TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- effects in tracks


Posted by rubez on Dec-03-2014 15:49:

effects in tracks

how important are effects for creating soundscapes etc?

i recognise most effects when they are used overtly. vocoder, bitcrusher, flanger, reverb etc.

but when it comes down to it, if you took the effects off a track, what would be left? would it even be recognisable?

are effects the backbone of a track?

i recently got NI's molekular which i am looking forward to using, it seems to be able to create some interesting effects when applied.

BT used to create some amazing soundscapes (e.g. godspeed), i read somewhere he patented 'granular' synthesis.


Posted by AlphaStarred on Dec-03-2014 16:09:

When you're creating your own tracks, you'll see how effects work for you. They certainly do add to the atmosphere and soundscape, but that doesn't mean they're indispensable, either.

It also depends on what kind of music you're producing, but generally it's nice to add an effect here and there. For most of my latter tracks, I'd add an effect on my SH-101 (delay, reverb, etc.) that would make it sound more full and atmospheric, as it accompanies the 303 and percussion. I'd also occasionally add flanger to my hats to make it sound more "tribe, tekno" like, in the manner of the French style.

In the end, it's all a matter of preference, but if you want to make your tracks more experimental and generally more unique, you'd definitely experiment with various effects and see how they affect the feel of your track. And usually the more you produce, the more you may be inclined to experiment with different effects and sounds, and see how they bounce off each other, etc.

Also, when you're programming a mono synth (such as a 303) the delay effect in particular can produce some interesting results.


Posted by evo8 on Dec-03-2014 16:16:

Effects are pretty much essential, especially reverb


Posted by rubez on Dec-03-2014 16:18:

with this molekular, you can route 4 different types of effect through each other and fuck about with the timing etc. has anyone used it?

seems to be able to transform sounds.


Posted by Mr.Mystery on Dec-03-2014 19:48:

One day I will make a track that's nothing but effects.


Posted by stewart.m on Dec-03-2014 19:52:

i will say they are very important


Posted by rubez on Dec-04-2014 10:27:

wouldn't a track with no effects be texture-less?


Posted by Mr.Mystery on Dec-04-2014 13:54:

Depends on what you mean by texture and what you're going for. For example chiptune artists can do pretty amazing things without effects.


Posted by rubez on Dec-04-2014 14:26:

sure, there is a tune on streets of rage for the megadrive called under logic i believe which recreates (rips off) the shamen brilliantly.

but chiptune tracks don't exactly exude texture or lushness do they...


Posted by Richard Butler on Dec-04-2014 14:44:

In the UK the BBC run a lot of documentaries on great bands from the past. The other night it was Blondie.

Time and again we find out how a band with talent could not quite get their sound right and then along comes some producer / engineer and everything changes for the band over night. This is why I've always argued musical content is only halve the deal, often a melody is very simple but recorded and mixed in the right hands becomes something immediately accessible rather than 'just another pub band tune'.

The musical content didn't change, the way it was recorded and put together did and dynamics and effects are at the heart of this transformation.

Another documentary was on the history of the Marshall amp - just another effect when used in the recording studio and one that transformed music for all time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b04c3l7j/play-it-loud-the-story-of-the-marshall-amp


Posted by rubez on Dec-04-2014 15:24:

quote:
Originally posted by AlphaStarred
When you're creating your own tracks, you'll see how effects work for you. They certainly do add to the atmosphere and soundscape, but that doesn't mean they're indispensable, either.

It also depends on what kind of music you're producing, but generally it's nice to add an effect here and there. For most of my latter tracks, I'd add an effect on my SH-101 (delay, reverb, etc.) that would make it sound more full and atmospheric, as it accompanies the 303 and percussion. I'd also occasionally add flanger to my hats to make it sound more "tribe, tekno" like, in the manner of the French style.

In the end, it's all a matter of preference, but if you want to make your tracks more experimental and generally more unique, you'd definitely experiment with various effects and see how they affect the feel of your track. And usually the more you produce, the more you may be inclined to experiment with different effects and sounds, and see how they bounce off each other, etc.

Also, when you're programming a mono synth (such as a 303) the delay effect in particular can produce some interesting results.


yeah, i've seen a good few of those docs on iplayer, including the marshall amp one. didn't realise that chap was british, always assumed it was an american brand for some reason.


Posted by TranceLover007 on Dec-04-2014 18:39:

quote:
Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
One day I will make a track that's nothing but effects.


I like your idea lol.

It is an essential part of my production.

Darek


Posted by Lith on Dec-06-2014 05:47:

I'm going to counter this conversation slightly. Most FX are duplications of existing sounds (delay, reverb, flanger, etc.). The other popular FX are volume boosters (compressers, limiters).

Songs can be done and be great without FX. Patience in production can allow you to accomplish the same overall sound with more control, but it's extremely tedious.

FX that add their specific "color" seem more interesting. They act more like instruments to me.

I recommend FX because of their ease-of-use and sometimes unintentional outcomes (positive results), but I would argue they are not required. Sometimes they can actually muddy a mix or specific line(s). It's wholly dependent upon what you want to accomplish with your track.


Posted by evo8 on Dec-06-2014 10:33:

quote:
Originally posted by Lith
I'm going to counter this conversation slightly. Most FX are duplications of existing sounds (delay, reverb, flanger, etc.). The other popular FX are volume boosters (compressers, limiters).

Songs can be done and be great without FX. Patience in production can allow you to accomplish the same overall sound with more control, but it's extremely tedious.

FX that add their specific "color" seem more interesting. They act more like instruments to me.

I recommend FX because of their ease-of-use and sometimes unintentional outcomes (positive results), but I would argue they are not required. Sometimes they can actually muddy a mix or specific line(s). It's wholly dependent upon what you want to accomplish with your track.


Interesting thoughts. I suppose you could simulate reverb on a synth by using a longer release time buts its just not the same a nice reverb.

Also for drums - maybe if the samples you were using already had some reverb on them but i just couldnt have drums in my track without some kind of fx on them, be it reverb, delay or chorus

A dance music track without any FX would sound very "Dry" to me but i guess it could work on certain occasions, maybe playing a track like that in a club you would have the club space acting as the reverb


Posted by kosmotika on Dec-08-2014 19:30:

I don't think any of my synths are without a bit of reverb. Most non-bass synths also have heaps of delay.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.