Dubstepforum.com

Teknicyde wrote:

Jacob15728 wrote:

Teknicyde wrote:

Jacob15728 wrote:Zerbaman is trolling, Dubturbo is a complete piece of shit and we universally agree on that here. Any of the DAW's (Logic, Reason, FL Studio, Ableton, Reaper, Cubase) are good enough to make dubstep very well, it's all down to personal preference. A few things to note are that Reason doesn't support VST's so you can't use your own synths/effects with it. That's not too big of a deal since it comes with a lot of high-quality synths and effects. Logic only works on Macs. Cubase is usually considered to be very non-user friendly. Reaper is free, so that might be the one to try.

It doesn't really matter what DAW you use. What matters is what VST's you're using (most people here use Massive or Albino), or if you're using Reason then the synths that come with it. And most importantly, the skill of the producer. A good producer can make good songs with cheap equipment, but a bad producer won't be able to make anything good even if they have a bunch of expensive, high-end stuff.

it doesnt matter if you use massive, thats one of the richer comments Ive read today.

I said it matters what VST you're using. It doesn't have to be Massive. You can make good sounds in Massive, Albino, Sylenth1, FM8, Thor, whatever the hell you want. My point is that it's helpful to have high-quality VST's instead of the ones that come with your DAW, and the VST's you're using are more important to your sound that your DAW.

I know what you said and i disagree with it thoroughly.

Theres some crazy equation full of greek stuff that proves you wrong essentially.

Its a bunch of waveforms, any synth capable of generating a sine wave at x. frequency is PERFECTLY capable of making ANY sound. ALL SOUNDS ARE COLLECTIONS OF INTERACTING SINES. Even other simple-ish waveshapes, like squares and saws, are in fact additive collections of sines. This little fact means that your synth DOESNT MATTER AT ALL. its your knowledge of SYNTHESIS that does.

However the algorithms used by each synth are different, which may affect the sound to some degree.

Cheeky wrote:

Teknicyde wrote:

Jacob15728 wrote:

Teknicyde wrote:

Jacob15728 wrote:Zerbaman is trolling, Dubturbo is a complete piece of shit and we universally agree on that here. Any of the DAW's (Logic, Reason, FL Studio, Ableton, Reaper, Cubase) are good enough to make dubstep very well, it's all down to personal preference. A few things to note are that Reason doesn't support VST's so you can't use your own synths/effects with it. That's not too big of a deal since it comes with a lot of high-quality synths and effects. Logic only works on Macs. Cubase is usually considered to be very non-user friendly. Reaper is free, so that might be the one to try.

It doesn't really matter what DAW you use. What matters is what VST's you're using (most people here use Massive or Albino), or if you're using Reason then the synths that come with it. And most importantly, the skill of the producer. A good producer can make good songs with cheap equipment, but a bad producer won't be able to make anything good even if they have a bunch of expensive, high-end stuff.

it doesnt matter if you use massive, thats one of the richer comments Ive read today.

I said it matters what VST you're using. It doesn't have to be Massive. You can make good sounds in Massive, Albino, Sylenth1, FM8, Thor, whatever the hell you want. My point is that it's helpful to have high-quality VST's instead of the ones that come with your DAW, and the VST's you're using are more important to your sound that your DAW.

I know what you said and i disagree with it thoroughly.

Theres some crazy equation full of greek stuff that proves you wrong essentially.

Its a bunch of waveforms, any synth capable of generating a sine wave at x. frequency is PERFECTLY capable of making ANY sound. ALL SOUNDS ARE COLLECTIONS OF INTERACTING SINES. Even other simple-ish waveshapes, like squares and saws, are in fact additive collections of sines. This little fact means that your synth DOESNT MATTER AT ALL. its your knowledge of SYNTHESIS that does.

However the algorithms used by each synth are different, which may affect the sound to some degree.

It shouldn't be affecting the purity of a sine wave, though. And if you can get a sine wave out of [x] synth, you can combine sines to create any possible sound.

That is true, but it might affect the final signal that is produced rather than the initial sines generated? fell free to tell me I am talking bollocks here :')

Cheeky wrote:That is true, but it might affect the final signal that is produced rather than the initial sines generated? fell free to tell me I am talking bollocks here :')

not if you render out the sine as audio and combine them as audio.

