is definitely bigger, but most of their products are priced alright, even if not all of them are exceptional. Their customer support is also super good in my experience.
>>48391659 Sure, but it's not super realistic for me to get my hands on one myself. Regardless, physically touching it won't make it sound better. Maybe the people who demo it just aren't doing it justice, but I'm not sure how feasible every single one of them getting it wrong is. Happen to have any videos that you think show it well? It's pretty unlikely I'll be able to try one in the near future.
>>48391759 >Happen to have any videos that you think show it well? Again, I don't think any justice can be done by posting videos. They're too bandlimiting. I'm talking straight synth output to headphones or a powered speaker of some sort.
>tfw I'll never be able to afford modular synths since stuff like filters can be as expensive as £100 >tfw I'll never have a huge rack >tfw I'll be stuck using cracked VSTs for the rest of my life unless I make it big >tfw the chances of that are 1 in a million.
>>48391789 Eh, not sure I buy that. Sure Youtube does fuck with audio a bit, but a good sounding synth should sound good regardless. Again, not saying it's necessarily bad, but I just don't hear the hype.
>>48391955 I'm not saying that you need to like them either. I'm just saying that you need to actually use one to really judge how it sounds, and I don't really care how much you try to justify youtube compression, because it doesn't change how poor a video captures the sound.
>>48391934 Honestly, getting a rack full of respectable gear isn't too expensive. I've got a pretty sizable amount of rack gear, and I've spent around $900 on it. It has two power amps, a mixer, a vocoder, a sampler, what is essentially 6 DX7s, and two FX racks.
Don't focus on "making it", just get a job, and with some extra dosh you have from not buying pot all of the time can be saved for good gear.
>>48391994 >need to actually use one to really judge how it sounds This is kind of a silly argument. So you can't have any opinion on anything that you've never personally used before? No, that's kind of retarded. I'm open to believing that they feel satisfying to play, but I just don't think they sound great. Maybe you can suggest a track or something that used one so I can hear it in an audio quality you deem acceptable? >because it doesn't change how poor a video captures the sound. Problem is that there are a good deal of reviews for other instruments that sound pretty great to me even with the compression.
>>48392092 But you're talking about an instrument with a ton of low frequencies. You'd need good DACs and speakers to play them back, let alone a good ADC to record it. The issue is that it's much harder to reproduce low harmonics because they require so much energy to play.
Once again, I don't care how much you want a video or an audio clip. Just play one, and you'll realize where the hype comes from. Until then, stay hating, idc.
>>48392156 So now you're claiming that no recorded audio will ever do it justice? What good is an instrument that you can't even use to make music? This is probably another reason I'm just no into Moog stuff: because its fans act like it's a religious thing that exists outside the bounds of science or rationality. It's just audio, not magic. >stay hating, idc. I will. Stay delusional with your moog mysticism or whatever.
>>48392225 The point I'm trying to make is that you aren't willing to give it a try. You'd rather just sit at home and listen to a youtube video and judge it by that. You don't want to actually try the instrument. If you're not willing to do that, then what's the point of trying to convince you?
I'm not worshipping Moog endlessly. I'm just saying that you're going to condemn the synth because of a video, you're doing it for all of the wrong reasons.
>>48392274 >The point I'm trying to make is that you aren't willing to give it a try. Never said that. But I definitely don't know anyone willing to lend me theirs. I'd love to try one. Can you even read? I said nothing I've heard from it sounds worth the praise to me, that's all I said. >>48392295 >oh no, he disagrees with me! Pls go.
>>48392446 Something more specific, perhaps? And don't act autistic about it, I mean that nothing I've heard sounds great to me is the general message I conveyed, not that it's literally verbatim all I said.
>>48392465 >you just don't seem to understand the atmosphere of these threads. We try to avoid petty shit slinging. Lel, no. These threads always devolve to this. Don't ignore the other guys shittiness, though. Can't single only one person out.
>>48392484 I meant that you kept asking for demos even though I said I don't think they will do them justice, and how you went on to generalize that Moog fans act like it's a religious thing. And your need to justify Youtube compression when the general consensus it that it's pretty bad.
