Everyday Ideas

Have an urge to learn, or a calling to teach? Want to share some useful Youtube videos? Do it here!
jimmyklane
Posts: 740
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

10 Jul 2018

RobC wrote:
10 Jul 2018

I'll leave sharing ideas to the professionals for now.
I don’t get it Rob???? Did I somehow offend you? I thought we were having a conversation!
DAW: Reason 12

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

10 Jul 2018

jimmyklane wrote:
10 Jul 2018
RobC wrote:
10 Jul 2018

I'll leave sharing ideas to the professionals for now.
I don’t get it Rob???? Did I somehow offend you? I thought we were having a conversation!
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
Posts: 740
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

10 Jul 2018

normen wrote:
10 Jul 2018
jimmyklane wrote:
10 Jul 2018


I don’t get it Rob???? Did I somehow offend you? I thought we were having a conversation!
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.
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.
DAW: Reason 12

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

10 Jul 2018

jimmyklane wrote:
10 Jul 2018
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.
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.
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 me :)

User avatar
TheGodOfRainbows
Posts: 640
Joined: 31 Mar 2015

11 Jul 2018

RobC wrote:
08 Jul 2018
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. :geek: :mrgreen:
At 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.
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.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

11 Jul 2018

jimmyklane wrote:
10 Jul 2018
RobC wrote:
10 Jul 2018

I'll leave sharing ideas to the professionals for now.
I don’t get it Rob???? Did I somehow offend you? I thought we were having a conversation!
I mean, there are complaints here all the time, so let's hear those revolutionary, immaculate ideas of professionals for a change!

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.
Now, by the time the song got close to running out of new sounds building up, and got to a relaxed, more quiet section, people apparently rather expected a chorus/drop. Since the track rather got to a finishing variation, the average statistic showed, that's where listeners left it.
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.
Creating a chorus makes things far easier, and adding vocals can make an excellent instrumental twice as entertaining.
I will probably mix the progressive style, doing a bit more work, creating some fundamental pop music elements, but without endless repetition. I feel, if something restarts, there's a higher chance of losing a listener. So I'd probably go with adding 1-timer sections of building up a verse, a chorus, a bridge, a breakdown, etc, but without all the repetitions.
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.

You can't satisfy all, sure, but you can satisfy more!

jimmyklane
Posts: 740
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

11 Jul 2018

RobC wrote:
11 Jul 2018
jimmyklane wrote:
10 Jul 2018


I don’t get it Rob???? Did I somehow offend you? I thought we were having a conversation!
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”....
DAW: Reason 12

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

11 Jul 2018

jimmyklane wrote:
11 Jul 2018
RobC 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”....
1. That's what I mean about progressive, but mainly grabbing the build-up part from it, and ignoring the boring wave stuff.
Recently, though, I've been thinking about taking that further and mixing with some element of pop music: I'd first listen to what tracks in the song sound best individually, and together with others; then I'd arrange with the result I got. But then again, it's really up to everyone what they deem sounding best, so I also might arrange with whatever goes best with lyrics, in a more logical fashion. Or I do a bit of everything.

2. If I made a bass, a lead, an evolving pad, a hat, a snare, a kick, and an SFX loop and that's it (plus vocals), then I can use them up pretty quickly. Afterwards, it's just variation and repetition. That's what I meant.

3. Depends. If you want to become a full time musician, you can't financially survive on a tiny label.

4. I was more listener oriented. People gave me good ideas, and even if I didn't take them 100%, they usually gave a refreshing push to my music. I.e. I make them my own.
I didn't do individual tastes, but matching ones.
Ironically, I just want to do my own thing, too, but I doubt there ever will be that point where I say "okay, now I know everything, all is perfect". If that day comes, the next day I twist the whole thing anyway because of a new idea.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

11 Jul 2018

TheGodOfRainbows wrote:
11 Jul 2018
RobC wrote:
08 Jul 2018


At 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.
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.
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.
I you pay attention to my comments, you see that I said that I quickly lay down ideas that popped up in my mind. When I'll have proper amount of time soon, I will create examples and more detailed info about them. What I said was, that I'm interested in discussing them with people meanwhile. That's because during the discussion, usually new ideas pop up again, and even if somebody misunderstands something, then their view yet again can inspire another idea. Ideas get multiplied with communication.

As for the occasional "reinventions" - a lot of those things are what I'm looking for, yet can't find.

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.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

11 Jul 2018

All the bullshit said during the past 1-2 days, is so heavy, it would be enough to fertilise all my plants...

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

12 Jul 2018

Today'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.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

13 Jul 2018

Asymmetry is the key for separation.
If I don't consider distance just yet, for vertical rotation to be asymmetrical with the horizontal rotation, I'd need to limit the base positioning to 45 degrees tops. Gets complex...