Cheeky wrote:

Teknicyde wrote: Its a bunch of waveforms, any synth capable of generating a sine wave at x. frequency is PERFECTLY capable of making ANY sound. ALL SOUNDS ARE COLLECTIONS OF INTERACTING SINES. Even other simple-ish waveshapes, like squares and saws, are in fact additive collections of sines. This little fact means that your synth DOESNT MATTER AT ALL. its your knowledge of SYNTHESIS that does.

However the algorithms used by each synth are different, which may affect the sound to some degree.

Your not listening to what Im saying.

A true sine wave is a true sine, no algorithms about it, its a true, unaccented sine wave at ____ frequency.

The laws of physics say that if you put enough of them together at the right intervals you can get anything.
All wavecycles are an additive collection of harmonics (i.e. frequencies, i.e. sine waves).

Yeah, different synths make generating sounds easier through colored waveforms and filters, ect, but the science behind them is all going to be fundamentally the same, and the coloring is an afterthought.
If you rely on the color of your synth to make your sound, you need to step back, address the science behind what your doing, and then worry about how to spice it up form there.
Stop thinking of this as a software question and look at is as physics.
The fact that sound is a physical science makes the whole software debate irrelevant, gemme? Because if you learn how to do it on a bare additive theory level, you can do it anywhere.

Teknicyde wrote:

Cheeky wrote:

Teknicyde wrote: Its a bunch of waveforms, any synth capable of generating a sine wave at x. frequency is PERFECTLY capable of making ANY sound. ALL SOUNDS ARE COLLECTIONS OF INTERACTING SINES. Even other simple-ish waveshapes, like squares and saws, are in fact additive collections of sines. This little fact means that your synth DOESNT MATTER AT ALL. its your knowledge of SYNTHESIS that does.

However the algorithms used by each synth are different, which may affect the sound to some degree.

Your not listening to what Im saying.

A true sine wave is a true sine, no algorithms about it, its a true, unaccented sine wave at ____ frequency.

The laws of physics say that if you put enough of them together at the right intervals you can get anything.
All wavecycles are an additive collection of harmonics (i.e. frequencies, i.e. sine waves).

Yeah, different synths make generating sounds easier through colored waveforms and filters, ect, but the science behind them is all going to be fundamentally the same, and the coloring is an afterthought.
If you rely on the color of your synth to make your sound, you need to step back, address the science behind what your doing, and then worry about how to spice it up form there.
Stop thinking of this as a software question and look at is as physics.
The fact that sound is a physical science makes the whole software debate irrelevant, gemme? Because if you learn how to do it on a bare additive theory level, you can do it anywhere.

I bow to superior knowledge man. your talking to a guy whos been here for 15 minutes getting upset because he can't put a quote in his sig properly.

jrisreal wrote: not if you render out the sine as audio and combine them as audio.

That sounds tedious. I would rather just use an FM synth....

mks wrote:

jrisreal wrote: not if you render out the sine as audio and combine them as audio.

That sounds tedious. I would rather just use an FM synth....

me too haha, just backing up teknicyde on how even the most basic of synths can create any possible sound.

I use pro tools......

mks wrote:

jrisreal wrote: not if you render out the sine as audio and combine them as audio.

That sounds tedious. I would rather just use an FM synth....

It IS tedious, but you have to understand that thats all ANY synth is doing and youll kinda see why it doesnt matter which one your using.

And if you start to really get into additive/harmonic theory, youll start analyzing wavecycles and recreating the sounds in your head or that you hear in tunes will become a million times easier, regardless what synth you apply it to.

Theres a little plugin that really helped me when I was learning synthesis called something along the lines of 'Harmonic explorer' or 'additive explorer' or something, that shows you how simple addition can yeild anything... Try googling it, opening your favorite tune, finding a sound you really like and looking at a wavecycle of it and trying to re-build it harmonically. Youll learn loads and go back to your complex, colored, characterized synth with a whole new skillset and better understanding of EVERYTHING about synthesis.

Cheeky wrote:

zerbaman wrote:

Jacob15728 wrote:Zerbaman is trolling, Dubturbo is a complete piece of shit and we universally agree on that here.