>>48392590 >kept asking for demos You seemed pretty intent on trying to change my mind, figured I'd give you a chance. > I said I don't think they will do them justice >youtube compression I even offered for you to suggest a track I could download in FLAC or something, nothing hostile there or against what I said there. > generalize that Moog fans act like it's a religious thing Only because of your shitty >Just play one, and you'll realize where the hype comes from. Until then, stay hating, idc. You absolutely made it out to be an unexplainable religious experience.
>>48392609 No he wasn't. Especially at the end. He was trying to weasel his way out of putting anything forward to his point, which is whatever, but ending it with "keep hating idc" is just acting like a prick. There was no real hostility until that.
>>48392700 >You're the one who brought up religious mysticism. Because you were acting like it. >I was trying to say it's something you should really try out. More like you were making it out to be an experience that could only be felt in person. A simple "maybe you just don't like it" would have made more sense than acting like it's like meeting Jesus or something.
>>48392794 My only point was to say that you shouldn't condemn it without actually trying it first. A simple "I suppose I could postpone judging Moog until then" would have made more sense than acting like every last person who has a Moog is religious about it.
>>48392850 I had clearly stated that I had only heard them and not tried, so it's not like I was unconditionally saying they were shite. I even said that I could see that people enjoy them for reasons that can't be heard, like the hands on and visceral feel or whatever. I can positively make a judgement on the sound of something that I've only heard, though. Or do you not make judgements about bands until you've seen them live? Your whole point about not being able to have on opinion on something, especially something that is used to make (recordable) noise, until you've held it in your hands is just silly.
>>48392922 I never said that you can't have an opinion. My point was to not condemn it as all hype and brand naming because you haven't actually given it a try yourself. How hard is this to understand?
Is the person making the demo using a crappy ADC? Are they even playing patches you would like to make? Do you have a good DAC? I can't be the one to judge any of this considering I'm not you. Therefore, my best recommendation to you before just saying that you don't like moog synths is to try them out before passing over them entirely.
>>48393010 >I never said that you can't have an opinion. You certainly acted like it. >My point was to not condemn it as all hype and brand naming I didn't until you pulled the whole "you have to be there" thing And again, I posit that you a good synth should sound good even under less than pristine recording conditions. Pretty sure it's just not for me as far as I can tell.
>>48393232 >And again, I posit that you a good synth should sound good even under less than pristine recording conditions. Even then, I have no idea what kind of synth sounds you want, nor do I have a catalog of what Moog videos sound good, and which sound bad.
>>48385138 Has anyone got experience with recording electronic music to tape and then back to wav? I'm trying to get a more lofi sound for my music even with tape hiss and noise over a tune it just sounds tacked on
Could someone explain to me all of this hype over analog gear and wtf "fat" and "warm" mean in this context?
I hear it all the time and I can't for the life of me understand wtf people are talking about, since it's often very difficult to tell the difference between analog and digital sounds in A/B tests, especially when in a mix.
You could try assembling one, I'm sure the community would appreciate it.
Just watch the threads as they're created and think up questions to ask for information you think would be useful for "beginners". Assemble the answers in a Word document or something, make a pastebin for it when it's of a reasonable size.
>>48395667 fat and warm haven't really been mentioned. There are pretty big difference, aliasing is non-existent (possible in digital, but hardly anybody has the DACs capable of it), filter response is different, mixing is different. If you overdrive a filter in a digital domain, you get hard clipping. Overdriving a mixer in analog yields saturation. It may not matter in the final mix, but that's hardly the point, it's how it affects the way you work and play with the sound.
Thanks for all of the responses on the subject, guys. Original commenter here.
Honestly, I'm not going to know until I get it irl and can start messing with it, where I can hear it for myself and get a better understanding of what the features will do.
I don't really know what I mean by "fat" and "warm", I thought all VCO analogs were like that. Aggressive is fine, but I'd generally like to avoid harsh. Low, boomy, "wooooom" type of sounds would be nice, though some distortion fuzz around the edges is fine. I'm working in probably the C2-C3 bass range here.
Worse comes to worst I'm sure some digital wizardry with creating a stereo image using multiple tracks and panning to give it a "fuller" sound during processing.
I'm curious to hear what the harsher sounds might sound like with very low LP cutoffs.
