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

Legowelt seems to be pretty versatile regarding his use of both soft synths and hardware, here's the interview the quote was taken from. I think his car analogy is pretty spot-on. He doesn't elaborate on that much but it makes sense. I saw a Top Gear where they took a Jaguar E-Type, a premier and then powerful early 60s sports car, and they pitted it against a stock Honda Civic and the Civic beat it in the 0-60mph and 1/4 mile drag race. But anyone would rather drive a vintage Jaguar than a dull stock Civic hatchback. It can be said that the synth debate is similar - digital and virtual synths are far more capable and flexible than hardware, but the hardware is inherently "warmer" and impossible to emulate 100%.

http://vimeo.com/29652228

And analog and vintage traits does not make something magically sound better, and often the most expensive and high-quality hardware will be so hi-fi that the effect on sound it will have is negligible compared to hi-quality digital sources. There is shit hardware just as there are shit VSTs. Take cassette tapes and cassette players - a metal tape playing in a Nakamichi will be remarkably hi-fi - to the point where it will have more clarity than most CD or .flac recordings. You'd find yourself wasting money trying to easily get a "lo-fi" sound with a little bit of hiss and warble using such equipment. Likewise (as Techdiff pointed out) there is nothing pleasantly lo-fi with dreadfully recorded tape playing through cheap hardware. The sweet spot is a happy medium. I got the impression reid458 was trying to simply research and master how to achieve a sound, in this case the synth sounds of 90s IDM, and to me that's a reason to have a healthy discussion, not a futile debate, on the pros and cons of digital versus analog methods of creating sounds.

Here´s another comparison I did with Milkman and me playing a VST.

https://soundcloud.com/reid458/milkmanvst

On an unrelated note, LimpyLoo, what do you think I should do to fix this up? I think the difference between mine and your´s is that your´s has almost a squeak sound to it (as does aphex) and mine doesn´t.

https://soundcloud.com/reid458/flimattempt1

Nicely done on both of them.

In the original "Milkman" he cranks the release towards the end of the phrase so the notes overlap. Just a little detail though.

Oh that would make sense. I was thinking it was two completely new notes.

Interesting topic. I don't really use any VSTs (except ableton operator, which isnt a virtual analogue or emulation or whatever), so not going to add much- but i do think people saying you need hardware to add that certain special something are catagorically wrong, and that's simply their own personal preference talking.

Good luck sound-hunting i would say that you'd stumble across most of the classic 90s idm leads and basses after spending a day with the 101/mc202. Have a polaroid on hand to 'save' your patches ;)

  On 5/7/2013 at 9:21 PM, Amen Warrior said:

i would say that you'd stumble across most of the classic 90s idm leads and basses after spending a day with the 101/mc202. Have a polaroid on hand to 'save' your patches ;)

In my experience, once you learn all of the parameters it's very easy to recall stuff by memory.

I dunno if this is more lo-fi or a WONKYNESS thing but using a modular synth (digital) where you can 'bleed' effects into each other at low volumes is useful too

I think this sounded pretty analord

https://soundcloud.com/supergrandmatales324/kindergartencop2

lol would using old monitors help or hurt things? I have these Audio Technica monitors but from like 1996 haha

i think digital vs. analog filters/nyquist frequency is interesting. Essentially analog filters go to infinity don't they? And then resampling has its own artifacts if you take that route

  On 5/7/2013 at 11:48 PM, Ragnar said:

I dunno if this is more lo-fi or a WONKYNESS thing but using a modular synth (digital) where you can 'bleed' effects into each other at low volumes is useful too

Could you explain what you mean with the whole 'bleed' thing?

people shouldn't be so concerned with who they sound like. do you.

Again, not trying to sound like anyone. The original question only listed some artists to give people an idea of what I was talking about. I'm applying what a learn to my own music. I'm not trying to sound like Aphex Twin in my actual music.

  On 5/8/2013 at 1:02 AM, reid458 said:

 

  On 5/7/2013 at 11:48 PM, Ragnar said:

I dunno if this is more lo-fi or a WONKYNESS thing but using a modular synth (digital) where you can 'bleed' effects into each other at low volumes is useful too

 

Could you explain what you mean with the whole 'bleed' thing?

 

wire everything into everything else, but at lower volumes than the main routing

 

Still kinda vague

i'm sorry, was just random ranting, had nothing to do with you.

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

 

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.

 

flol

I think an important point in this debate is to consider the fact hardware often gives you a more direct control over the sound.

Example :

- Option 1 : take a simple hardware monophonic subtractive synth. Plug it, press play, play with the knobs.

- Option 2 : take a software equivalent of this synth. Load it into your daw, think about which control you'd like to play with and link them to your control surface. Then play with it.

Which of the two options seems to be the simpler ? I would say most part of the mythology attached to the hardware world originally comes from that difference. It's exhausting to think about how you're going to create something and for most people it's way more creative-friendly to have all you need already at your disposal under your hands, especially if you're a beginner. I could directly experience that when I received my Electribe, after having experimented for two or three years as a total beginner with softwares and vsts.

