DSP Robotics Support

tulamide wrote:You might have misunderstood my whole post, because this is exactly the point I was making. It's not the tool, but the person using it. You could have done the song with any other synth just as well - because the composition is good, not because any synth would make it sound better.

So I understand it correctly then . I will not be able to do this track with any other synth I used before. This is why I said this one is the a beast for me. You can make almost any sound without any problems with it and it doesn't matter if you are after emulating/simulating acousting instrument or you are making "pure synth" sound. Composition is just how the track is build but how it is sounds is beacuse of zebralette.

Phil Thalasso wrote:I do, however, believe that this is not something which I take as a typical synthesizer piece, the way I understand electronic music.

This is what I don't understand. What does it mean electronic music for YOU? Because this track is made with synthesizer on computer, so it is for sure electronic music. What about physical modeling vst's? Doesn't mean it for you that these are not suited for electronic music? Electronic music is not style but it is how the music is made.
*****************************************
Ok back to topic. For me there are few important things that are considered when rating synthesizer:
1. Sound
2. UI and workflow
3. Price

Those number and not about what comes first. All three are important.

Sound it is not matter how actually osc alone sound but it depends on what synthesis and what basic features it have in conjunction with this synthesis. For example if it is substractive synthesis for me option to adjust frequency cutoff on filter based on note velocity is must, especially for percussive instruments. Having additional slot for another filter modulation is also required for me. Mod matrix in order to have more source modulations is welcome. Self oscilating filter is nice option too. Having more filter types is nice too but basic LP, BP and HP is must. Overall unison is nice addition and is also must for some instrumnents no matter what sytnhesis. Number of oscilattors dosn't really matter if basic options for manipulating this one osc are available. If there is no noise source in osc then sub osc with noise is also must. With sound engine one must not forget CPU load. I don't need synth that one instance with simple chords east my CPU at breakfast.

UI and workflow. First of all visual look is important but it is not matter of how well is designed knobs, sliders and so on. I can live with just simple flat knobs and controls but what matter is how organized are this elements. So by just looking at interface you know what to do and you can see what is happening on background. Better to remove visual junk that are not needed like wooden panels, screws and so on. Leave only usable elements and use that space to make controls bigger and the same time whole UI cleaner without mess.

Price. There is also another important thing in this category. If it is comerciall synth then copy protection is first thing that I look for. Doesn't matter what price it have, even it is 1$ if the copyprotection sucks will not buy it. For exmpale I hate iLok. Most welcome protection is sotmhing like imageline stuff whereyou can just dowload simple reg file and you can activate product anytime and anywhere without any internet connection. Best is when there is no copyprotection build in synth at all. For example Fathom synth that I have bought for 15$ doesn't have any copyprotection and the synth is very good. Some intruments are way overpriced especially when you can do the same things with free instruments.

Hello Trojak,

you asked what electronic music means to me.

Of course you are right by pointing out that you realized your track using electronic equipment. Ergo it is electronic music. Nothing wrong with that and I can see where you are coming from. To my ears, however, it does sound very much like something that could have been realized with classical acoustic instruments and effects. Bob was asking the forum's opinion of what makes a synth a good synth. Please see my comment in this context. To me an electronic piece of music should sound electronic. Obviously this is just the way I look at things. This is nothing you can be wrong or right with; it's a matter of taste and style. So from my point of view, using a piano vst and a DAW amounts to analog acoustic music. Say you lined the piano up with a filterbank and drive the cut-off with an lfo, what you could get at is something you wouldn't be able to realize easily with an acoustic piano and audio effects. The outcome I would consider electronic. Phrased differently, if I carried your argument to an exaggerated end, playing a CD of an orchestra recording could be considered electronic music, as the means by which sound is re-produced are electronic. That is the area in which we differ in opinion. You come from how it's made, I come from what it sounds like. So we are talking about means and outcome. I hope that I could so far clarify my angle of looking at things and thanks again for sharing this wonderful track.

Regards
Phil

Phil Thalasso wrote:If I wanted a piano-sound I'd just sit down on my piano and would never try to recreate its sound electronically.

To my ears, however, it does sound very much like something that could have been realized with classical acoustic instruments and effects.

I have readed your first post before I posted my first post. Problem always occurs because of words and they meanings. I quoted 2 sentences to point out my view. I'm always more in hybrid type of music and not clasic. My goal is not to emulate real instrumets with synthesizers (for that I have a lot sampled kontakt instruments) but take their dynamic characteristics and apply it on electonic "synth" sound to create something different. Something that you can't make direclty by playing real piano. So it if synth sound for sure but same time I'm trying to emulate real behavior and not actual sound. So you just take saw osc and apply that behavior of piano and you have saw piano - kind of .

