Making synths sound old/from 90's like Aphex, BoC, etc.?

I tried recreating the sound again in Milkman after receiving all the advice; I got it to sound spot on :)

  On 5/6/2013 at 1:16 AM, reid458 said:

I tried recreating the sound again in Milkman after receiving all the advice; I got it to sound spot on :)

nicely done mate

that's the spirit

Now to attempt Flim...

  On 5/6/2013 at 1:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/6/2013 at 12:56 AM, DerWaschbar said:

lol

 

what's on your mind, mate?

 

Just having a laugh, nothing personal. It just got a bit heavy in here.

  On 5/6/2013 at 1:52 AM, DerWaschbar said:

 

  On 5/6/2013 at 1:11 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/6/2013 at 12:56 AM, DerWaschbar said:

lol

 

what's on your mind, mate?

 

Just having a laugh, nothing personal. It just got a bit heavy in here.

 

It's in my WATMM contract that I have to drop at least one T.S. Eliot quote per thousand posts

I think trying to imitate another persons style or sound for the purpose of learning like I am doing is just the same as learning a song on guitar or something. It's all about constructing a kind of musical vocabulary.

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with it. People will try and tell you that you are doing it wrong no matter what you do. Follow your star and enjoy yourself.

  On 5/6/2013 at 4:25 AM, reid458 said:

I think trying to imitate another persons style or sound for the purpose of learning like I am doing is just the same as learning a song on guitar or something. It's all about constructing a kind of musical vocabulary.

No no no, you're all wrong. Here on watmm, we're so cool that we all build everything from scratch. What you have to do is:

- Open notepad.

- Learn to code sounds from scratch.

- Arrange it all in a self-made DAW.

It's only way for you to make good music. You can't use something that others have used in the past. Seriously. Don't do that. Making music is all about making it as hard for yourself as possible.

Hope that helped.

lol Foil

Well, seriously though, more people should actually do that i think.

there's so much stuff you can buy or get for free nowadays to make music, it is comical!

An abundance of commercial products for every aspect of your musical career, from song-writing to distribution and marketing.

What thing can I buy to be a superstar? yuck.

I invite you to watch this terrible video:

[youtubehd]BPV8c9rVQpg[/youtubehd]

explore the layers beneath instead..

sorry for this little rant reid458, it has nothing to do with your synth problem.

  On 5/5/2013 at 7:11 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/5/2013 at 6:45 PM, reid458 said:

 

To the person who quoted Legowelt, I would have to agree. However, I guess I would need to some direction. Because it's not just like I'm using some crappy Fl Studio VST or something. I'm using what many websites have referred to as a really good analog sounding VST (Minimogue VA). I've used this VST a lot and have tried what seems like everything on it, but I feel that there is no way to get it to really sound analog.

 

 

I think the problem might be that some people attribute things to analog synths that have nothing to do with analog synths.

 

Lemme just save some time here and cut straight to the chase:

 

I love my SH-101 dearly and I can say with no uncertainty that the TAL-BASSLINE (freeware) vst is pretty damn close. Only under extreme rigor (e.g. filter sweeps) will you find huge differences.

 

Now, I've never owned a Minimoog but I would hazard a guess that that Minimogue vst is alot closer to the real thing than you think it is.

 

The one thing that vst's definitely lack is that they don't at any point pass through transistors, so I would say maybe look into a saturation vst. Or maybe get something like a GAP Pre73 preamp and reamp your vst's through that.

 

I guess there are 2 ways to approach this topic,

1 is to address it along the line of "I wanna sound like aphex and boc", which I think it's a kinda weird debate that is boring and already played out.

The other is more to do with getting analog-ish synth sounds from VSTs, what makes synths sound old and so on. Way more interesting!

I think more than anything else, the key to recreating and emulating an old synth sound, is applying a bit of knowledge about the synth you are trying to emulate. Say, for example you hear something you like, which you suspect to be an SH101. Trying to recreate that sound using mutiple detuned oscillators and a 12db filter, you're never gonna get close. Just a quick google search wil give you a huge amount of the info you'd need to be well on your way.

