oh DS i can see totally where you are coming from and you dont have to worry about me not taking constructive criticism well - after all thats what discussion forums are for right? to get all of these issues out in the open
but let me counter riposte...
Quote:
Im not sure m8. Any synth can make a fuzzy sawtooth lead.....but does that warrant people saying it can emulate an Oberheim? Any synth can make a Moogy style bass.....even my DX7....so what does this tell you? Grab a sawtooth......tinker around with a 24db filter....adjust the EG accordingly (very important for convincing moog sounds) and hey presto.....but still....in my mind..the VA you've just done that on is not emulating anything but a specific osc/filt/eg configuration....not the soul of a classic synth.
|
i agree. but you have to understand that a large proportion of the human race wont really know what an oberheim is, let alone what an OB-1 sounds like.
sound design and music production in general is a very very subtle thing. i like to think that i am very familiar with how an access virus b sounds but i have been consistantly fooled by other producers into thinking it was another synth. it depends on so many things from how you program it to how much air you leave on, to how you process it both during and after production. ive near enough studied the difference between a real tb303 and an audiorealism's 303 emulation, bassline. and although there is definitely a difference on both saw and square (square more than saw) it is minute enough that most people wont be able to tell the difference.
what is the soul of a classic synth? do instruments have a soul or is it the instrumentalist that gives it a soul? are synths nothing but discrete electronic modules? are you talking about the random subtlties of analog? the subtle changes in pitch over time? the fact some of them have have quirky characteristics and flaws?
the virus is an interesting synth because it doesnt make it difficult to add a degree of randomness to a patch in order to make it sound...more 'alive'. mod matrix. source: random. detination: oscdetune or oscpitch. or whatever. with meticulous post processing you can get very very close.
Quote:
I find it ironic that there seems to be great emphasis on recreating classic analog sounds when people who own the originals often get lambasted for being analog elitist/purist.......its as if people are jealous or something. This has happened to me many times.....
|
this is a generalisation and you know it. i can only speak for myself of course but i am not jealous that someone out there has a real 303 and i only have a software clone. audiorealism bassline gives you 95% of the sound of the real thing at 1/10th of the cost of buying a second hand teebee. its also infinitely more convenient in every day use. you do the math. in fact, i am very satisfied with my digital clone and do not begrudge those that own and can afford to pay for analogue instruments.
but like i said, being able to recreate certain aspects of the sound of real acoustic and real analogue instruments shows just how versatile a synth is.
ive made acoustic cello sounds on my virus b. do they sound like real cellos? hell no. are they fairly close? apart from not being able to simulate the sound of bowing action and the resonances caused by specific types of hollow wood and the complex harmonic serieses, i would say they had most other bases covered. they certainly sound better than any acoustic cello sound i have made on any other VA. if access expanded the virus to include some of the technology as featured in, say, AAS string studio or synful orchestral would i get even closer? damn straight, and i would know how to program everything except the new modules.
its the same for analogue clones. the technology is always improving and our knowledge is provisional. but dont rule out the fact that we will never *be able* to perfectly clone analogue instruments. until the technology catches up (and the software devs get closer and closer with every revision), i am glad to spend my time trying to see and recreate some of the details in the sounds of synths i cannot afford. at the same time, the results quite often just make me even more glad i bought a virus b.
Quote:
Additionally....I dont think Access or TI users particularly want the hyper saw to become known as a Supersaw wannabe. Its important in this early stage that the hypersaw develops its own following....otherwise it will forever be the bitch slave on the dark side of the force....
|
i wont speculate as to what access 'want' their customers to use their technology for. but sable dont specify what strokes you have to use with their paint brushes.
look at the situation though: access builds a new oscillator into their synth which simulates the sound of multiple saw waves detuned and panspread against each other. and they call it the 'hypersaw'? well. lets just say that the first comments i heard when the news broke over a year ago was 'supersaw killer.' on every forum i read news on the subject. even non trance forums.
it was always going to incite comparison with a name and function so similar. and if it sells virus TIs - then pat on the back for access. they did good. ultimately it is just a tool that increases the flexibility of an already very flexible synth. people knew the virus TI was every bit as much a virus as any other iteration. only with bells and whistles. and besides, the trance hobbyist market is huge. the number of people that i know bought virus TIs practically on impulse for the hypersaw ALONE is staggering. access just managed to tap into a very healthy sector of the market and i hope they continue to reap the benefits.
Quote:
Anyone trying to achieve acoustic sounds from a synthesizer should have bought a ?79 yamaha 'learn to play piano in 24 different styles' and not listened to some slimely salesman
|
its more a case of thinking outside of the box. our knowledge of production and sound design in on going. in my opinion we are all undergoing a pretty much constant learning process. we are always learning new things or refining and re evaulating what we already know in light of new knowledge.
but to suggest that you buy a virtual analogue instrument to only create virtual analogue stock sounds is such a narrow approach. i will try to emulate any sound i hear that i find compelling and interesting enough to warrant the excercise. in the end i will at least learn something new about how that sound is made. or how it is definitely not made if i should not be way off the mark. but look at the presets on your virus - how many presets are oberheim emulations? moog emulations? 303 emulations? how many flute and violin and cello sounds do you see on it?
pseudo303 and all the univov patches are 303 clones. the univov ones are wayyy wayyyy off the mark. they sound nothing like 303s in my opinion. but they nevertheless sound good.
and this brings me onto my final point about derivation in art. it is common in any learning process to copy the work of a master before you feel confident enough to create your own work. and it is also common, that in the process of copying someone else's work, (or sound in this case) that you will not get it quite right.
that your copy will be imperfect. but sometimes, and this happen alot for me, there is something about the sound of my copy that i like, that isnt necessarily what i like about the original sound. so i will keep reiterating this and incorporating/deriving new ideas from other original sounds. and over time, this will become *my* sound.
in my opinion you should not be so quick to condemn attempts at understanding/emulating and copying because the process of making sound and music is just like any other art, largely derivative of what came before.