|
standard way of filtering a lead sound made up of many sounds?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| madmuso |
hey guys,
I asked this in the "$500 bass hardware synth" thread i started but its off topic for that so I thought i'd better do it here.
So, if you have made a lead sound using 2 patches from different synths or vsti's how would one normally filter the combined sound?
Would you try to setup each synths filter section so they all behave similarly and then automate each individual filter, or, use a filter across a send a return and send all patches to it and filter from the one master filter plug/hardware unit?
cheers, |
|
|
| mysticalninja |
| you can't use a send for a filter... unless you want the dry sound underneath to be layered. send everything to a group bus and put a filter on it. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| as ninja said , 1 filter on both or 2 filters on both with slightly different values or use the synth filters and automate each. Depends what you want. |
|
|
| madmuso |
good point about the sends, bussing them to a group and inserting a filter on that group makes more sense.
In one song i have two vsti's as the main lead sound, I have automated the filters on each synth to open and close together but the filters on each synth seem to have inherently different curves to each other, even after adjusting the filter section to get them as close as possible.
I'll give the grouping a go, time to put volcano to some good use.
cheers again guys, appreciate all the help, |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by mysticalninja
you can't use a send for a filter... unless you want the dry sound underneath to be layered. send everything to a group bus and put a filter on it. |
Wow, long ing time man! Where you been? Good to see you back!
With Alanzo & Mystical Ninja back posting, it's only a matter of time until Eric, EchoSystem and Kit are all posting again.
Back OT, *technically* you could sends by automating the balance of the send amount directly proportional to the tracks dry fader level if them send FX was 100% wet.
Otherwise, you could also set the track fader to nothing, and have no output on it's routing then send whatever level of that track (like with a fader in normal situations) on the track send, and use the wet/knob on the effect to go from dry to wet on all tracks sent togther, all at the same fx level.
Pretty backward ways of working but, just sayin. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| i wouldn't try too hard to force them to be identical. By not having identical curves, you can get some cool results. part of why you layer things is that you don't want them sounding the same. Similar so they blend but slightly different that you get a new colour. Having different filters with different attributes is one way. |
|
|
| DJRYAN™ |
| I'd take the 2 outs of the synths/patches to the ins of spider merger and then run it into a single filter. Or maybe two depending on how it sounds. But I know that the general sound remains entact pre fx so I can add as much fx as I want without damaging the actual patch. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| that is what everyone said but in words that would make sense with a real DAW. |
|
|
| DJRYAN™ |
| Reason isn't a real DAW? |
|
|
| DJRYAN™ |
| Damn that hamburger was delicious!! |
|
|
| Energy_3 |
| quote: | Originally posted by madmuso
good point about the sends, bussing them to a group and inserting a filter on that group makes more sense. |
Yes. You get a more symmetrical build which is good i think and yes depends what your seeking |
|
|
|
|