Direct emulations are a weird one. I kinda regard them in the same way as I do cinema special effects. You watch a film from 15 years ago, and the visual effects are laughably unrealistic, but at the time, that shit looked REAL! No doubt, the cutting edge stuff we have today will look dated in 15 years time.

Same kinda thing with VA emulations. Not so long ago, it was enough to create a soft synth with a similar feature set as the real analogue thing, and call it an emulation. Whether we subconciously make allowances for it or not, who knows, but a blind AB comparison, you can still tell... easily.

Things are always improving though, especially in digital filter design. Ordinary digital filter behaviour is painfully recognisable, especially at high resonance settings. Not gonna go into the boring DSP explainations, because it's boring and probably only remotely intesting to about 1/2 a person.

However, more recently, companies have started to incorporate some really cool new ideas into how digital filters work, and the results are way way more convincing. Uhe and NI spring to mind (with Diva and Monark resectively) and I suspect there are others too.

Still, whether they'll still sound as convincing in another 10 years, remains to be seen =D

The other big sticking point imo is the wave shapes themselves.. Kinda along the lines of what Limpy mentions regarding transistors I suppose.

The way a VST will create a Pulse wave for example, is drastically different from how an analogue synth will create a pulse wave. The differences are almost certainly down to being ecconomical. For a VST, it's for more efficient to create a wave shape a particular way, rather than recreate the analogue approach and sacrifice CPU. Likewise, an analogue synth will use a particular approach in order to save production costs. blah blah..

Anyway, point is, you take a pulse wave from a 1970's analogue synth, and a pulse wave from a VST, they're different things. Well, similar in shape and harmonic content, but noticably different never the less.

Then there's all the shit about gate synced VCOs, nonlinear envelopes, VCO drift, per voice inconsistencies.. I heard the other day that your standard resistor has a manufacturing tolerance of 15%!! Think how much that's gonna affect the sound of one Moog to another..

Aaaannyway.. Not really sure what I'm talking about anymore. Too much coffee!

coffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffeecoffee

Umm, so basically. Read up a bit about a synth you think you're trying to emulate. A quick once over of the tech sheet will give you all the info you need to be well on your way to emulating it.

  On 5/5/2013 at 11:53 PM, nuclearaddict said:

No doubt inspiration helps, but I speak from experience. I put a lot of time and energy 13 years ago in trying to be just like BoC and Aphex Twin which caused me to never write any music for about 3 years. I was sooo focused on trying to recreate their magic that I never had time to realize there was some sparkly magic of my own waiting to be unleashed once I learned how to harness it.

  On 5/6/2013 at 1:02 AM, yek said:

i think it's all about learning through experimentation. in that way you force yourself to be original...

  On 5/6/2013 at 12:22 PM, TechDiff said:

 

 

The other big sticking point imo is the wave shapes themselves.. Kinda along the lines of what Limpy mentions regarding transistors I suppose.

 

The way a VST will create a Pulse wave for example, is drastically different from how an analogue synth will create a pulse wave. The differences are almost certainly down to being ecconomical. For a VST, it's for more efficient to create a wave shape a particular way, rather than recreate the analogue approach and sacrifice CPU. Likewise, an analogue synth will use a particular approach in order to save production costs. blah blah..

 

Anyway, point is, you take a pulse wave from a 1970's analogue synth, and a pulse wave from a VST, they're different things. Well, similar in shape and harmonic content, but noticably different never the less.

 

Then there's all the shit about gate synced VCOs, nonlinear envelopes, VCO drift, per voice inconsistencies.. I heard the other day that your standard resistor has a manufacturing tolerance of 15%!! Think how much that's gonna affect the sound of one Moog to another..

 

Aaaannyway.. Not really sure what I'm talking about anymore. Too much coffee!

Okay, some of you are taking what I have said way too seriously. Phling, for some reason you are getting the perception that I'm some idiot who doesn't know the slightest thing about making music who thinks I'll automatically become an incredible musician if I can imitate Aphex Twin. I make music on a regular basis and have absolutely no problem with making music. I enjoy the music I make and I strive to get better. I would like for my equipment to sound better. That's all I'm saying. And LimpyLoo has helped me find solutions to that problem. Techdiff, I only used BoC and Aphex as examples to clarify the quality of sound I was talking about. I never said I wanted to be exactly like them.