Well it's no fun if you tell him




But seriously
You'd be best off starting on something like Abelton or FL Studio. Of the things I've tested, these are the easiest to get into IMO. I learned everything I know on FL, not that I bear any worth to the music industry, but I know for a fact loads of Successful producers today did the same. And from there I had Abelton down in a matter of mins tbh. It's all about how you like to work. FL is good for keeping things simpler with set patterns etc, and abelton has that feature, plus the ability to edit said patterns without having to make several versions of them. That being said, if your computer screen is small, you'll have a pretty difficult time of telling your variations apart. I personally prefer FL, but that's because I've used it for 3 years.

If you're on MAC, it may be worth giving Logic a crack. It's "Industry Standard" according to my old music tech teacher. And it is pretty nice in terms of stock synths & effects.

My music tech teacher says ableton is industry standard, why can't the industry just make its fucking mind up here..

Well mine's kind of a hypocrite, he doesn't even use it, yet he's trying to push me on to that or Cubase. He uses reason. I think Logic is more popular on a general note and abelton is more of an EDM thing, mainly due to sampling, I find it pretty good with sampling at least, and others seem to aswell.

Mammoth wrote:I use pro tools......

What's that like~? In comparison to other DAWs? Never really encountered anyone who uses that before

Teknicyde wrote:

mks wrote:

jrisreal wrote: not if you render out the sine as audio and combine them as audio.

That sounds tedious. I would rather just use an FM synth....

It IS tedious, but you have to understand that thats all ANY synth is doing and youll kinda see why it doesnt matter which one your using.

And if you start to really get into additive/harmonic theory, youll start analyzing wavecycles and recreating the sounds in your head or that you hear in tunes will become a million times easier, regardless what synth you apply it to.

Theres a little plugin that really helped me when I was learning synthesis called something along the lines of 'Harmonic explorer' or 'additive explorer' or something, that shows you how simple addition can yeild anything... Try googling it, opening your favorite tune, finding a sound you really like and looking at a wavecycle of it and trying to re-build it harmonically. Youll learn loads and go back to your complex, colored, characterized synth with a whole new skillset and better understanding of EVERYTHING about synthesis.

I'm sorry, but that is not what ANY synth does. Additive ones, yes. You keep combining waveforms until you get the timbre you want. Frequency Modulation synths combine waveforms with a carrier and a modulator. Subtractive synths start with a harmonically rich waveform and then you use filtering to arrive at the tone you want. There is no addition to the waveform in subtractive synthesis.

zerbaman wrote:

Mammoth wrote:I use pro tools......

What's that like~? In comparison to other DAWs? Never really encountered anyone who uses that before

Honestly I love it.
I can't see myself ever switching just because of somebodies opinion of it.
Haters gonna hate.jpeg

Teknicyde wrote:

Cheeky wrote:

Teknicyde wrote: Its a bunch of waveforms, any synth capable of generating a sine wave at x. frequency is PERFECTLY capable of making ANY sound. ALL SOUNDS ARE COLLECTIONS OF INTERACTING SINES. Even other simple-ish waveshapes, like squares and saws, are in fact additive collections of sines. This little fact means that your synth DOESNT MATTER AT ALL. its your knowledge of SYNTHESIS that does.

However the algorithms used by each synth are different, which may affect the sound to some degree.

Your not listening to what Im saying.

A true sine wave is a true sine, no algorithms about it, its a true, unaccented sine wave at ____ frequency.

The laws of physics say that if you put enough of them together at the right intervals you can get anything.
All wavecycles are an additive collection of harmonics (i.e. frequencies, i.e. sine waves).

Yeah, different synths make generating sounds easier through colored waveforms and filters, ect, but the science behind them is all going to be fundamentally the same, and the coloring is an afterthought.
If you rely on the color of your synth to make your sound, you need to step back, address the science behind what your doing, and then worry about how to spice it up form there.
Stop thinking of this as a software question and look at is as physics.
The fact that sound is a physical science makes the whole software debate irrelevant, gemme? Because if you learn how to do it on a bare additive theory level, you can do it anywhere.

Wrong. You try making the Skrillex sound on 3x osc and tell me how that goes.

