VSE March Competition: DCO Synths!

[commodorejohn]

Evidently Welson did, unless you've got a source that says that manual quote is wrong.

[GuyaGuy]

Exactly - you just beat me to it. If you say no sampling, you also have to say no audio manipulation in a DAW.

No you don't. But even if you did, I'm just trying to wrap my head around how this is in any way necessary. I can understand simple stuff like looping a particular take of whatever pattern (at least with synths that don't have MIDI - there are some in the DCO era, after all,) but it seems to me that if you're relying on serious munging of the audio you're kind of missing the point of a synth competition. I dunno; like I said, let's see what GuyaGuy has to say on the subject.

I'd say if you're getting a sound into your DAW or recorder and all you're doing is playing back the recording exactly as it was recorded (for example one kick drum sound, one snare, etc.), that is fair game.

If you record audio into your DAW or recorder and use the DAW or recorder to alter the audio (pitchshift, stutter effect, bitcrush, etc.) then each alteration is an effect type.

[commodorejohn]

That seems like a reasonable answer to me.

[ninja6485]

I don't know... No audio manipulation Kind of sucks the fun out of working within the limitations, don't you think? You can safely use 2 tracks with the same audio to create an obvious third effect like chorus to get around the 2 effect rule, but if you cut the audio into sections and rearrange it, or pitch it a little bit it counts as an actual 3rd effect? Seems like there's way to much emphasis on what's not allowed going on with this restriction, and not enough encouragement toward creative innovation.

[commodorejohn]

Well, again, the focus is more on the sound of the instruments, not on the sound of the production techniques. That's the point of the competition.

[ejlif]

OK I'm gonna just try and be fair to the original idea I think I have an idea of what you are saying and I do like the idea of limiting the possibilities. When you say effect for instance you could use something like abysynth FX to seriously warp the sound into something that is nothing like the original sound coming from the synth. I suppose that is OK as long as you only use one certain effect for everything right? And I suppose EQ is not considered an effect? Would something like automating effects be OK? Just want to clarify a few things so as not to be cheating.

[commodorejohn]

Yeah, we're basically sticking with the rules as practiced in previous competitions - basic compression and equalization is free, more complex sound processing counts towards the two-effect limit.

[GuyaGuy]

Well, again, the focus is more on the sound of the instruments, not on the sound of the production techniques. That's the point of the competition.

Yep

OK I'm gonna just try and be fair to the original idea I think I have an idea of what you are saying and I do like the idea of limiting the possibilities. When you say effect for instance you could use something like abysynth FX to seriously warp the sound into something that is nothing like the original sound coming from the synth. I suppose that is OK as long as you only use one certain effect for everything right? And I suppose EQ is not considered an effect? Would something like automating effects be OK? Just want to clarify a few things so as not to be cheating.

It sounds like you're trying to use your DAW as your synth. The point of these 1-synth contests is to wring as much out of the native hardware synth engine as possible without relying on fx and other doodads.

I don't know... No audio manipulation Kind of sucks the fun out of working within the limitations, don't you think? You can safely use 2 tracks with the same audio to create an obvious third effect like chorus to get around the 2 effect rule, but if you cut the audio into sections and rearrange it, or pitch it a little bit it counts as an actual 3rd effect? Seems like there's way to much emphasis on what's not allowed going on with this restriction, and not enough encouragement toward creative innovation.

You can innovate on your own time!

But seriously, the point of the contest is limitations--and innovating within them. There are plenty of ways of innovating without relying on external tools. You can innovate with harmony, melody, scale, texture, programming, sequencing, etc.

[ninja6485]

I understand what you're trying to do: my goal is to stay within the parameters of the competition. I never said I was at a loss for ways to be innovative, I said you were sucking the fun out of it.

[commodorejohn]

Well, nobody's making you participate.

[Stab Frenzy]

I don't know... No audio manipulation Kind of sucks the fun out of working within the limitations, don't you think? You can safely use 2 tracks with the same audio to create an obvious third effect like chorus to get around the 2 effect rule, but if you cut the audio into sections and rearrange it, or pitch it a little bit it counts as an actual 3rd effect? Seems like there's way to much emphasis on what's not allowed going on with this restriction, and not enough encouragement toward creative innovation.

Just quietly, I don't think anyone's gonna notice and call you out if you do this.

[GuyaGuy]

I don't know... No audio manipulation Kind of sucks the fun out of working within the limitations, don't you think? You can safely use 2 tracks with the same audio to create an obvious third effect like chorus to get around the 2 effect rule, but if you cut the audio into sections and rearrange it, or pitch it a little bit it counts as an actual 3rd effect? Seems like there's way to much emphasis on what's not allowed going on with this restriction, and not enough encouragement toward creative innovation.

Just quietly, I don't think anyone's gonna notice and call you out if you do this.

Actually I'm going to listen extra close to his track to see if he's doing that now because I want to suck all of the fun out of this I can.

[zoomtheline]

But nobody did it in 1964. Or in 1974, either.

Read all about it, Read all about it: Small Italian company in technology first shocka! Changes synth history and synth nerds cannot accept a change in their knowledge.
Just kidding.

Anyway, I am getting the full service manual from the chap so i'll do some good reading. The first page clearly states some sort of digital osc control. It is monophonic, you're right. The divide down is because you can mix 4 footages from each osc. Potentially creating and 8 osc unison type affair I guess. You can get a surprising minimoog type sound from it because of this. It will probably always be my favourite synth, even if the ADSR envelope is a tad janky.

Can the OP confirm whether the text from the manual is sufficient to enter it into this comp or whether Aaron's synth history knows better? ha

[ninja6485]

I don't know... No audio manipulation Kind of sucks the fun out of working within the limitations, don't you think? You can safely use 2 tracks with the same audio to create an obvious third effect like chorus to get around the 2 effect rule, but if you cut the audio into sections and rearrange it, or pitch it a little bit it counts as an actual 3rd effect? Seems like there's way to much emphasis on what's not allowed going on with this restriction, and not enough encouragement toward creative innovation.

Just quietly, I don't think anyone's gonna notice and call you out if you do this.

Oh, I was never planning to revise my entry. I'm just giving them a hard time about it! I mean the month is half over already, and we're just now solidifying the parameters. I've got what I've got - if you don't want to vote for it, don't vote for it! I'm in it to write.

[commodorejohn]

Can the OP confirm whether the text from the manual is sufficient to enter it into this comp or whether Aaron's synth history knows better? ha

As far as I'm concerned, unless someone comes up with a more solid "no it isn't!" than just the fact that DCOs didn't become common for another decade, it's in.