  On 5/5/2013 at 6:37 AM, LimpyLoo said:

IMO focus on technique, not gear.

 

"Today on a computer with like the plug-ins you can sound exactly like the old synths, it's more that most people don't know how to sound like that, so, that's why some people say 'oh you can hear it's coming from a computer' and they think it always sounds like that, a computer you know, but it's not the case it's about the technique, how you use it. And also like modern virtual analog synthesizers, you know, you don't hear any difference with the old stuff."

 

-Legowelt

sorry but this is fucking laughable. look at that guys studio. dude is an analog purist.

software doesn't sound like hardware, period. it is inferior sonically, period.

you can make great music without hardware. but if you want to take it all the way, get hardware. more soul, more style, more beauty.

software is good for extremely high complexity and new methods of synthesis taking you far.

for standard sounds use hardware, all the time ,every time, imo

I need to get more specific:

1. Sofware CAN sound like Analog. It can sound nearly identical. Nearly.

2. It is not always the "soundsound" of analog that is important, but the soul. It is the air in between. It is what happens to the creator while using it, the way it affects the art conceptually and interferes somewhere along the line. The way the music lives. Software lacks this, utterly.

There are "tricks," though I don't want to call them that anymore. It doesn't do the new methods justice. I think software and hardware should be combined. That is often enough, merely introducing some hardware can be enough. But it goes even further and this probably isn't the place. Part of the problem is metronomic constance. It needs to be shifted off the beat pattern in order to allow in abstraction. Not possible when bounced straight out of ableton. Use tape.

  On 5/6/2013 at 11:47 PM, vamos scorcho said:

 

  On 5/5/2013 at 6:37 AM, LimpyLoo said:

IMO focus on technique, not gear.

 

"Today on a computer with like the plug-ins you can sound exactly like the old synths, it's more that most people don't know how to sound like that, so, that's why some people say 'oh you can hear it's coming from a computer' and they think it always sounds like that, a computer you know, but it's not the case it's about the technique, how you use it. And also like modern virtual analog synthesizers, you know, you don't hear any difference with the old stuff."

 

-Legowelt

 

sorry but this is fucking laughable. look at that guys studio. dude is an analog purist.

 

Nah it's not really laughable. And no he is not an analog purist. He loves his DX's and his MicroKorg and his little ROMplers and so on and so on.

He said he much prefers the physical tactile experience of owning and playing vintage analog synths, and that's exactly how I feel. Sound-wise I would be totally happy with something like TAL-Bassline but the experience of owning and playing and looking at the 101 is a joy.

Well we are only talking about sound here. As far as the actual sound of a synthesizer, I think I can say now that you can pretty much make a VST sound identical to an analog. However... I would agree that an actual, physical synthesizer involves and submerges the musician much more into sound synthesis. But again, same sound. So the fact that someone has a lot of analog gear but is supporting the notion that you can make the same sounds in a VST as in an analog synth is not hypocritical at all.

what you both seem unable to understand is that the tactility is just as important as the sound, or in combination with it, that effects the "sound." its an abstract thought if you're up for it

Yes, again, I understand the importance of a physical synthesizer. But again, this thread was never intended to be about that importance. It was meant to be about the recognizable sound of synthesizers. Specifically (and only) how they sound. In the creative process, a physical synthesizer maybe great and much better than a VST. But I believe that a VST can indistinguishably recreate the sound of a synthesizer. That's all I'm saying. If you think VSTs can't make the kind of exact sounds analogs can, then you'd be wrong.

  On 5/7/2013 at 12:57 AM, vamos scorcho said:

what you both seem unable to understand is that the tactility is just as important as the sound, or in combination with it, that effects the "sound." its an abstract thought if you're up for it

i am very aware of it

if you had read my post you might've noticed how dandy I think "tactility" is

btw please stop being a condescending asshole

  On 5/6/2013 at 11:19 PM, reid458 said:

Techdiff, I only used BoC and Aphex as examples to clarify the quality of sound I was talking about. I never said I wanted to be exactly like them.

