Hummel BlueSynth and Inferno Tune

caleb · Post by **caleb** » Sat Apr 27, 2002 5:49 am

This file has expired and is no longer available here. The owner of the topic can re-upload the file, or post a link to an off-site file. <a name="planetz-tag"></a>Genre: Computer Game Music <a name="planetz-tag"></a>Uses: Pulsar Synths copyright © 2002 Caleb Blake _____________________________________ 
Hi guys,

In line with my "Man with a Mission" thread in the General Discussion forum, I have posted a small 40 second song using just the BlueSynth and Inferno (EDS8i and one crash cymbal sample used for percussion).

I've called the tune "King Waffle" but this really sounds like a Computer Game soundtrack.

The lead, bass and small arpeggiated bits are the Inferno and the pad and bouncy chords towards the end are the BlueSynth.

I have used effects like delays and phasers too.

Feel free to make any comments you want to, I don't mind. If you notice it's mixed poorly it's because it is mixed poorly - there is no equalisation whatsoever.

Now let the shooting begin.

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Sat Apr 27, 2002 6:08 am

I could sort of understand what you were trying to do.. but it seems many of the parts are trying to cross each other out. applying eq and comp to organize layers in the mix is one thing, but it's also good to incorporate such ideas into your patch. It's especially important in subtractive synths I think.

borg · Post by **borg** » Sat Apr 27, 2002 6:30 am

it's a Kraftwaffle!!!

caleb · Post by **caleb** » Sat Apr 27, 2002 7:09 am

"applying eq and comp to organize layers in the mix is one thing, but it's also good to incorporate such ideas into your patch"

Hey Kensuguro, I didn't really understand that comment. Can you ellaborate on it a bit further.

There isn't even any panning in this piece so I'm not surprised they sound like all the sounds are competing for air.

I might try and make a better mix of it down the track, but as it was more an academic exercise with the synths, I must admit all the important mixing stuff took a very distant back seat to just knocking something up with the synths that I was working on - especially the percussion which I just threw in there really.

Retro · Post by **Retro** » Sun Apr 28, 2002 1:46 am

Stevie Wonder meets Commodore 64

I'm only guessing here, but what I think Kensuguro was alluding to was this:

You can actually improve the sound of your mix a great deal without even touching EQ and comp by taking a little more care with your synth programming. Instead of reaching for the EQ to get more seperation between instruments, try altering the frequency characteristics on the devices themselves. Along the same lines, you can simulate compression by playing with the amp envelopes and velocity sensitivity.

The principle behind all good recording is to get the source sounding as perfect as possible and then only apply signal processing where it is necessary. The beauty of using synths as your source instruments is that they generally give you much greater control over their tonal characteristics than acoustic instruments do.

I hope I don't sound too high-brow in giving you this advice. I just thought this little experiment you've embarked on would be a good opportunity to learn a few tricks of the trade.

I was taught a lot of these principles years ago by some of the best engineers in the business, but the funny thing is I had no idea back then that those some techniques would continue to produce new advantages, such as saving precious DSP power!

Have fun,
Retro

caleb · Post by **caleb** » Sun Apr 28, 2002 2:29 am

Thanks Retro. I think I see what you're saying there. I've never really thought about that, but it actually seems counter-productive to me.

Compressors and EQ devices seem like stock standard devices that do their job fairly well. If I'm constantly going back trying to similate the effect of those devices on the synths themselves, I'm actually spending far too much time on it methinks.

I actually struggle enough getting a handle on the functionality of an EQ and Comp without trying to do it the way you suggest.

It does sound very clever though and it does make sense, but here I am trying to get useable sounds out of synths I haven't really used before (when I'm not that good at programming synths anyway) and now you want me to also simulate a compressor and an EQ with them? Give me a break.

I used to love those Commodore 64 leads which is why I programmed that one into an Inferno. Nasty and searing. I've actually started doing more of the song now as someone from another forum requested a 3-4 minute version.

