We should have seen that coming considering how vague it is. I see it among forumists, though, unsurprisingly.True, this is how I was led to understand the term, but you know language. I've never seen someone in a studio not understand words like these. We talk about thinning out sounds, thickening sounds etc all the time. And that's why it's so commonly used in studios by engineers and musicians of all types.
All are subjective, totally unscientific, undefined, and meaningless.Įxactly.
Most of these terms, such as cold, thin, phat, warm, are just ways for people to say they like or dislike gear.
#Dreambox wrong sound effect pro#
Audible note-caps, aliasing, and a lack of upper harmonics due to those caps and anti-aliasing filters - this is what you get without pro specs, top shelf samplerates and bit depth, and most VA gear does not have top specs. It's the highs that digital lets you down with. Even 20-year-old VA can pump out huge low end. But a very popular misconception.īass is the one frequency range that anything can make. Newer emulations often get the basic sound and the midrange right, but they are generally lacking in the lower frequencies that ppl generally perceive as "warmth" or "fatness."100% wrong. You can hear this in many AB comparisons of emulations vs. People refer to analog emulations as thin because they are lacking in low-end or are brighter/harsher than their analog equivalents. It means a lack of low end and/or low midrange, or too much treble/harsh high mids. "Thin" is a pretty standard and well-understood term, at least within the music mixing industry. When you try to make it something it's not, it usually does a bad job. The important thing to keep in mind is that most gear sounds great in it's sweet spot. I reach for FM8 sometimes if I want super clean bell tones. Perhaps "thinner." I reach for them when when I want that sound. So yeah, modern analogs have a sound that is different, cleaner than the old stuff. even analogs, just kinda sound hokey compared to the dying robot living in my Space Echo. That tuning randomness also makes them sound "fat". it all sounds far better in the analog realm.īesides distortion, there is a living quality to the randomness of an old Space Echo or Arp Odyssey with kinda messed up faders that jiggle the pitch and parameters in random ways. But dirty nasty synth, guitar amps, crunchy compression, tape delay. Clean drums, piano, strings etc sound great! Lexicon reverbs and digital delays sound great. for me, I tend to avoid dirty sounds in the digital world. It washes over the mix and makes everything sound crappy. Sometimes the ITB "vintage/distorted" stuff sounds good on it's own, but once it's layered that white noise element is compounded. There's a white noise element to it in the digital realm that isn't there with tube and analog gear. Objectively, I have come to accept that I generally don't like digital distortion. It allows me to focus on the notes and the song. Whereas, my analog synths and hardware/tube gear gets me there instantly with no work. I can usually coax sounds out of my digital gear that is good, but it takes a lot of work to trigger that emotional response that tells me I'm making music that I love. In hardware I have a JP8, OB8, A6, Odyssey, Sub 37, LA2A, 1176, Space Echo etc. ITB I have NI Komplete, Diva, Soundtoys, most of the UAD stuff, tons of samples. I have to get a bit zen and let my feelings tell me if something is working in a mix. For me there are a few things that typify the difference between "thin" digital and "fat" analog.
0 kommentar(er)
