Dubstepforum.com

Hurtdeer wrote:

Brisance wrote:You could be right, boils down to personal taste.

actually, i think it boils down to how good you are at hearing sounds, which is why new (or terrible) producers are happy to use fake strings, "plucked"-like guitar synths, fake choirs, etc- because to them it's not too dissimilar to the real thing. At least that's why I did that shit when I started. Annoys me now

Same with any piano vsts really- to most people it'll genuinely sound like an actual piano. The thing is though, an actual player will have nuances and subtleties to his playing (as well as a realistic sounding piano) and to most people, even though they won't actively realise it, it'll sound better.


Or maybe some people like the fake piano sound as a deliberate thing. Fair enough.

While you are correct, I must say it is down to taste, I personally LIKE artificial sounds, if I ever should use a piano, I use FL keys and distort it, etc. Only things sounding close to their real counterparts in my tunes are some of the drums

Hurtdeer wrote:I really like the Flashbulb's work, but the piano in that track sounds so dead to me. Which is a shame, because the drum programming is really cool. It's the same problem I mentioned with the VSnares album earlier.

But how is that piano different from the drums? How are the drums alive but the piano dead? That's sorta contradictory.

I mean, I never use sounds that emulate an acoustic instrument, string instruments sound awful that way. I'm planning to learn how to play cello sometime to use it in my own tracks, hell, I'm even saving up for a bass guitar to get a nice smooth bass sound (I already play guitar anyway), but piano VSTs can sound really good, though. Yes, not exactly like a "real" piano, but that doesn't make them "bad" just "different". Depending on what the producer's personal priorities are and what he or she wants out of a sample, using it can sound great.

And I'm not complaining here or anything and I'm quite aware that everyone is aware of what I'm about to say but: every sound that you can hear is real. There's no such thing as a fake sound. Lotsa rockists try to argue that a synth sounds 'fake' and that music coming out of a computer is 'fake', but they're vibrating waves just like any sound is. I don't hold one sound in more regard than the other and I'd like to point out that my preference for acoustic string instruments over their digital counterparts may very well be the result of me having grown up hearing acoustic string instruments for most of my life.

It's much like how kids that were born in the mid '90s don't like a lot of older singers as much since they've grown up with auto-tune.

Hurtdeer wrote:actually, i think it boils down to how good you are at hearing sounds, which is why new (or terrible) producers are happy to use fake strings, "plucked"-like guitar synths, fake choirs, etc- because to them it's not too dissimilar to the real thing. At least that's why I did that shit when I started. Annoys me now

No, it comes down to taste and taste only. Strings of Life/Rhythm Is Rhythm has some of the most 'fake' sounding strings in the world - yet it's an absolute classic. It's all about the context!

I agree with you about Venetian Snares though - one of my favourite artists ever, but he got it *wrong* with My Downfall. I'm losing patience with Snares a bit actually... the last couple of times I've seen him live he's either stormed off in a strop (Glade 2007) or insisted on playing almost entirely undanceable beats (Bangface Weekender 2008).... if someone half decent clashes with him and John Frusciante at the BF Weekender this year, it really won't be too much of a decision to miss him....

Rule number one: read the god damn manual

Paradigm X wrote: Dont use the 3rd option on the select tool, that sounds shit.

This was what I did at first time. Sounded really nasty. Its realtime processing and not good.

Paradigm X wrote: MPEX2 is the best quality. Even that has a slider for monophonic-polyphonic, try playing with that.

You mean MPEX4! That did the trick. Thanks for pointing! Using this it sounded really really nice. 12 sec sample clip processing took about 10 sec

Paradigm X wrote: personally, the whoel point of samples is the feel, grit and beauty of that moment in time. Reproducing with midi is just not even close... IMO etc.

Agree. Samples sometime contain a lot of little nuances you can never recreate. But recreating can give interesting and new results sometimes.

Finding midi files of original song is good idea.



So, solved.
Thanks to all.

cool. glad it worked out.

Magma wrote:

Hurtdeer wrote:actually, i think it boils down to how good you are at hearing sounds, which is why new (or terrible) producers are happy to use fake strings, "plucked"-like guitar synths, fake choirs, etc- because to them it's not too dissimilar to the real thing. At least that's why I did that shit when I started. Annoys me now

No, it comes down to taste and taste only.

^^^this

synthesized sounds that emulate instruments have their own tonal quality. to say that using these sounds is a proof of not having a well developed ear is utter bull.
I'm a guitar player, have played guitar for 12 years now, and I will still occasionally use a synthesized guitar sound. It sounds different, and sometimes that is what I am looking for.

the whole idea of one sound being objectively better than another is ridiculous.

Melodyne does timestretching fairly well too

I was messing about with the demo today

Hurtdeer wrote:My feelings towards it are similar- ie, all sound is "real", so I agree with you. However, the problem for me is that I don't like things trying to be something they aren't, and failing. "Rockists" arguing that synths are "fake" is more of a result of them insisting to themselves that music starts and ends with rock music instruments, whereas my argument against instrument emulators isn't that they're not "real" sounds, it's that they're trying very hard to be another instrument, and, end of the day, the real thing sounds 10 times better... so I feel you may as well use that or something else entirely?

The drums sound awesome because they're not pretending to be a "real", they're embracing the electronic side of the programming to the point that they're very much their own sound, and not trying to live up to something else

Are you positive that that's how your ears react to it and not a personal bias? Seems to be an odd coincidence. Yeah I wouldn't use emulated strings or emulated horns myself but within the right context any instrument can sound good.