You can say that I can take sampled or real piano and apply effects to achieve my goal but it is wrong. I use metaphor for this with painting. You can apply post blur on already painted image but result will not be same if you paint that image the way you want in order to appear blured. There will be always difference between those two. My track was example. There is no way to make this synth viola by playing real viola. It have different "color" and you absolutelly hear it is artificial - electronic. For your view on synth sound there is not much need to apply those dynanic changes (i mean velocity layers and simulating RR) and this why it sound more artificial - your view on electronic instruments.

This is also why I stated that zebrallete is good beacuse it can do more that just "traditional electronic" sound that most users expect.

I think it’s down to semantics, as Trojak said.

For example, if you take the term “Dance Music” and put the word “Electronic” in front you have a different expectation. And we all know how great EDM is

As I see it, the term “electronic” can have different meanings, according to context. One can have an MP3 player that is electronic or one could describe a sound as electronic, which I would say means synthetic in some way. I gather Phil simply prefers and responds better to sounds which are distinctly non-imitative.

Cheers

Spogg

Unfortunately, you are one of the people who constantly contradict themselves, which makes it annoying, esp. when you feel the need to correct something, that wasn't wrong in the beginning. I just do a summary here and won't further discuss it. Do what you want with it, as long as you don't try to tell me what I was thinking.

It started with your advertisement for Zebralette. To showcase its abilities, you linked to a song:

TrojakEW wrote:What you can do with one osc synth like Zebralette? Listen to example bellow. Everything in this track is Zebralette and nothing else. Every patch is custom made by me of course.
https://soundcloud.com/trojakew/the-modern-prometheus

I then told you that you are not showcasing Zebralette, because the song sounds well in all kinds of instumentation. Also, Zebralette certainly is not the only synth capable of producing classical-instrument-like sounds with synthesis. I do the same a lot with Propellerheads' Subtractor, for example:

tulamide wrote:Sorry, but that is not showcasing Zebralette. It is impressive because of your very good composition. I even go as far as saying it is a good song DESPITE Zebralette. I can imagine how this would sound played by big symphonic orchestra, and it would give me goosebumps.

And now it gets weird. You say:

TrojakEW wrote:I'm saying it is best synth for me.

But that is not true. You explicitly said you show us what we could do with Zebralette (see above).

Then you go on my path by stating:

TrojakEW wrote:You also prove my words that it doesn't matter what car you drive but how good driver you are.

You indeed said it before:

TrojakEW wrote:BTW what you can get out of synth is mostly matter of operator and not synth itself.

It is so important, that I answered to it:

tulamide wrote:You might have misunderstood my whole post, because this is exactly the point I was making. It's not the tool, but the person using it. You could have done the song with any other synth just as well - because the composition is good, not because any synth would make it sound better.

That's indeed the point. With my experience on the Subtractor I am able to patch sounds that others can't achieve with it. But that doesn't mean I can generate such sounds only with the Subtractor. The same is true for Zebralette. And anyone who says that a certain sound could only be done by one specific synth is either naive or lies on purpose. There's always another synth (best example: Moog sounds are all over the place today)

But no confirmation from your side, instead:

TrojakEW wrote:So I understand it correctly then . I will not be able to do this track with any other synth I used before. This is why I said this one is the a beast for me. You can make almost any sound without any problems with it and it doesn't matter if you are after emulating/simulating acousting instrument or you are making "pure synth" sound. Composition is just how the track is build but how it is sounds is beacuse of zebralette.

No, you didn't. You still think the tool was defining the song, while it was you. Do you really think that Queen's iconic bass line from "Another one bytes the dust" loses any of its impact, when playing it with a synth bass instead of the real Musicman bass that was used to record it? Of course not, because it is the composition that makes the melody, not the used tool.

Even more contradiction:

TrojakEW wrote:Yes I'm weird since I mostly trying to make acoustic instruments out of synth but almost any synthesizers can make synthwave/supersaw/any synthy sounding stuff.

TrojakEW wrote:Because this track is made with synthesizer on computer, so it is for sure electronic music.

When you're doing accoustic instruments, you're not doing electronic music. You're replicating analog music with electronic devices. The whole purpose of electronic music was to have totally new sounds through synthesis, that didn't already exist from classical instuments like violins or clarinette.

But we seem to agree on one thing: No music exists, be it electronic or analog, without a talent that composes it.

I apologise if my post is annoying. It wasn't the purpose. I was just trying to express what I mean but I failed. English is not my native language. So I rather shut up.