ReasonTalk.com

While on the toilet, it the idea came to my mind (again) that we can make any sound a bit fuller. I used to do this by mixing a copy of it 1 octave below and another above it. It wasn't bad, but not the best either. I guess, this is when splitting the spectrum individually for each comes in handy; keep what sounds best, then do some mix-match, offsetting, inverting, until it sounds at its best. If it even sounds better than the original sound, you can keep it.

This created an interesting effect for me when making a boring sounding hat out of noise. Similar to the results of FM; when I played it back at higher frequencies, I got a much more different sound than expected which created some lower frequencies than the height of the pitch it was played back at. Once I saved that, I reduced its pitch, thus further "destructive" processing, which gave me a really good sounding little hat.

I see we can't upload wave files. Nice. 14.8 KB would be too big I guess. xD

When it comes to kick drums, I used to make use of IIR high pass ~ let's say "killing" - which has this cheap quality "robotic" sounding pre-echoing ~ nothing a little "start sample" setting can help, but it added a nice little punch to the frequency above the one that was wiped out - though rather useful for 1 sample, cause it made quite a long tail with it.

Sometimes these side effects aren't that bad ~ though I'm looking for ways to avoid them and create the desired sound myself instead of having to rely on a side effect. Then again, FM might have been invented after an accidental side effect, too - and experimentation.

Regarding the kick, I have mixed feelings. It has the power of the modern drums, but I feel too much fullness kills the character. I mean, not every sound has to punch the frequency spectrum. Then again, that might rather be a fooling equalization effect, that punches some bass frequencies - once I balance its equalization, which I didn't try yet with my new method, I suspect the raw kick would sound just as good, or better, than the one with the HPF artifacts.

Ever came across some weird trick that made a sound fuller by creating additional frequencies, changing the sound, etc?

RobC wrote:Ever came across some weird trick that made a sound fuller by creating additional frequencies, changing the sound, etc?

Yes, if you call adding saturation “weird”.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

selig wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

RobC wrote:Ever came across some weird trick that made a sound fuller by creating additional frequencies, changing the sound, etc?

Yes, if you call adding saturation “weird”.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

The way FM works, or playing sampled noise at higher pitches which create not-so-expected frequencies, are the more weird ones, cause who expects it - especially with noise.
Then again, I'm curious about anything that adds something extra.

I always hope for something new (even if I care more about sound than definitions xP).

RobC wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

selig wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Yes, if you call adding saturation “weird”.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

The way FM works, or playing sampled noise at higher pitches which create not-so-expected frequencies, are the more weird ones, cause who expects it - especially with noise.
Then again, I'm curious about anything that adds something extra.

I always hope for something new (even if I care more about sound than definitions xP).

IMO "definitions" only matter when communicating with others. When working alone, as many of us do, there is no need to learn terms or nomenclature of any kind, no need to know note or chord names, or to read music. It's mainly when interacting with others we need a common language so we can communicate!

I'm guessing what you're hearing with FM is aliasing, if you're interested in what it's called.

Happy accidents in music are "Gold" in my book too, btw. I love the unexpected, and it often becomes the basis for a new song.

selig wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

RobC wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

The way FM works, or playing sampled noise at higher pitches which create not-so-expected frequencies, are the more weird ones, cause who expects it - especially with noise.
Then again, I'm curious about anything that adds something extra.

I always hope for something new (even if I care more about sound than definitions xP).

IMO "definitions" only matter when communicating with others. When working alone, as many of us do, there is no need to learn terms or nomenclature of any kind, no need to know note or chord names, or to read music. It's mainly when interacting with others we need a common language so we can communicate!

I'm guessing what you're hearing with FM is aliasing, if you're interested in what it's called.

Happy accidents in music are "Gold" in my book too, btw. I love the unexpected, and it often becomes the basis for a new song.

I could read, write notes, chords - never used it, forgot all of it. xD I could refresh my memory anytime, but won't.
Oh, I was told before that I can be talkative, but am not too communicative.

Regarding FM, I read it's the result of the modulator modulating the carrier at high frequencies, which at some point result in those new frequencies instead of hearing a "vibrato-like" effect anymore.

Not that I wouldn't be happy about such surprises, but I don't just want to rarely stumble upon interesting results by accident; instead I wanted to collect every possibility step by step, and see what else there can be squeezed out.

Hat



Kick



Neither are equalized, whatsoever.
Yep, the Kick has a punch between 40-80 Hz and pretty lame between 20-40 Hz. Pretty much just ear fooling I'm afraid.

Usually a mix of saturation, distortion and limiting to make things fuller. The trick is finding the sweet spot between all those processors.

Kalm wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Usually a mix of saturation, distortion and limiting to make things fuller. The trick is finding the sweet spot between all those processors.

I decided to make more dynamic music, though. But yeah, I can hear that a lot, happening especially on modern electronic drums.