Ah noo.. sorry maybe I didnt explain very well.

What I meant was, some people seemed to be turning the thread into a debate along those lines, but that I find that dull to talk about.

One other thing to mention into the thread.

I think people often wrongly attribute certain audio characeristics to synths, or to analogue in general. Layering tape hiss, excessive saturation and so on into a recording does not make it sound analogue. Maybe I'm just a grumpy sort, but it just reminds me of that dark period in music production when everyone was adding vinyl crackle to a mix... ugh

What I mean, it's really cool when something has that authentic sound from a real analogue recording process, but not so cool when it's so overdone that it sounds like it was recorded on a 3rd hand c90 in a busted up fostex with flat batteries at +30 db.

don't be hatin' on lo fi

I want to apologize for being condescending, a dick, and an idiot above.

It's just that I've been seeing a lot of that talk recently that you don't need hardware to make good music. I definitely agree with it for the most part. But I think that view is slightly overrepresented. I think music made 100% in the box always seems to lack something. It could be a placebo effect but when a little bit of something from outside the box is added, I always think it saves the music. That could be anything from a sample to passing your work through a tape and back into the computer, or adding air or something. There needs to be some kind of "soul." That's just my opinion though. And the issue can be taken a lot further. So that is why I tend to react negatively to the quote by Legowelt. I just don't think he's really saying anything, and when it comes down to it I do disagree with him. Especially due to his music (that I've heard) being made almost entirely out of hardware.

The issue is one of blind tests and side by side comparisons. Why aren't there more of these? I know there was a really good thread a while back where the poster did this and I WAS FOOLED! And I am fooled consistently.

But still, if the blind test was done like this instead: click on the ones you are SURE are analog and no others. Then it would be fail safe. You would never really fail. Because there are dead giveaways in the sound.

Beside that, there is the question of living soul as opposed to 1s and 0s.

here is a thread with information on this subject

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/66791-favourite-software-for-getting-a-warm-analog-sound/?hl=blind

HERE IS THE THREAD I MENTIONED:

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/61343-guess-the-synth/?hl=neptune

unfortunately the links are gone. I really, really wish there were more things like this. Besides demonstrating the issue at hand, they are really fun.

this is another good one:

  On 5/7/2013 at 2:30 AM, vamos scorcho said:

I want to apologize for being condescending, a dick, and an idiot above.

 

It's just that I've been seeing a lot of that talk recently that you don't need hardware to make good music. I definitely agree with it for the most part. But I think that view is slightly overrepresented. I think music made 100% in the box always seems to lack something. It could be a placebo effect but when a little bit of something from outside the box is added, I always think it saves the music. That could be anything from a sample to passing your work through a tape and back into the computer, or adding air or something. There needs to be some kind of "soul." That's just my opinion though. And the issue can be taken a lot further. So that is why I tend to react negatively to the quote by Legowelt. I just don't think he's really saying anything, and when it comes down to it I do disagree with him. Especially due to his music (that I've heard) being made almost entirely out of hardware.

 

The issue is one of blind tests and side by side comparisons. Why aren't there more of these? I know there was a really good thread a while back where the poster did this and I WAS FOOLED! And I am fooled consistently.

 

But still, if the blind test was done like this instead: click on the ones you are SURE are analog and no others. Then it would be fail safe. You would never really fail. Because there are dead giveaways in the sound.

 

Beside that, there is the question of living soul as opposed to 1s and 0s.

 

 

 

I mostly agree with you about ITB music. But I think it's more a matter of people not paying enough attention to vibe than ITB inherently lacking the ability to have the sort-of 'analog vibe.' In 2013 ITB tools are really so amazing, there's lots of ways to get vibe.

(the reason I'm harping on 'vibe' is because I think that's what this whole issue boils down to)

A few things that will (IMO) immediately spruce up an ITB joint:

1) perform the synths instead of writing them into a piano roll grid

2) LPF or roll-off some hi-end

3) LFO> pitch envelope or subtle vibrato

4) saturation and compression