So I wouldn't say the difference is that much about the sound (actually software is more versatile), but rather about the interaction between the musician and the music tools. And I personally think that if you can of course make incredible music with software, every electronic musician should also know how it is to play with hardware (as there's chances that it will give you new ideas with your software tools).

  On 5/8/2013 at 8:49 AM, Adam Beker said:

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

flol

the key for getting an analog sound, in my opinion as a person who frequently gets asked what analog/hardware gear I use for sounds that are not made with analog/hardware gear, is the following:

1. Pick a VST synth with an "analog" or "drift" setting, such as korg polysix, ableton's analog (I think it's called "error" in this one) or zeta 2. this is usually more effective than a modest pitch lfo cause the release of each tone will retain its tuning and create that crazy analog drift sound. Turn up that setting (duh) and go to town. I'm not going to go into basic synthesis, you can learn subtractive synthesis over a weekend if you're serious. I'm pretty sure not even autechre fully understands FM synthesis, it's pretty much hit or miss experimentation on that one.

3. The main key i've noticed is to chain loads of effects (chorus!!) out the ass on your instrument track, but keep them on slow and barely perceptible settings, just enough for some organic livelihood. Make sure to get your compressor settings right.

4. delay with added dynamic tube distortion - only on the wet delay sound, not the dry input! this makes for instant analord sound

5. low pass filter with a single pole (-6dB/oct instead of -12 or -24), such as the karmafx one. this ensures a ridiculously smooth cutoff for those pesky digital highs

6. keep some of that lo-fi 100-200hz mud & bass in sounds that shouldn't have bass

7. stereo wideners and harmonic exciters to widen the sounds that your chorus unit can't.

Get an 808 or 909 drum emulator and you're good to go!

  On 5/8/2013 at 9:15 AM, Antape said:

I think an important point in this debate is to consider the fact hardware often gives you a more direct control over the sound.

 

Example :

 

- Option 1 : take a simple hardware monophonic subtractive synth. Move near it, plug it into your soundcard, plygin a keyboard press play, play with the knobs. When you want another patch, draw your patch, record it what you want to your daw. Make another patch you want from the patch you had made because you cant just load a default preset or whatever you want. When you want to automate the controls you turn them by hand and record it to your daw, be sure to not fuck up or you'll have to rerecord everything.

 

- Option 2 : take a software equivalent of this synth. Load it into your daw and play with it.

 

fixt

  On 5/8/2013 at 3:04 PM, chimera slot mom said:

the key for getting an analog sound, in my opinion as a person who frequently gets asked what analog/hardware gear I use for sounds that are not made with analog/hardware gear, is the following:

 

1. Pick a VST synth with an "analog" or "drift" setting, such as korg polysix, ableton's analog (I think it's called "error" in this one) or zeta 2. this is usually more effective than a modest pitch lfo cause the release of each tone will retain its tuning and create that crazy analog drift sound. Turn up that setting (duh) and go to town. I'm not going to go into basic synthesis, you can learn subtractive synthesis over a weekend if you're serious. I'm pretty sure not even autechre fully understands FM synthesis, it's pretty much hit or miss experimentation on that one.

 

3. The main key i've noticed is to chain loads of effects (chorus!!) out the ass on your instrument track, but keep them on slow and barely perceptible settings, just enough for some organic livelihood. Make sure to get your compressor settings right.

 

4. delay with added dynamic tube distortion - only on the wet delay sound, not the dry input! this makes for instant analord sound

 

5. low pass filter with a single pole (-6dB/oct instead of -12 or -24), such as the karmafx one. this ensures a ridiculously smooth cutoff for those pesky digital highs

 

6. keep some of that lo-fi 100-200hz mud & bass in sounds that shouldn't have bass

 

7. stereo wideners and harmonic exciters to widen the sounds that your chorus unit can't.

 

Get an 808 or 909 drum emulator and you're good to go!

Very helpful tips, thank you!

Just to be a pedantic nipple..

"hardware" does not = analogue.

  On 5/5/2013 at 8:45 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Well look, let's take the chords from "Flim."

 

 

It sounds to me like a squarewave, with a very plucky amplitude setting (but maybe a soft-ish attack setting), a LPF set so you get a very dark sound, and lots of hall reverb.

 

I've been known to recreate Aphex Twin sounds from time to time so lemme know if you want me to demonstrate.

Hi Richard!

Produce in Reason.

  On 5/11/2013 at 3:37 PM, xox said:

Produce in Reason.

Haha, that's actually a good piece of advice.. The Maelstrom and Subtractor in Reason can produce some pretty interesting tones that I haven't been able to find in some of the best vsts.. May have sonething to do with the weird dark, murky and somewhat grainy quality of the sound engine... I've stumbled into some tones and voices that definitely sound reminiscent of i care because you do