Re: Everyday Genius (/Crazy) Ideas
Posted: 10 Jul 2018
He doesn‘t want a conversation. Evidence: He just turned his back on the last few people that still tried to talk to him. Seems he‘s fine with just rambling in a corner about things that are in his head (according to his own words) and nobody understands. No harm in that, I just don‘t see why you need a forum for that.jimmyklane wrote: ↑10 Jul 2018I don’t get it Rob???? Did I somehow offend you? I thought we were having a conversation!
That seems to be the case, however, I don’t want to be mean-spirited about it. Rather I’d like to actually talk about the posted thoughts. Rob is often reinventing the wheel, but there’s no reason (if we’re going to respond at all!) for us to not discuss those ideas in a civil and logical manner.normen wrote: ↑10 Jul 2018He doesn‘t want a conversation. Evidence: He just turned his back on the last few people that still tried to talk to him. Seems he‘s fine with just rambling in a corner about things that are in his head and nobody understands (according to his own words). No harm in that, I just don‘t see why you need a forum for that.jimmyklane wrote: ↑10 Jul 2018
I don’t get it Rob???? Did I somehow offend you? I thought we were having a conversation!
Well I‘m done trying. I defended him from unwarranted flaming, I actually try to understand what he‘s about but he doesn‘t even answer a single question I pose so yeah, that was RobC for mejimmyklane wrote: ↑10 Jul 2018That seems to be the case, however, I don’t want to be mean-spirited about it. Rather I’d like to actually talk about the posted thoughts. Rob is often reinventing the wheel, but there’s no reason (if we’re going to respond at all!) for us to not discuss those ideas in a civil and logical manner.normen wrote: ↑10 Jul 2018
He doesn‘t want a conversation. Evidence: He just turned his back on the last few people that still tried to talk to him. Seems he‘s fine with just rambling in a corner about things that are in his head and nobody understands (according to his own words). No harm in that, I just don‘t see why you need a forum for that.
This is good. Im still not at that level yet.RobC wrote: ↑08 Jul 2018At least, I can create any sound I imagine and shape it the way I want it to sound. I can 'feel/see' how synthesizers/synthesis in general.TheGodOfRainbows wrote: ↑07 Jul 2018....I still often dont know what I'm doing or why it sounds the way it does, hence my interest in this thread. I still need better understanding of these principles.
As simple as it is to create that sound, I never tire of it, though it may be cheesy.
I mean, there are complaints here all the time, so let's hear those revolutionary, immaculate ideas of professionals for a change!jimmyklane wrote: ↑10 Jul 2018I don’t get it Rob???? Did I somehow offend you? I thought we were having a conversation!
RobC wrote: ↑11 Jul 2018Or if you want my experience, I rather changed to a more progressive style before I went on hiatus. It's rather suitable for genres like hip-hop, cause they tolerate it better if the content is a bit more minimalistic.jimmyklane wrote: ↑10 Jul 2018
I don’t get it Rob???? Did I somehow offend you? I thought we were having a conversation!
What do you mean by “progressive”? As in genres like progressive house or progressive trance where the idea is to build up from a few elements to many and then (depending on the artist and song) drop them out quickly or bring them back out the same way you brought them in (like a wave, so to speak).
Can you clarify a little bit?
Once running out of new sounds, it gets tricky to keep a track interesting - which came with the reward, that I mastered my arranging skills pretty well.
I don’t know if it’s POSSIBLE to run out of new sounds, Rob....but I know it’s possible to run out of sounds that will fit into a particular song that still fit the mood and feel of the track.
It doesn't really matter if I don't follow mainstream, because even established musicians have a hard time getting deals with a record label.
I actually see more and more smaller labels pop up. It seems easier in the UK and Europe than here in the US to get signed on to a label for an EP or single.
You can't satisfy all, sure, but you can satisfy more!
I’ve never concerned myself with satisfying anybody but myself. That even includes my commercial mixing projects. People come to me for MY sound, and that’s what I deliver. I think that if I tried to cater to individual tastes, I’d be sort of selling myself short and not staying true to my own vision. I’ve never found that I lose clients, fans, or critics by changing who I “am”....
1. That's what I mean about progressive, but mainly grabbing the build-up part from it, and ignoring the boring wave stuff.jimmyklane wrote: ↑11 Jul 2018RobC wrote: ↑11 Jul 2018
Or if you want my experience, I rather changed to a more progressive style before I went on hiatus. It's rather suitable for genres like hip-hop, cause they tolerate it better if the content is a bit more minimalistic.
What do you mean by “progressive”? As in genres like progressive house or progressive trance where the idea is to build up from a few elements to many and then (depending on the artist and song) drop them out quickly or bring them back out the same way you brought them in (like a wave, so to speak).
Can you clarify a little bit?