Surely, every reader understands so far. : )

jimmyklane
Posts: 740
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

13 Jul 2018

RobC wrote:
22 Jun 2018
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.
I will, including the next thought.

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.
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.
DAW: Reason 12

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

jimmyklane
Posts: 740
Joined: 16 Apr 2018

13 Jul 2018

RobC wrote:
12 Jul 2018
Today'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.
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.
DAW: Reason 12

SAMPLERS: Akai MPC 2000, E-mu SP1200, E-Mu e5000Ultra, Ensoniq EPS 16+, Akai S950, Maschine

SYNTHS: Mostly classic Polysynths and more modern Monosynths. All are mostly food for my samplers!

www.soundcloud.com/jimmyklane

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

13 Jul 2018

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.
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.
It may be a bit artificial how I start working, but it's just a different approach and that's it. However, it may open some more possibilities.

With the digital tools, I want to make use of that quantized world a bit more. It actually is a bit pushed to the background. Even electronic musicians try to make it all live and forget about the unique parts and uses of sampling and digitalization.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

13 Jul 2018

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.
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.

Well, by inverting one channel, you get a feel of the sound coming from behind. I know that basically left and right is most easy to distinguish, but if you remember, I put it only as a 3rd possibility to create that illusion that it's coming from behind, and that for separating sounds even further. Distance and vertical positioning is even less effective, but still can add a bit of more flavor.

To be fair, I earlier talked about the TALL part (the method where sounds get nudged close to static sine waves with the help of EQing).
The DEEP part would be the second part of this topic.

To be honest, sometimes I don't understand what's so difficult about what I say.
My only excuse are the 275 plants I care for (I overestimated things a bit). But I'll post next time when I will still have motivation left, then.
Sadly, by the time I get to the end of the plants, the first ones already need some work (excluding watering).
Typing is far easier, even when exhausted, so let's not even compare that to proper audio work.
Hopefully by august I will be back, as then the plants should only demand basic care. (...and better give me tons of stuff to harvest in return!)

User avatar
TheGodOfRainbows
Posts: 640
Joined: 31 Mar 2015

13 Jul 2018

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.
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.

When I said, "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", I should have added "Ok, I've answered my own question. Carry on." :D

Blessed be.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

13 Jul 2018

jimmyklane wrote:
13 Jul 2018
The phantom center and any sense of depth behind the speakers is an illusion created by our minds.
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.

Then again everything we perceive is a complete illusion created by our brains from limited data so I'm not saying you're wrong... :)

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

05 Aug 2018

"Hopefully by august I will be back"

Make that September. xD

P.S.good news ~ when I quickly tried some ideas in what little time I had left, they worked the way I imagined them.

User avatar
O1B
Posts: 2037
Joined: 26 Jan 2015

05 Aug 2018

This thread was big fun. Especially the Norman Bullying projection...

Great tune, btw...

RobC wrote:
05 Aug 2018
"Hopefully by august I will be back"

Make that September. xD

P.S.good news ~ when I quickly tried some ideas in what little time I had left, they worked the way I imagined them.

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

05 Aug 2018

O1B wrote:
05 Aug 2018
This thread was big fun. Especially the Norman Bullying projection...

Great tune, btw...

RobC wrote:
05 Aug 2018
"Hopefully by august I will be back"

Make that September. xD

P.S.good news ~ when I quickly tried some ideas in what little time I had left, they worked the way I imagined them.
What do you want and what is your purpose?

User avatar
demt
Posts: 1357
Joined: 16 Sep 2016
Contact:

05 Aug 2018

plug in a load of hardware to slow me down amongst other advantages of seriously spending more time on a song ps got to get a 20 input tascam audio interface for panning in reason reasons
Reason 12 ,gear4 music sdp3 stage piano .nektar gxp 88,behringer umc1800 .line6 spider4 30
hear scince reason 2.5

RobC
Posts: 1833
Joined: 10 Mar 2018

03 Sep 2018

...October.

P.S. All the tomatoes I've eaten, gave me the runs... >_<

Then I had a tomato salad today..
And gonna have some fired together with eggs.

Also, meanwhile I have a new idea, but yeah, sound example or sketch out as a RE first. Got it!
Check the kitchen... tons of tomatoes!

EdGrip
Posts: 2343
Joined: 03 Jun 2016

04 Sep 2018

Here'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.)

househoppin09
Posts: 536
Joined: 03 Aug 2016

05 Sep 2018

EdGrip wrote:
04 Sep 2018
Here'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.)
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?

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests