Nectarios
Martian Arts
Started Topics :
187
Posts :
5292
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 00:27
Quote:
On 2010-10-25 21:47, Filteria wrote:
To be honest I never heard a single sound from the Prophecy in X-Dreams music (I mean the Prophecy sound is very easy to identify. Or they tweaked the shit out of it).
The Prophecy does rock (pain in the arse to programm with the menus tho), and it is basically software, and it was used by X-Dream, yet when tweaked right, you can't tell whether you're listening to one of THE most digital sounding synths around, even if its very easy to identify, like you pointed out
Nectarios
Martian Arts
Started Topics :
187
Posts :
5292
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 00:58
Quote:
On 2010-10-25 21:32, PoM wrote:
but i think the evolution of the psytrance sound we can hear from the past to today is related to the gears used and today sound is the reflect of the all in the computer production to me, do you agree?
Disagree, I think we can hear people with less experience than someone, who had just one synth, for like 2-3 years before they was able to get something new, and learned synthesis inside out, hence was a lot more able as a programmer.
The preset brigade and cheap synth work is all over the place, even on big labels, because it is easy to download a studio in the box nowdays. People have complex software modular synths, convolusion reverbs, Teletronix compressors and still dream on that day they'd make enough cash to buy THE best analog synth ever!!...the Virus http://soundcloud.com/martianarts
Login
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
65
Posts :
1707
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 03:33
noobs
"The dedication to repetition — the search for nirvana in a single held tone or an endlessly cycling rhythm — is one of electronic music's noblest gestures."
Stregone
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
63
Posts :
1252
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 10:27
This artist makes music and LIVE using a lot of old & new hardware gears and synth:
Filteria
Filteria
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
100
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 12:36
[quote]
On 2010-10-26 00:27, disco hooligans wrote:
Quote:
yet when tweaked right, you can't tell whether you're listening to one of THE most digital sounding synths around, even if its very easy to identify, like you pointed out
Peace.
Digital or not, it sounds unique (and thats what i'm after). Maybe they turned of the internal FX which is the most charachteristic thing of the prophecy IMO. And if they indeed used the Prophecy, it went through a mixer, ADC and god knows what else. Basicily all the things I previously wrote about.
I mean with pretty much the nordlead, the juno-106, the sh-101, the prophecy, korg ms20 a mixer and some outboard everyobdy managed to have their own sound. Its strange that today with sooooo many softsynths and soooo many soundsources, everyone sounds the same. Should be the other way around, no? (Even artists that back then had their own sound manages to sound like some "random producer")
Maybe its true that this discussion won't lead anywhere. I respect your opinion, but for me software simply is less organic, sounds less fun and less charachteristic.
Peace mate
Digital Structures
Digital Structures
Started Topics :
41
Posts :
40
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 14:57
yummy!
Procs
Procs
Started Topics :
4
Posts :
220
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 15:01
[/quote]
Digital or not, it sounds unique (and thats what i'm after). Maybe they turned of the internal FX which is the most charachteristic thing of the prophecy IMO. And if they indeed used the Prophecy, it went through a mixer, ADC and god knows what else. Basicily all the things I previously wrote about.
I mean with pretty much the nordlead, the juno-106, the sh-101, the prophecy, korg ms20 a mixer and some outboard everyobdy managed to have their own sound. Its strange that today with sooooo many softsynths and soooo many soundsources, everyone sounds the same. Should be the other way around, no? (Even artists that back then had their own sound manages to sound like some "random producer")
Maybe its true that this discussion won't lead anywhere. I respect your opinion, but for me software simply is less organic, sounds less fun and less charachteristic.
Peace mate [/quote]
that everybody sounds the same I think is not only due to the software.
here are my not so thought-through-analysis: Today, the psy/trance/goa-scene (or wathever to call it) has already gone through the stage where it was pretty unknown to getting the "hip"-status and then started attract people in it for the cooolness of it all and not really for the orginal music. So, when they arrive to the party they were looking for the coolness they heard about but wanted the music of their regular club/bar ( in sweden etype or similiar)... the resulting music was well....
and then the software-evolution appeared aswell... everybody could get a pretty nice studio within their home.. so, many people wanted to try out doing music which is really fun of course, its always fun to be creative...
but at the same time the evolution with internet and all got people to realize how easy it was to make their own label.. so, people started making music and after 1 year or so they thought that they should release it (cause people are lazy), so they (or some close friend) started a label to release the not so very-well worked-through music... compared to before when you actually had to put some effort to create some (at least abit) unique sound to get it released. and then, the more crappy music that is getting played sounding the same and the more people attracted only for the coolness of it all, of course they want to be equally cool as the cool dj playing those (not) cool tracks so everything goes round and round and we´ll never end up with what once were (so we have something to bitch about nowadays, fun ey).
and then the well-known artist that has gotten very tired with making the same music for years, but it was to hard for them to start building a name in a different scene, so they start to make equally boring music since that is what people wanna hear, and that is the easy way to get those money that they nowadays are expecting.. .
so there you have it, my 5-minute-thought-through-analysis... to sum it up, its all about coolness, lazyness and money...
or with the wise words of someone: "the whole worlds hip and that´s not cool"
Nectarios
Martian Arts
Started Topics :
187
Posts :
5292
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 15:54
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 12:36, Filteria wrote:
I mean with pretty much the nordlead, the juno-106, the sh-101, the prophecy, korg ms20 a mixer and some outboard everyobdy managed to have their own sound. Its strange that today with sooooo many softsynths and soooo many soundsources, everyone sounds the same. Should be the other way around, no? (Even artists that back then had their own sound manages to sound like some "random producer")
Think about it, the MS adn the SH have no memory, so every time you wanna record something, you start programming from scratch. Also, back then there were barely any SySex dumps of artist patches, so there were no "x-artist" synth presets to download off the net. And again a lot of people took a lot of time to program their Nords and their Prophecies and the JP-8000s...etc.
Whereas today, everybody uses the massive dynth banks and download "dArK_FM_gOlDeN_rAy" patch of the production forum...
Its not the software's fault that people don't start programming patches from an initial patch/scratch.
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 12:36, Filteria wrote:
Maybe its true that this discussion won't lead anywhere. I respect your opinion, but for me software simply is less organic, sounds less fun and less charachteristic.
Peace mate
Agreed, especially when you want the raw analog filter resonance of the SH, the SC Pro1, the Moog, the Juno 6/60/106, Korg MS-10/20/50, Korg MonoPoly...etc.
But it it is there, where some artists can be experience enough to identify the weakness and strenghts of their tools and work around things.
At the of the day, an experienced producer will make great sounds from the software available today, and I am sure you realise, there are some great sounding soft synths/compressors/EQs, pre-amp emulations.
A less experienced producer will simply blame it for its shortcomings.
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 16:01
imo you put anyone of us in a hardware studio and compare the track made there to a track made with just a computer , the sound will be very different... and probably the music too.
Beat Agency
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
53
Posts :
1752
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 16:18
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 16:01, PoM wrote:
imo you put anyone of us in a hardware studio and compare the track made there to a track made with just a computer , the sound will be very different... and probably the music too.
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 16:19
i can t belive you man? listen to your old tracks made on hardware and listen to what you do today? it sound the same? not for me and not for anyone i know. i dont mean better or worst there, just different.i think you dont really care about the color of the sound and focus on the musical aspect. cause clearly the sound released 10 years ago is really different that today sound ,even for the same producer.
it s just my own experience yours might be different offcourse
Beat Agency
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
53
Posts :
1752
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 16:32
You assume a whole lot of things about me and my view on my sound that you got no clue about
My point is still that you speak absolutely nonsense when you claim hardware is better than software. That wont change because you think I dont care about "the color of my sound".
As I said earlier. This debate goes nowhere. It's the Mac vs. PC argument ALL OVER. All I know is some of you seem a bit too "fanatic" regarding hardware. But it's all good
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 16:35
where i claimed is better? i just said it can lead you to some different result that i like better for sure ,it s all about taste so yeah a bit pointless is it s better or not, but it s different.
Beat Agency
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
53
Posts :
1752
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 16:36
Quote:
On 2010-10-26 16:35, PoM wrote:
where i claimed is better? i just said it can lead you to some different result that i like better for sure
Come on now. You guys keep going on and on about hardware and keep coming up with arguments in favor of hardware. In my book that's evidence that you think its better. Why else keep debating pro. hardware?
By the way my old sound lack a lot. Listen to my debut album.The sound-quality suck And my sound changed each time I changed studio. Not many of my releases had the same sound as i visited various studios around the world in those days. So yes my sound is different today.I would be more worried if it had not changed from the 90's www.beatagency.dk
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Oct 26, 2010 16:40
in fact i think both have some pro and cons and using the best of both worlds is still a better option that using just one.but after it s just my taste..
