Also, lol at using google autocomplete as evidence when you're logged in to you're google+ account....
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:37 am
by Rappone
i dont get the correlation there. its not like i searched it before
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:45 am
by twilitez
I managed to make a half decent track for IDMF's 'change the noise' comp, and it taught me lots about sampling. I still dont like to make tracks that way or even only with stock plugins though. If you think having alot of tools is limiting you, its probably just you limiting you.
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:02 am
by NinjaEdit
VirtualMark wrote:It seems quite straightforward to me - if you don't have enough plugins you'll limit your capabilities. Some sounds will be unattainable and other things will take you much longer to do without a dedicated plugin. I.e you could do a delay manually but it'd take ages.
But you have (most of) every kind of plugin stock. You've already got a delay plugin (or three in Ableton, actually), and not having fifty of them is supposed to be "limiting" you.
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:43 am
by Artie_Fufkin
but can Ableton's stock effects and instruments do modern talking sounds?
I've heard you can't do this without native instruments massive
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:11 am
by NinjaEdit
Yes you can get vocal sounds. Analog has two formant filters, and you can run a modulating low pass filter into the Redux bitcrusher.
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:14 am
by Kit Fysto
I guess there's just a difference between what you can do and what you want to do.
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:16 am
by VirtualMark
jonahmann wrote:
VirtualMark wrote:It seems quite straightforward to me - if you don't have enough plugins you'll limit your capabilities. Some sounds will be unattainable and other things will take you much longer to do without a dedicated plugin. I.e you could do a delay manually but it'd take ages.
But you have (most of) every kind of plugin stock. You've already got a delay plugin (or three in Ableton, actually), and not having fifty of them is supposed to be "limiting" you.
It's interesting how you've either misunderstood or twisted what i said.
Firstly, i wasn't talking about any particular DAW, i was talking about having too many or too little plugins in general.
Secondly, i never stated that you need fifty types of one plugin. I did say that i had 2 types of reverb, please learn to read.
Lastly, please explain to me how you would go about making a wavetable type sound in Ableton. Or perhaps an additive type sound, such as the type NI's Razor can make? Please tell me how you can make a sound in Ableton sound like it's coming from inside a car, or from a metal container, when you have no convolution reverb plugin? How would you go about making a sound where you FM a filter using an input sound, such as in Cytomic - The Drop filter?
I could probably list a few more examples, but i think you get the point.
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:56 am
by subfect
Ableton's reverb is a convolution reverb.
Additive synthesis - Operator
Wavetable - we're short there
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:03 am
by NinjaEdit
Firstly, i wasn't talking about any particular DAW, i was talking about having too many or too little plugins in general.
Secondly, i never stated that you need fifty types of one plugin. I did say that i had 2 types of reverb, please learn to read.
The thread is not about having too many or too "little [sic]" plugins in general, but about using only stock plugins, in particular Ableton's.
An essay I wrote at university is now used as model for other students, and you fail to use basic punctuation, so don't attack my literacy. You learn to fuckin' read.
Wavetable - we're short there
You can automate the waves in Operator.
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:28 am
by subfect
jonahmann wrote:You can automate the waves in Operator.
Oh? How?
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:34 am
by VirtualMark
jonahmann wrote:The thread is not about having too many or too "little [sic]" plugins in general, but about using only stock plugins, in particular Ableton's.
I disagree - the topic says "Stock sounds - who needs plugins?" And in the first paragraph the OP discussed people going after plugins to develop their sound.
jonahmann wrote:An essay I wrote at university is now used as model for other students, and you fail to use basic punctuation, so don't attack my literacy. You learn to fuckin' read.
Your stupidity is overwhelming. I said two reverbs, you said fifty types of each plugin. Your stupidity has stopped you from grasping the very simple point that i was making - that it's good to find a balance. I.e don't have too many or not enough. Is that too hard for you to wrap your brain cell around? Perhaps you could write an essay on the subject?
jonahmann wrote:You can automate the waves in Operator.
So that will make the same sounds as say, Massive?
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:37 am
by VirtualMark
subfect wrote:Ableton's reverb is a convolution reverb.
Additive synthesis - Operator
Wavetable - we're short there
Operator is FM isn't it? According to the Ableton website it is anyhow. And are you seriously going to say that NI's Razor wouldn't expand your sonic palette?
And i'm sure the built in reverb is algorithmic.
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:52 am
by NinjaEdit
VirtualMark wrote:
jonahmann wrote:The thread is not about having too many or too "little [sic]" plugins in general, but about using only stock plugins, in particular Ableton's.
I disagree - the topic says "Stock sounds - who needs plugins?" And in the first paragraph the OP discussed people going after plugins to develop their sound.
jonahmann wrote:An essay I wrote at university is now used as model for other students, and you fail to use basic punctuation, so don't attack my literacy. You learn to fuckin' read.
Your stupidity is overwhelming. I said two reverbs, you said fifty types of each plugin. Your stupidity has stopped you from grasping the very simple point that i was making - that it's good to find a balance. I.e don't have too many or not enough. Is that too hard for you to wrap your brain cell around? Perhaps you could write an essay on the subject?
jonahmann wrote:You can automate the waves in Operator.
So that will make the same sounds as say, Massive?
I'll fuckin' kill you.
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:09 pm
by Kit Fysto
This thread is hilarious. If the stock plugins with any DAW were really that fucking good, how would any company like native instruments, U-he, spectrasonics, re-fx, waves, universal audio, etc. (this would be a huge list) even be in business? Obviously there is a demand for these plugs from professionals and amateurs alike for a reason. Not saying the stock plugs are incapable of producing a tune, but there are plenty of better options. To argue this just means you have not experienced better or a you're just a fuckin jerk that hates on everything cause you think it makes you cool.
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:04 pm
by sluggy
I'm personally offended as a human that people join a music production forum to learn 'production', but instead of doing what they joined for, they end up arguing over something pointless.
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:12 pm
by OfficialDAPT
Ableton's reverb is not convolution I'm pretty sure
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:28 pm
by outdropt
sluggy wrote:I'm personally offended as a human that people join a music production forum to learn 'production', but instead of doing what they joined for, they end up arguing over something pointless.
Calm down buddy, its the internet.
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:39 pm
by Turnipish_Thoughts
Man... like... man... what a read. most heat I've seen on the boards yet. This thread became circular on like page 1.
I think the point being made has been made enough. Stock plugins are theoretically as good as third party plugins, though as each plug in is fundamentally unique and may include any number of combined functions any true comparison is irrelevant. All DAWs are essentially equal in terms of sound fidelity, the differences being down to work-flow which is unique to each individuals strengths and weaknesses so again any comparing is irrelevant.
Having too many plugins has negative effects; in the same manner having to little choice has negative effects. The 'right amount' is in reality so specific to each individual and based on so many personal variables that any quantifiable argument can only exist as subjective opinion.
I don't know why these threads exist. Why become involved in such futile conversation? Hopefully this ends here...
Re: Stock sounds - who needs plugins?
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:20 pm
by bassinine
if you think ableton's stock plugs are shit - you don't know what the fuck you're doing.
pretty much every single one of my tracks is ableton's stock plugs, with an extra filter and my access virus (sometimes massive for simple reeses). obviously it's nice to have another synth in addition to operator - but really, operator can do anything, some sounds are just more work though.
don't like the reverb/etc? have you fucking tried eq/distortion/other things along with it? that's the beauty of actually learning synthesis - that you don't have to use specific presets/vsts to make sounds you want.
on of the best things i ever did was get rid of like 200 vsts i never learned to use. because really, a great producer could use the stock plugs on any DAW and make a pro track.