There's a HUGE difference between theoretical and practical. Maybe if you spent many hours mathematically analyzing the waveforms you want to make and calculating how they are put together (that means Fourier analysis, which is far beyond 99.9% of the population), then layer together thousands and thousands of sine waves at all the exact right frequencies and amplitudes with zero tolerance for error, you could make a... completely static, non-morphing bass. Then you'd have to do the whole thing over and over again for new sounds to morph between. Or you could just go into Massive, fire up Modern talking, and have something way better in 30 seconds. Your call.

well...additive synthesis can't produce a true square wave...infinite partials..

BUT massive's square wave looks pretty damn square. Its scanning a wavetable which can do that (even though your sound card might not).


just my two cents

There is some proper shit being spouted in this forum lately!!! this thread continues the trend!
Teknicyde keeping the sanity
To OP - in reality it doesn't matter what you use. It's what you make of it. DL a few demos, try out some DAWs and see which one you like the most

Jacob15728 wrote:

Teknicyde wrote:

Cheeky wrote:

Teknicyde wrote: Its a bunch of waveforms, any synth capable of generating a sine wave at x. frequency is PERFECTLY capable of making ANY sound. ALL SOUNDS ARE COLLECTIONS OF INTERACTING SINES. Even other simple-ish waveshapes, like squares and saws, are in fact additive collections of sines. This little fact means that your synth DOESNT MATTER AT ALL. its your knowledge of SYNTHESIS that does.

However the algorithms used by each synth are different, which may affect the sound to some degree.

Your not listening to what Im saying.

A true sine wave is a true sine, no algorithms about it, its a true, unaccented sine wave at ____ frequency.

The laws of physics say that if you put enough of them together at the right intervals you can get anything.
All wavecycles are an additive collection of harmonics (i.e. frequencies, i.e. sine waves).

Yeah, different synths make generating sounds easier through colored waveforms and filters, ect, but the science behind them is all going to be fundamentally the same, and the coloring is an afterthought.
If you rely on the color of your synth to make your sound, you need to step back, address the science behind what your doing, and then worry about how to spice it up form there.
Stop thinking of this as a software question and look at is as physics.
The fact that sound is a physical science makes the whole software debate irrelevant, gemme? Because if you learn how to do it on a bare additive theory level, you can do it anywhere.

Wrong. You try making the Skrillex sound on 3x osc and tell me how that goes.

There's a HUGE difference between theoretical and practical. Maybe if you spent many hours mathematically analyzing the waveforms you want to make and calculating how they are put together (that means Fourier analysis, which is far beyond 99.9% of the population), then layer together thousands and thousands of sine waves at all the exact right frequencies and amplitudes with zero tolerance for error, you could make a... completely static, non-morphing bass. Then you'd have to do the whole thing over and over again for new sounds to morph between. Or you could just go into Massive, fire up Modern talking, and have something way better in 30 seconds. Your call.

Or you could actually learn synthesis, design your own unique sounds that emulate your own vibes and not just be another tnuc using modern talking. Your call.

You said Massive was a "high quality synth" which it is, but you said that in comparison to DAW stock synths. You know how dumb you sound saying that? Let's take Operator for example, in Ableton. It's a stock synth but is very powerful. I bet a number of your favourite tunes were made using it. A number of tunes in the charts have been made using it.

Yes, Massive is a quality synth, but its not magically better than ones in your DAW simply because you can make better sounds out of it. It just tells me you suck at using your DAW. The guys who develop DAWs are insanely talented, they built an entire DAW for fucks sake.

Massive is the go-to synth for so many people because its routing is already done for you the second you load the init patch. Noobs can jump on it, twiddle knobs and get sick sounds which leads to every other tune on soundcloud sounding the same. Why don't you look a bit deeper into it, think about doing things in a way people aren't, fuck with the routing, take time to learn what is actually going on when you twiddle knob X? Or even better, actually take the time to learn your DAW properly before bitching about it and taking the easy route i.e loading up Massive?

/endrant

Jacob15728 wrote: Wrong. You try making the Skrillex sound on 3x osc and tell me how that goes.

Way to kick your own argument in the teeth.

Also, just because you can't do it, and maybe 99.9% of people can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

Kes-Es wrote:
Also, just because you can't do it, and maybe 99.9% of people can't do it, doesn't mean it can't be done.

qft