How would you guys classify the microbrute's sound as an analog synth compared to other analog synths? This is my first foray into analog and VCO stuff, trying to get out of the box and get the analog sound everyone always talks about as being so great. In the end, I'll settle for being able to produce interesting noises, but I don't really plan on getting into really crazy screechy territory.
>>48396025 >microbrute Well if you keep the levels below 80% on the mixer, you can get your typical analog sounds. Pushing it past that gets you into "aggressive" territory. If distortion is a concern, it's not really present unless you try to get it.
You're not going to get harsh sounds in the bass register with the filter cut lower, as it filters that stuff out.
Well yeah, exactly. I know about the overdriving of the mixers, which I will probably stay below (though I'm sure I'll inevitably experiment with every setting), and exactly, low LP cutoffs should remove much of the harsher sounds.
So wouldn't that be in warm/fat bass territory, then? With the right settings? I mean there's always digital fx and eq and compression to work with, but I think with the right low settings it should still be able to be pretty warm and fat. From what I've heard, the brute factor on the low levels tends to saturate the signal, so I figure a subtle use of it could also help create a fatter sound. I feel like too many people are throwing all of the knobs to 11 and wondering why it sounds so harsh, when it doesn't have to if you use it right.
I mean, I'll know when I actually get it and hear it irl for myself, this is all just conjecture based on my research.
Thanks. I've honestly done far too much research on all of the sub-$1000 analog synths, somewhere in the 6 months to a year stage, not sure exactly, probably closer to a year. A lot of it just trying to understand wtf the hype is over analog sound and why VCO's for example sound different from DCO's and DO's.
It's kinda funny how I ended up with getting the cheapest one out there lol, when I was heavily considering something in the Pulse 2 range. My second analog will likely be the Mono Lancet btw, but it's more expensive so I got the mB first since I also enjoy it's sounds and one-knob/slider-per-feature set up and small footprint (I'm actually one of those weird people who LIKES minikeys, as long as they're constructed reasonably well, for less cost and for portability). I don't care about live synth playing anymore tbh. I'll control everything through USB without the modular dock, no big deal. If I ever play live, I'll just sample everything and only bring my laptop, APC40, and maybe the microbrute too, but that's it.
>>48396632 You sound like you've done the exact amount of research you've needed to. You don't ask for people to tell you what synth you need, you did the research and made choices based on your needs and preferences. Keep on keeping on, because you're on the right path.
It does make a difference, but for reasons involving shit like physics and electronics. But for your benefit, I'll just copy a good explanation someone posted here awhile back that I saved:
>DCOs decrease in amplitude as frequency increases. There's a in compensation, but it's not linear. A VCO has linear amplitude across all frequencies.
>A DCO outputs in the range of microvolts. Some VCOs operate up to 10v peak to peak. This affects filter characteristics, namely distortion/saturation.
>As for waveshaping, DCOs are a square core that can be waveshaped to other waveforms.
>VCOs are either saw core or triangle core depending on the circuit and respond to modulation in different ways. They also use different waveshaping methods than each other and DCOs.
>All of this affects "the sound" in some way.
You're correct that sound also changes on a synth to synth basis, but it's all based on the components used. Filters are especially important, VCF's don't have the terrible "stepping" that DCF's have. You can hear this by taking any digital DAW, turning the resonance all the way up, and then doing a filter sweep as you play a note.
No need to get snippy about it. This is /bleepproduction/ after all, if you don't like it don't read the posts.
Gearslutz, GreatSynthesizers and Vintagesynth are great resources. As you'd expect, especially from slutz, they can often be filled with cranky old timers who lust for muh vintage, but they still do have quite a lot of knowledgeable people.
There was this one post by this obviously very smart guy who tried explaining the difference different oscillators make with waveshapes, that I still haven't been able to wrap my head around. I've got it bookmarked somewhere I'm sure, but I'll have to look for it again. Pretty sure it's somewhere in this thread if you wanna take a look for yourself: http://www.gearslutz.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-electronic-music-production/642725-why-vco-better-than-dco.html
>>48397179 I'm actually going for composition and sound design. My lifelong dreams include working on vidya scoring and sound design (the first Halo was what really made that dream), and creating a concert hall for recorded music.
There's other silly ideas I have too, like the Acousnasium (a playground for physical sound made of weird structures like concrete chambers, long hallways, and giant steel horns), a multichannel concert hall with ranks of different speakers (like rotary speakers, or resonators), and an Acoustic Ecology Preservation Society. But those are things I'd do with my own resources as opposed to making a career out of it.
