|
Trance Plucks (typical PVD for an Angel)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DJMikeyP |
Ok I know there are slight variations, but where or how the hell can I get those typical trance sounding plucks - e.g. PVD for an Angel. I'm about to have a nervous breakdown I've been trying for so long.
Any help?
Mike |
|
|
| Etherium |
Most of the times I give out tips freely, but this one I have to admit I am a little reluctant to divulge:
Since I worked the last several months trying to get that plucky, snappy sound that you're talking about, I won't give you the full secret but I will give you a hint. Take this hint, do some research, and if you still can't get it, I will tell you how to do it:
The hint:
Recursive modulation |
|
|
| Michael Russo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Etherium
Recursive modulation |
Do you mean recursive in the mathematical sense?
That sounds like an interesting idea. |
|
|
| DJ El Kay Dee |
| ive been able to achieve that pluck sorta sound with the buzz effect adaptor in fruity loops with the arguella thing |
|
|
| Etherium |
Screw it! I'll quit being stingy with my knowledge:
Here is what you do:
In your synths modulation matrix what you're going to do is modulate
the filter decay with the filter envelope itself.
So the source of the modulation won't be an LFO, it will be the filter envelope itself (note that not all synths offer this) and the modulation destination would be the filter decay.
The filter modulation needs to be at its maximum NEGATIVE number.
To compensate raise the decay to its max level.
What is this doing:
Instead of the decay being simply fast, it is actually concave.
That's the trick. Recursive modulation! It can make the decay concave or convex, in this case we want concave.
Notice now that if you have the env amount to its maximum and cutoff at midlevel, that synth should be snapping!
But we're not finished.
Run this through a phaser, using 70 percent wet signal, a fairly slow rate, high depth, fairly low frequency, no feedback, three stages, spread 127.
If your synth allows you to increase the intensity of the attack, sometimes called Punch Intensity, then raise this to its max.
Slappy, snappy, whippy, whatever, it sounds fookin' out of this world.
Granted, this could be confusing, I'll try to post sometime soon.
Good luck.:toocool:
Notice I said cutoff at midlevel originally, I thought about it more and it is better if the cutoff is near 0, but not 0. |
|
|
| Michael Russo |
Lol, thanks for sharing :)
But... what's so recursive about that? |
|
|
| Etherium |
| Recursive modulation. It's a technical term. I don't know about the mathmatical sense of the word.:) It's a sound designing term. |
|
|
| Trancevision |
could someone post an example ( or name a tune with time details ) please ?
Trancevision |
|
|
| Michael Russo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Etherium
Recursive modulation. It's a technical term. I don't know about the mathmatical sense of the word.:) It's a sound designing term. |
You sure? Where did you hear this term?
Sound design is very mathematical at the fundamental level, and I couldn't imagine any reason why someone would call something recursive unless it were, well, recursive ;)
A good (easy!) example of recursion: say you want to repeatedly take the square root of an arbitrary number. How would you write that out in mathematical terms?
Note: The numbers in brackets should be subscripts.
The solution is recursion. Set x(1) to be the arbitrary number, lets say 2. Then define the next term, x(n+1) to equal the square root of x(n).
And that's it.
x(1) is 2.
x(2) is the square root of 2.
x(3) is the square root of the square root of two, or the aquare root of x(2).
This works great with things like the fibonacci sequence, and is really helpful with computer programming, because the same subroutine can be repeatedly called over and over again with minimal code.
Now... how does this relate to modulating a filter negatively? ;) |
|
|
| sooper |
| any tips on how you would do this in Reason? I tried applying the above explanations, but I get lost... |
|
|
| Michael Russo |
| quote: | Originally posted by sooper
any tips on how you would do this in Reason? I tried applying the above explanations, but I get lost... |
I'd hate to say it, but RTFM... Etherium explained the steps quite clearly, and it really shouldn't be complicated to follow the steps once they're laid out in front of you. |
|
|
| Etherium |
Russo, hey, I see how you're getting it confused. So, here is my explanation: There is a sound designer named Howard Scarr, this is the guy that I got that term from. But it is the appropriate descriptive phrase to describe the above discussed phenomenon.
Often times an abridged dictionary, as well as an unabridged at times, will not have all of the meanings of a word listed.
The latin root cursus, means to flow. So cursive writing flows. Discursive conversation doesn't flow well.
Some sound designer (or more likely some MIT geek) just took cursus and came up with the term recursive.
It's an esoteric term that isn't listed in a dictionary, just like most obscure medical terms.
It's very obscure, however, I found it in an article entitled
"Analysis and Design of Interleaver Mappings for Iteratively Decoded
BICM"
Say that three times fast.
How recursive relates to envelopes and shiite I have no idea. |
|
|
|
|