Once running out of new sounds, it gets tricky to keep a track interesting - which came with the reward, that I mastered my arranging skills pretty well.
I don’t know if it’s POSSIBLE to run out of new sounds, Rob....but I know it’s possible to run out of sounds that will fit into a particular song that still fit the mood and feel of the track.
It doesn't really matter if I don't follow mainstream, because even established musicians have a hard time getting deals with a record label.
I actually see more and more smaller labels pop up. It seems easier in the UK and Europe than here in the US to get signed on to a label for an EP or single.
You can't satisfy all, sure, but you can satisfy more!
I’ve never concerned myself with satisfying anybody but myself. That even includes my commercial mixing projects. People come to me for MY sound, and that’s what I deliver. I think that if I tried to cater to individual tastes, I’d be sort of selling myself short and not staying true to my own vision. I’ve never found that I lose clients, fans, or critics by changing who I “am”....
Actually, the thing is that some people know what I'm talking about, they just enjoy playing stupid for the sake of trolling. I don't have time for that.TheGodOfRainbows wrote: ↑11 Jul 2018This is good. Im still not at that level yet.
RobC, I understand that this thread is a repository for your stream of consciousness comments on your methods of synthesis. And that I can understand now.
Go in peace.
Heads up, the 3rd envelope in Thor can do this natively...it’s syncs to project tempo. If you’ve got Reason 10 then Europa (and perhaps Grain?) have all 4 envelopes syncable. Yes, there is musical use in timing envelopes, compression release times, reverb pre-delays, delay times, and just about any other time-based effect you can think of. I think it is more interesting to do it by ear, however, as you’ll never be perfect and that can help a sequencer track breathe.RobC wrote: ↑22 Jun 2018I will, including the next thought.normen wrote: ↑22 Jun 2018
No I mean confusing other people, making the discussion with them pointless. That you could avoid by making examples for your ideas. Some band splits and phase inversions are easily done in Reason - so PLEASE make some examples or at least audio files so we know what you‘re talking about.
Which is about sound design. OCD way. Where I would take inspiration from classical music. And design sounds like pizzicatos, staccatos, marcatos, where I would create the required characteristics, but keeping it within lengths, such as 1/16th, 1/8th, and 1/4th. Here I will have to prove a point, that the programmed, almost gated perfection can have a huge benefit and interesting sound to it.
But yeah, I get it, not without examples. But I can take a note, so I don't forget, can't I? Just shouldn't pile them all up.
Some of the old stereo mixes, the very first ones where stereo was a novelty, have drums and bass hard panned (the consoles of the time had L-C-R switches instead of pan pots!) which to my ears is disconcerting. I understand that it’s only disconcerting due to cultural programming, but it bothers me nonetheless.RobC wrote: ↑12 Jul 2018Today's thought ~
(Only for those who dare to think outside the box!)
When it comes to panning, you better to use up the whole field. Don't start out with considering a 180 degree and especially not a 360 degree field, but rather a 90 degree one. Below 80 Hz, separate frequencies and center them (you still can position whatever is above 80 Hz!). Since bass is most difficult to locate, consider positioning it as far from the center as possible. Also, keep in mind if there's another sound in a similar octave, such as your kick, then put that as far from it as possible.
Once every sound has its place, it's time to use up the 180 degree field. Here, you can put sounds further apart in a mirroring way. If a crash cymbal had a wider position, a hat a narrower, then you might want to put the hat to the other, mirrored side. There still can be sounds that are quite close to each other - both in octaves as well as positioning. That's when you may want to try placing some to the rest, full 360 degree, "mirroring" behind you (invert one channel). Better do so with what's positioned more to the side, than center, so there will be less canceling in mono, and maybe try sharper sounds, that remain more audible, even with canceling out in mono.
Even this is a bit old fashioned thinking. When listened to in stereo, who says you have to make it compatible with mono listening? In fact, a rather boringly narrow-placed sound can be refreshed when placed behind.
If your sounds have a lot of harmonic content spread on the spectrum, it matters less how and what you position. That's why I consider ~ in what octave a sound is. I mean, if you have a high hat, and a high pass filtered bass, then that will be one of the remaining fundamental differences.
Let's not even get into adding distance and vertical positioning. That makes things even trickier, and also actually limits separation. Remember, the two widest stereo separation options is inverting one side of a mono sound, and after that comes hard panning a mono sound.
Yes, I'm on Reason 10. Now, of course I use my ears, but I also consider that in such case, I shape the sound to my individual hearing, which isn't constant either, since it adapts to the sound with time, not to mention that it leaves a mark on the sound.jimmyklane wrote: ↑13 Jul 2018
Heads up, the 3rd envelope in Thor can do this natively...it’s syncs to project tempo. If you’ve got Reason 10 then Europa (and perhaps Grain?) have all 4 envelopes syncable. Yes, there is musical use in timing envelopes, compression release times, reverb pre-delays, delay times, and just about any other time-based effect you can think of. I think it is more interesting to do it by ear, however, as you’ll never be perfect and that can help a sequencer track breathe.