Good luck, bro. The reason I went into engineering is because I'm good at math/science and obviously electronics and programming mesh very well with bleep production, both the hardware and software sides, but I can also get a nice, stable paycheck in a sweet working environment surrounded by other smart people.
Idk how harsh the job market is for what you're going into, hopefully you've networked well/know the right people. I do hope it goes well for you, but I'd rather have dat stability and eventually form my own small business building something cool like the Boomerang III guy does.
Or maybe one day my music will get discovered and I'll become famous, who fuckin' knows amirite? Probably not, though. You have far bigger balls than me for doing to college for that shit, though, so really do hope it goes well for you.
>>48397351 I've just known for a long time that it is the field I should pursue. I love the concepts and works of composers like Subotnick, Cage, Stockhausen, Xenakis and the like, finding a job doesn't really necessitate academia for me, afaic, I'm there for personal enrichment, not a job qualification. Plus, a guy I knew who was in the field I'm looking at recommended a program as such. He said that his undergrad was for music, and was the "creative lead" or something like that for the research team. He works with a bunch of engineers in an anechoic chamber.
As for the vidya composition/sound design goal, I've learned about a few internships I might pursue next year. Unfortunately that means traveling to LA or washington.
>>48397395 >Looking at the tech specs of a synth and passing over it because of DCO's is ridiculous. I don't think anyone did that. He just mentioned offhand that he was doing research regarding the difference. He already stated that the microbrute had a specific feature set he wanted.
these threads are so close-minded the posts earlier about presets are so cancerous there are no presets! when you listen to a song, you hear a good sound or a shitty sound, in context it doesn't matter if it is a "preset" let's talk about things that matter instead! things that have any substance for discussion...
>>48397597 >the posts earlier about presets are so cancerous It's ironic that you call it cancerous, and proceed to dredge that matter back up. Leave it down there where it belongs, don't raise old issues if you don't have a solution.
>>48397554 Well my thoughts on this are that this is the same dude that wanted to put a MB and lancet in a backpack or something and I'm sick of seeing people spout shit about DCO's and VCO's like they are all built the same and all sound the same.
>>48397753 Yeah, I tried hard to downplay that one is superior to another, that they're just different. I don't think I've ever experienced a bad analog synth, though I know that there's a few out there.
It's not about superiority, I think that angry guy got the wrong idea.
It's just that they're different. It's like saying you prefer oranges to apples. Apples are good too, but if you want that citrus taste, you're gonna want an orange.
VCO vs. DCO is not a matter of superiority, but there ARE differences. Oscillator drift is an obvious one. If you want that, you simply aren't going to get it with a DCO, because of how it's built, it's digitally controlled tuning will always be exact and will never drift. The only way you could get anywhere near the same result would be to go through a complex process of setting up different randomized pitch modulations based on the key you hit, and it'd still end up having that staticness to it.
The only point I ever try to make in these discussions is that there is in fact differences in the sound produced by each. It's not about superiority, but to suggest a DCO and VCO sound exactly the same is ridiculous, and which one you choose depends on what sort of features and sound you're ultimately looking for, as well as what sacrifices you're willing to make (for example, most VCO synths [maybe all?] don't have patch memory, and must be manually set up for the sound you want, which would give an advantage to DCO synths).
>>48397739 i'd say your method of posting like this is even more cancerous. people have opinions that they are free to share, whether you like it or not. but if you want you can add your own productive and maybe poetic opinions and suggest more productive topics
The CS-80 was a special case though, the user presets were just banks of mini slider versions of the front panel. The other presets were resistor banks that functioned like the mini sliders, they could be reprogrammed by competent techs, and it used to be a service back in the day.
If you're lucky, rich, have a CS-80, and browse /mu/ for some reason, I believe Oldcrow still does this mod.
I would add that the old jean luc godard quote of "it's not where you take things from, but where you take them to" is quite fitting here.
It's not so much about whether you use presets or not, but what exactly you do with them that counts. Great example? Hell Hath No Fury. The entire thing sounds like it's made from presets and basic flat drum machine samples, yet it's a god-tier hip hop album. For example:
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.