I mean, yeah, anyone can like any sound, regardless of how good their ears are. Acoustic strings do sound 'richer' and 'more dynamic', but I don't think it makes them 'inherently good' from a more objective point of view. And 20 or 30 years from now the trend in electronic music may shift to preferring the emulated sound. Then again, 50 years from now they're likely able to recreate the sound of strings accurately.

Hurtdeer wrote:I thought Snares' set at the weekender was awesome actually, a really good jungle vibe to it- well, at least I danced . Especially compared to when I saw him at planet mu, which was much more of a hard idm/gabber set. Heard about Glade though, walking off on stage just isn't cool.

I prefer his gabber'esque stuff to his more recent jungle fetish (like the Remarc worship on 'Gentleman' which is still by all means a great song.. sadly the only one on that album). How recent was the Planet Mu thing? I'm seeing him at Dour and I'm hoping for lots of 'Boiled Angel' or 'Winnipeg is Fucking Over' or "All The Children Are Dead"...

Depone wrote:I personally would use ableton. It has amazing time stretching and the best i have heard. Many different types and algorithms. I don't sequence on it tho.

I personally think you can spot the Ableton time stretch a mile off even with 'complex' on a 10bpm difference

more of an auditioning functionality for me
I avoid it unless its a last resort or if im doing sound design.

Hurtdeer wrote:I thought Snares' set at the weekender was awesome actually, a really good jungle vibe to it- well, at least I danced . Especially compared to when I saw him at planet mu, which was much more of a hard idm/gabber set. Heard about Glade though, walking off on stage just isn't cool.

Maybe I was just getting tired at the Weekender - it had been a hard night by the time we got to Snares and I reckon I was ready for a bit of a chillout before the next few acts. I was so intent on dancing though... we ended up stood towards the back dancing with Aaron Spectre, but I couldn't help but think everytime he built up a riddim to a point where it was danceable (sometimes it takes a few bars to get the hang of where your feet go to a break in 7/8!) he went and bloody changed it.

Probably a bit of tiredness and the effects of the Glade performance though. I'm not sure I've ever felt so let down by a hero - still love his recorded work though, every CD is an essential purchase and Detrimentalism was SUPERB!

I remember seeing him on a bill with uZiq at The Black Swan in Bristol (think it was a Bashout)... it's one of my best memories of electronic music. Amazing night!

anybody here timestretch with acidpro? i just took a 125bpm acapella and turned it into a 140bpm acapella in no time flat... oh yeah and it sounds 100% perfect... done deal.

Brisance wrote:FL has this nice way of choosing a timestretch algorithm(take that steinberg!) and usually one of them sounds a lot clearer than others. Also cherish the artifacts and take them as effects rather than nuisances.

I like to use "Pro-Transient" when stretching samples as it keeps the pitch at a constant instead of shifting it. Try them all to be honest its whatever sounds good to your ear.

Genevieve wrote:

Hurtdeer wrote:

futures_untold wrote:

Genevieve wrote:If it's from a well known piece you could always look up a MIDI file of it or try to find the sheet music of it, put that into the sequencer and use a piano VSTi.

Great idea!

really? Piano vsts sound awful and you'll lose a lot of the feel of the original player, which is part of what makes sampling. Part of what makes piano pieces interesting is how the player is interpreting that, and if you program that in from a score, that'd be lost

ok, so personally I hate emulation based synthesizers that do guitars/pianos/orchestra/whatever since- and i mean even with the top of the range eastwest stuff- it always sounds so dull and lifeless to me. I find time stretching out an original sample would sound much more interesting

All depends on the producer's priorities. Let him decide if it sounds good to his ears or not and what the producer wants a sample for, I would say.

Benn Jordan aka the Flashbulb composed 'Passage D' on a piano, but entered all the information into his sequencer and the end result is good: link to Passage D fan video

I think Hurtdeer might be confusing sample libraries with modelling synthesis. Most modelling synths tend to sound a bit rubbish, but if you play a track in on a decent sampled piano, most people won't be able to tell the difference once its in the tune itself.

paradigm x wrote:cubase has various options - MPEX2 is the best quality. Even that has a slider for monophonic-polyphonic, try playing with that.

you could always pitch it down a couple of semitones first, and transpose your track. Use pitch shift and untick preserve time. I do this a lot, and it means you only have to timestretch a tiny amount, get it as close as you can using the semitones (so its still easy to play midi along with). Dont use the 3rd option on the select tool, that sounds shit.

Could you expand on this a little? I use Cubase 5 but don't do much with audio at all. Isn't the 3rd option in the select tool the way to use MPEX2 (or whatever timestretch algorithm you're using)? Or am I way off on that one.

What the option to transpose the track? (Sorry if it's right there in the inspector, I'm not on my studio computer at the moment and can't check for a while).

When repitching isn't desired, you can use granular synthesis for stretching samples. In FL, load a sample into a new Granulizer and adjust spacing/width of the bits... automating these parameters gives great effects.

Or you can stretch the audio in Audacity - either unrepitched using "Change Tempo" plugin, or often bringing up the "Change Tempo" plugin merely to calculate a % number for a given BPM shift, then entering that % number into the "Change Speed" plugin which doesn't have its own BPM input field. This method is good for acapellas or breaks/instrumental loops that are lifted whole. You can right-click the tempo display in FL, then select "Tap..." to bring up the tap counter to find a BPM while a track is playing in Audacity or Edison.

(There's probably a way to do the % shifting in Edison too, but I haven't bothered to find it since Audacity works for the purpose.)