RobC wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Hat

Kick

Neither are equalized, whatsoever.
Yep, the Kick has a punch between 40-80 Hz and pretty lame between 20-40 Hz. Pretty much just ear fooling I'm afraid.

I listened to your examples on my crap mobile and I think the punch in the kick is more around 1khz. My mobile can't play 80hz. That's pretty normal for punchy edm kicks to have something there (also often a closed short hihat mixed into it) to make the cut through the bass rumble.

RobC wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Kalm wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Usually a mix of saturation, distortion and limiting to make things fuller. The trick is finding the sweet spot between all those processors.

I decided to make more dynamic music, though. But yeah, I can hear that a lot, happening especially on modern electronic drums.

Understandbly (if thats a word), but remember, making things fuller and dynamic is like 2 sides of a coin. Fuller usually represents the harmonic balance across the spectrum to be pretty flat. Dynamic sources are just that because their peak-to-average ratio is large. This imbalance is usually the result of certain frequencies having more dynamic envelopes than others such as the boom and beater of a kick drum. To make something dynamic and full. . . is a very strong ambition lol.

Loque wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

RobC wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Hat

Kick

Neither are equalized, whatsoever.
Yep, the Kick has a punch between 40-80 Hz and pretty lame between 20-40 Hz. Pretty much just ear fooling I'm afraid.

I listened to your examples on my crap mobile and I think the punch in the kick is more around 1khz. My mobile can't play 80hz. That's pretty normal for punchy edm kicks to have something there (also often a closed short hihat mixed into it) to make the cut through the bass rumble.

Well, it's a hard one, and old stuff ~ the high pass filter artifacts, and some clipping, plus the sample start created a pretty strong click. Was audible in mixes, but meh. - BTW, I only meant the bass region ~ close to infra range, it's very weak.

Kalm wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

RobC wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

I decided to make more dynamic music, though. But yeah, I can hear that a lot, happening especially on modern electronic drums.

Understandbly (if thats a word), but remember, making things fuller and dynamic is like 2 sides of a coin. Fuller usually represents the harmonic balance across the spectrum to be pretty flat. Dynamic sources are just that because their peak-to-average ratio is large. This imbalance is usually the result of certain frequencies having more dynamic envelopes than others such as the boom and beater of a kick drum. To make something dynamic and full. . . is a very strong ambition lol.

For that, I try to design sounds that have something in the necessary frequencies, make it dynamic, then equalize, etc.
Gotta try the impossible. xD

RobC wrote:

Kalm wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Usually a mix of saturation, distortion and limiting to make things fuller. The trick is finding the sweet spot between all those processors.

I decided to make more dynamic music, though. But yeah, I can hear that a lot, happening especially on modern electronic drums.

It’s also on almost all music ever recorded, to some degree or another. Before digital, saturation came more from tubes, inductors, tape, etc. Just because you can’t hear it doesn’t mean it’s not happening!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

RobC wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Kalm wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Understandbly (if thats a word), but remember, making things fuller and dynamic is like 2 sides of a coin. Fuller usually represents the harmonic balance across the spectrum to be pretty flat. Dynamic sources are just that because their peak-to-average ratio is large. This imbalance is usually the result of certain frequencies having more dynamic envelopes than others such as the boom and beater of a kick drum. To make something dynamic and full. . . is a very strong ambition lol.

For that, I try to design sounds that have something in the necessary frequencies, make it dynamic, then equalize, etc.
Gotta try the impossible. xD

Hence why I usually use all the oscillators in a synthesizer lol. Need sparkle, use Osc 2. Need sub use Osc 3. Filter as necessary lmao.

selig wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

RobC wrote:
I decided to make more dynamic music, though. But yeah, I can hear that a lot, happening especially on modern electronic drums.

It’s also on almost all music ever recorded, to some degree or another. Before digital, saturation came more from tubes, inductors, tape, etc. Just because you can’t hear it doesn’t mean it’s not happening!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Did you check the latest drums in Reason 10? They squeeze the shiz out of them. I just have mixed feelings about it.

Kalm wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

RobC wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

For that, I try to design sounds that have something in the necessary frequencies, make it dynamic, then equalize, etc.
Gotta try the impossible. xD

Hence why I usually use all the oscillators in a synthesizer lol. Need sparkle, use Osc 2. Need sub use Osc 3. Filter as necessary lmao.

Ironically, I use little tools for sound generation, and I'm overwhelmed, lol. - But that's not difficult when using all sorts of modulation. Even if we don't hear the modulators, they still do the thing, so that's cheating to some extent, hehe.

RobC wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Kalm wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Hence why I usually use all the oscillators in a synthesizer lol. Need sparkle, use Osc 2. Need sub use Osc 3. Filter as necessary lmao.

Ironically, I use little tools for sound generation, and I'm overwhelmed, lol. - But that's not difficult when using all sorts of modulation. Even if we don't hear the modulators, they still do the thing, so that's cheating to some extent, hehe.