If I actually try to mix it properly, I'll post it here again so you can comment. When you hear how bad I am at mixing you'll probably stop suggesting to do even trickier things with the synths themselves.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Apr 28, 2002 4:52 am

hi Caleb,

a good idea to start it that way and first pick the synths with the most easy interface. Takes some time to get used to knob tweaking - but your skills will improve quickly.
You messed a bit what Ken and Retro tried to express. It is actually a more simple approach. You can 'enhance' the results of comp/eq by adjusting the synth program appropriately. This might replace a comp/eq completely because the sound can't be improved anymore, ideally.
In your case it's a bit tricky as the main sounds share the same source.
I've tried a similiar setup and had real problems to get transparency and a bit punch in.
This changed immediately on replacing some parts by external devices. There's another post titled 'what can be done with mod2 alone' which suffers from the same problem (imho). And Mod2 is an outstanding device, so this is not a question of quality.
Different sound characters from different sources bring a natural transparency which only needs polishing by eq, if at all.
Mastering is a different thing though, but doesn't belong here.
You could add different (small) amounts of reverb/delays or route one of the synths through a (moderate) amp-simulator to keep your basic setup and yield more transparent sound results. The litte Fender by Ingo from CW works wonders

for that purpose.
I've read you own that C64 emulation, layer it unisono on one part, the real SID is a weapon

and hear the result
Seems I'm a waffler, too...

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2002-04-28 05:53 ]

Retro · Post by **Retro** » Sun Apr 28, 2002 4:54 am

LOL... Sorry Caleb, I'm still getting a grip on who's at what stage on the learning curve around here. Perhaps this is a good example of the potential benefits of Nestor's proposed tutorial sessions. If we get into the fundamentals of recording, mixing and synthesis, I'm certain a lot of the concepts that currently sound complex will become very clear to you.

I promise I won't overstep the line in future comments on your productions! I'm really interested to hear how this one turns out because it already brings back a lot of great C64 memories

Makes me wanna fire up the QuadraSID again...

Cheers,
Retro

caleb · Post by **caleb** » Sun Apr 28, 2002 8:33 am

No No No Retro. You haven't overstepped any marks.

I value the feedback and am relieved that there's still a lot I don't understand. Wouldn't it be terrible if it was too easy!

It might help if you know my background.

I studied the piano and flute when I was younger, but never knew anything at all about synthesis, sound design, mixing, mastering etc. All I understood were music and lyrics.

I did have an extremely unsuccessful attempt at composing on the C64, but I just got lost. I didn't understand what at envelope was or anything else for that matter. I just didn't get it.

I still can't reproduce sounds in my head on a synthesiser, but I'm getting a little better at the simpler ones. Mostly though, I just play with the settings and then a sound just speaks to me I guess. That's why I don't understand altering the patch later, not to mention the fact that I wouldn't know what to alter anyway.

So fire away - honestly.

Retro · Post by **Retro** » Mon Apr 29, 2002 7:03 am

No worries Caleb

And thanks for sharing your background with me. It makes things a lot easier when you know who you're talking to! We could probably make a whole new thread out of this, but since we're here...

I seem to have come from the opposite angle to you in some respects. My Dad was an audio technician and he inspired me to explore anything to do with electronics and sound from a very early age. I was probably one of the very few 5 year olds who knew what a synthesizer was in those days! Later on I took piano lessons because I realised I wanted to do more than just make my C64 sound like a helicopter. I went on to become a sound engineer and now I do multimedia production.

So let's make a deal - I'll teach you how to make your kick drums shake the ceiling down and you can teach me how to take my compositions beyond 1984!

kensuguro · Post by **kensuguro** » Mon Apr 29, 2002 8:21 am

well, if you can make that "bass drums shake the ceilings down" bit into a special drink or some sort of gadget that fits inside my pocket.. I think I'd like one of them too..

And Retro is right about what I said about impementing frequency response into the patch. It's waay too easy to make a patch that floods the mix and stands out way too much. It's much harder to make a patch that coexists with others.. kind of like personality.. much harder to cooperate than to "stand out".

Heey, maybe I should do an experiment too.. wouldn't it be cool to set limits like "inferno and bluesynth+eds, no effects" and see what others come up with? not a contest at all, but just a great way to share different viewpoints.

caleb · Post by **caleb** » Mon Apr 29, 2002 7:29 pm

OK Retro. Looks like we've got a whole thread where I'm going to learn a hell of alot about audio technology so I'm looking forward to your wisdom.

I'm not sure if I could teach you anything but how to laugh really. I am, afterall, a clown at heart.

Unless you want to learn about IT Change Management policies in large mainframe environments that is.

And Kensuguro, it is always a pleasure having input from you.

Retro · Post by **Retro** » Mon Apr 29, 2002 10:27 pm

Laugh lessons are worth their weight in gold to me Caleb! In fact I think you've already started teaching the finer points elsewhere in this forum

Not so sure about IT Change Management though, as rivetting as it sounds... Excuse me a moment... (yawwwwwwwnnn)