I’ve got several hardware delays that have no screens at all and you’ve got to play around with the timing until it’s as close as you can get. With high feedback rates you ALWAYS find the delay slowly fading out of sync, and that’s great for breakdowns and bridges where you may want to play with delay times, etc.
There would be tops 1 sound hard panned with this rule I presented. Even that, a bass hard panned, with it's sub centered, doesn't sound that hard panned. On top of that, if it sounds annoying, it will inspire during arranging to play some other track with it, which makes it less annoying. Even a hard panned bass, with a lead playing 50 % to the other side is already enough to make it sound pleasant, and spectacular, so to say.jimmyklane wrote: ↑13 Jul 2018
Some of the old stereo mixes, the very first ones where stereo was a novelty, have drums and bass hard panned (the consoles of the time had L-C-R switches instead of pan pots!) which to my ears is disconcerting. I understand that it’s only disconcerting due to cultural programming, but it bothers me nonetheless.
You speak of a 360* field. There is only a flat plane, 90* right and 90* left. The phantom center and any sense of depth behind the speakers is an illusion created by our minds. You mention distance, positioning, and vertical positioning.
“TALL, DEEP, and WIDE” is the mix you should strive for.
Tall: full spectrum from deepest bass to highest treble
Deep: sense of distance that is palpable behind the speakers
Wide: The stereo seperation that you’re trying to describe here.
Rob, normen made a point earlier and I’ve asked you multiple times...we cannot follow your stream of consciousness type of posting style when it comes down to technical aspects of audio. I’d love to continue to have this discussion with you but without audio I feel as if I’m going in circles chasing YOUR tail. PLEASE....provide at least rudimentary audio examples, or preface each post with something that indicates that you’re speaking only to a theory that you have, and that you’ve been unable to test your hypothesis. Without audio to back you up, you are kind of just rambling on about random stuff! I am not being mean or cruel here, I am trying to say that you’d get a lively discussion if you posted something...anything...to help make your point.
Do you currently have a computer and audio interface? Reason installed? If you’ve got these things, there’s really no excuse Rob.
I'm sorry Rob that my comment made you sound like a "case". My wording could be improved. I didn't mean to exclude you when directing the question to everyone else. Since I wasn't following your train of thought in your own words, I directed the question to others. I supposed that someone else's summary of your thoughts would yield better results than directing the question to you, since having not really understood everything you've said up to that point.RobC wrote: ↑11 Jul 2018....TheGodOfRainbows wrote: ↑11 Jul 2018
This is good. Im still not at that level yet.
RobC, I understand that this thread is a repository for your stream of consciousness comments on your methods of synthesis. And that I can understand now.
Go in peace.
You can always just ask me to see what's really going on, instead of going by gossips blindfolded. Your first comment rather sounded like I'm some sort of "case", so you directed your questions towards others instead of me. After a day of hard work, I don't have energy to argue with people.
Well.. Not really, right? I mean in the area of the sweet spot a proper stereo system is basically wave field synthesis. So whats happening in the air right outside of our ears is already equivalent to what would be audible from something coming from that direction in the room. I mean it's not a psychoacoustic "trick", it's just at least similar enough that the brain accepts it.jimmyklane wrote: ↑13 Jul 2018The phantom center and any sense of depth behind the speakers is an illusion created by our minds.
This is a great thing to do for sure, especially if you're looking for that gritty vibe most recordings used to have naturally (i.e. before the super-clean/low-noise-floor era started in the '90s). If I'm understanding correctly, what you're describing here is exactly what happens automatically when every sound source has its own non-negligible noise floor, yes? The noise level rises, unavoidably, in direct proportion to the active number of tracks playing. Or is that not the effect you had in mind?EdGrip wrote: ↑04 Sep 2018Here's a thought I had the other day.
When you're sleepy in a very quiet room, so quiet you can hear your ears doing their low-level lack-of-stimulus "background hiss". Y'know what I mean?
And then you hear a sound (try gently clapping your hands, or clicking your tongue) - hear how the in-ear hiss spikes in volume for a moment, triggered by the stimulus?
Put that in music. Make your favourite washy hiss ambience, and have it almost inaudible in the mix. Use an envelope follower like MClass compressor or Pulveriser to generate a gain reduction CV from another element of your mix (the kick, say) - invert that and use it to turn up the hiss track in sympathy with other bits of your mix.
Just a thought, and more complicated to write than to think!
(It's similar to the effect you get when you listen to a very noisy and excessively-gated voice recording.)