Man it took me forever to even use modulators. The whole thing was extra confusing to me. But when you accidentally do something cool its awesome. . .except you dont know how to do it again lol.

Kalm wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

RobC wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Ironically, I use little tools for sound generation, and I'm overwhelmed, lol. - But that's not difficult when using all sorts of modulation. Even if we don't hear the modulators, they still do the thing, so that's cheating to some extent, hehe.

Man it took me forever to even use modulators. The whole thing was extra confusing to me. But when you accidentally do something cool its awesome. . .except you dont know how to do it again lol.

Gladly, I reached the point where if I imagine a sound, I can create it. That's because I thought every musician makes every sound 100% from scratch - I was pretty dumb to think that, lol - but it came in handy.

RobC wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Kalm wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Man it took me forever to even use modulators. The whole thing was extra confusing to me. But when you accidentally do something cool its awesome. . .except you dont know how to do it again lol.

Gladly, I reached the point where if I imagine a sound, I can create it. That's because I thought every musician makes every sound 100% from scratch - I was pretty dumb to think that, lol - but it came in handy.

Yup, do enough sound-alikes and learn how sound propagates it all comes together.

RobC wrote:

selig wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

It’s also on almost all music ever recorded, to some degree or another. Before digital, saturation came more from tubes, inductors, tape, etc. Just because you can’t hear it doesn’t mean it’s not happening!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Did you check the latest drums in Reason 10? They squeeze the shiz out of them. I just have mixed feelings about it.

What? You CAN control the amount of processing, no need to set phasers to KILL on everything!!! Or am I misunderstanding you here?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

selig wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

RobC wrote:
Did you check the latest drums in Reason 10? They squeeze the shiz out of them. I just have mixed feelings about it.

What? You CAN control the amount of processing, no need to set phasers to KILL on everything!!! Or am I misunderstanding you here?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Drum samples in Reason 10 - the new drum supply. They are modern, loud, and thick. Kind of flat. That's what I mean. They are prepared for loudness war.

Hardware samplers. I sample and resample using each sampler for its strengths before sending it on to the next one....often this way I won’t need any compression and I get some unique distortions of the sound through aliasing, quantization error, transposition errors (“grunge” from playing something off its root note and then repitching in another sampler), and outright saturation of both the analog and digital sections of a sampler.

These techniques have been key to my music, and almost all of my synths see a round of sampling (as do the Reason instruments!) or two before coming back into the computer.

selig wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

RobC wrote:
Did you check the latest drums in Reason 10? They squeeze the shiz out of them. I just have mixed feelings about it.

What? You CAN control the amount of processing, no need to set phasers to KILL on everything!!! Or am I misunderstanding you here?


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Oh, you were trolling... Yay! I may have hyperactivity which could have something to do with the problematic communication I have. Not my fault. I try to clear up confusion and randomness as much as I can.

jimmyklane wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Hardware samplers. I sample and resample using each sampler for its strengths before sending it on to the next one....often this way I won’t need any compression and I get some unique distortions of the sound through aliasing, quantization error, transposition errors (“grunge” from playing something off its root note and then repitching in another sampler), and outright saturation of both the analog and digital sections of a sampler.

These techniques have been key to my music, and almost all of my synths see a round of sampling (as do the Reason instruments!) or two before coming back into the computer.

Interesting... I have a similar effect when I export 1 long note made with a very characteristic FM sound made with subtractor, then import that to NNXT. The higher the notes, the brighter, the lower, the - less detailed? What's the right word. Sort of a keyboard tracking effect. I'm fine with it, but I'd prefer to go without it, heh. A tolerated effect in my case.

RobC wrote: ↑

20 Apr 2018

jimmyklane wrote: ↑

19 Apr 2018

Hardware samplers. I sample and resample using each sampler for its strengths before sending it on to the next one....often this way I won’t need any compression and I get some unique distortions of the sound through aliasing, quantization error, transposition errors (“grunge” from playing something off its root note and then repitching in another sampler), and outright saturation of both the analog and digital sections of a sampler.

These techniques have been key to my music, and almost all of my synths see a round of sampling (as do the Reason instruments!) or two before coming back into the computer.

Interesting... I have a similar effect when I export 1 long note made with a very characteristic FM sound made with subtractor, then import that to NNXT. The higher the notes, the brighter, the lower, the - less detailed? What's the right word. Sort of a keyboard tracking effect. I'm fine with it, but I'd prefer to go without it, heh. A tolerated effect in my case.

Yeah, computer based samplers tend to just make the note dull as you move down the keyboard, and it is actually tracking the keyboard you are correct. In the older samplers from late 80’s/early 90’s this “dulling effect” is often counteracted by aliasing, so a sort of “fake” brightness at the lowest octaves. If you sample a very low note, you’ll get the opposite effect, where the sound is bright like the original in the bass area and has distinct aliasing in the upper registers. The NN19/NNXT are designed to minimize this....but take off high quality interpolation and turn on low bandwidth and you can get a bit of the old sampler sound.