Dubstepforum.com

definitly
i force shit and i fail but there are people not many who just do

Gotsta have layers. Not necessarily super overt maximalist layers. But there needs to be some sonic depth. I know some people can get down listening to raw triangle waves or whatever but I'm not one of them.

Layers don't have to equate to loudness. Having a multifaceted sound can help it pop out in the mix better without having to have its levels cranked.


I'm making that face right now actually. Trying to sort out this logarithmic transfer graph.
Human hearing is a motherfucker, would be much easier if everything was linear. I'm pretty sure I'm getting close though. Beta testing phase is approaching.

but ok what about a guitar song with vocals you have maybe ambiance from the recording bass melody rythmn and vocals or less but thats enough isnt it? so why do some electronic songs depend on 20 layers or whatever or more i dont say its bad but is it needed?

Bud, you and I have been dancing around this issue for a long time. I have been probing you. This is a piece of the puzzle of your music, and others like you. The track itself is not layered... But your sound events are.

I see that as a difference between you and I. I feel like I'm older school, like my tracks are literally like layers, running throughout the track.

I really might have to draw a picture.

===

Sunk - I'm in that zone dude, that crushed space. HURRY!

SunkLo wrote:Smells fishy.

Gonna make you a screen shot for you, god, space, and time willing. As an illustration. Jokes.

I think the difference is, a guitar for instance is already made of layers. You've got the vibrating string, you've got the sympathetic resonance of the other strings, you've got the resonance of the body which then feeds back to the strings, you've got fret noise, pick noise, various articulations, etc. It's far from just a saw wave. So to get something that isn't static and fatiguing, you need to incorporate an equivalent amount of layering and dynamics.

It's mad really, thinking that most records in the past would be made by most musicians using the same instrument over and over. The same guitar, the same drum kit, etc... Now we have this ridiculous amount of choice and sonic pallette that we have to spend hours of our lives organising them. IDK if it's a good thing or a bad thing.

I don't really organise shit because I use the same folder of samples and the same synths and plugins over and over. I still haven't grown tired of the sample packs I bought 5 years ago. I will use every kick, snare, hi hat and bloody fx sample I paid for!

ah i see sunklo with layers i thought of just the guitar for me woudl be one layer but you go deeper thats of course a dif thing
but still many fill this lack of layers with dif melodies instead of making one sound like the guitar (so do i)

nwj
i think its cause i try to see the song playing in a room or sth not as music at some stage like just sounds doing stuff but still trying to keep the basic pop idea of catchy melody

SunkLo wrote:I think the difference is, a guitar for instance is already made of layers. You've got the vibrating string, you've got the sympathetic resonance of the other strings, you've got the resonance of the body which then feeds back to the strings, you've got fret noise, pick noise, various articulations, etc. It's far from just a saw wave. So to get something that isn't static and fatiguing, you need to incorporate an equivalent amount of layering and dynamics.

really well said tbh.

my personal philosophy on layering is pretty similar. some people think to make a good lead you just layer 15 saws and boom now it's gonna be 'loud' and 'powerful' and cut through the mix. but imo in theory, assuming the phases are lined up the same, 1 saw wave at 0 dB should sound the same as 1000 saw waves at -1000 dB (i know that's not the right number but i can't calculate logs in my head).

layering is best used when a producer takes different sounds and makes them sound cohesive. the purpose shouldn't be loudness, in my opinion.

Naw, that is what I'M saying, the more layers, the quieter the track becomes.

i think its all about what you wanna use i am really not good with those sounds but a reece is like 2-3 or sth saws right not too many but a supersaw for example woudlnt that be way more slightly detuned so i think its all about the sound you wanna have but again the supersaw woudl be 1 layer for me like the guitar

Indeed. The loudest possible sound is a single raw square wave; its average volume is the same as its peak. Adding anything else after that is subtracting volume.

Of course, a square wave sounds pretty hideous imo, so I'd gladly trade some RMS for a more nuanced dynamic sound.

SunkLo wrote:So to get something that isn't static and fatiguing, you need to incorporate an equivalent amount of layering and dynamics.

OR you need to use your envelopes, lfo's, tape recorder (virtual or otherwise), resampler to introduce movement/texture.

OR -

Your sound events come in close enough proximity that stasis is broken.

SunkLo wrote:a square wave sounds pretty hideous imo,

Oh my god, the sacrilege.

Forgive him Father, for he knows not what he says.

Yeah no doubt, modulation is a key solution. But you can still look at that as a layer. Running something through a filter is the same as adding a delayed version of itself, adding reverb is layering in many diffuse copies of the sound, etc. For movement to occur there needs to be interaction, and for interaction to occur, there needs to be various layers.


Ehh you can't love square waves and not love savage hard clipping then, because they're the exact same thing. Too harsh, not enough harmonic falloff, too fatiguing on the ears. They're the opposite of analogue warmth.

That is a little, fuck I wish my brain was not deteriorating - A little technical? Yes those are layers as input, not necessarily as output.

I don't know, it is clear that we're using different meanings of 'layer'. Maybe irreconcilably.

There's definitely different degrees of layering. You can still add in a separate layer to a sound that will be perceived as a subjective change in the original vs a second voice playing in unison. Filtering is a blatant example of this. Also think of things like layering a transient sample on top of a bass synth. It will be perceived as that same bass synth with some extra bite; not a synth plus some dickhead plucking a really stiff dampened string every time the bass player tries to hit a note. Your ear just interprets it as one source.

karmacazee wrote:It's mad really, thinking that most records in the past would be made by most musicians using the same instrument over and over.

I'm pretty sure the same instrument is still used over and over. Listen to the freakin rap radio stations (I don't often), and they all have got the same dumb bassline. I mean, maybe I'm going crazy. I swear these instrumentals could be way more inventive. I think they all bought the same sample pack lmao

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKkb13IU_DE Chris Brown - Show Me (Explicit)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj6nqPeGaoE YG - My N*ggas
YG - Who Do You Love? (oh wow, I applied reverb to the same fuckin bass)

etc. etc. etc. omg really get creative people. this is why i like some edm.

splendid wrote:this is why i like some edm.

You didn't have to reach all the way over to rap music for an example of derivative sound design, considering the forum we're on.

i have a folder called 'reeceampling' (see wut i did ther) full of reecy bass patches and one called drum resampling full of drum sounds i made/resampled. however the reecampling folder is now full of loads of other random sounds too lol, thats about as far as i go with organization
btw what the hell do you produce under sunklo, you seem to know loads about production i rly wnna hear ur tunes >.< no pressure