Are you a preset jockey?

[Suilebhain]

I's nice to have both preset synths, and those easy to program with lots of knobs. Nice these days to have both and the virtual analogs have ability to store your own created sounds as presets. How did those playing analog synths remember their settings? They probably had better memories in their brains?

 

Many synths in those days came with these little preset diagrams that you would use to draw in the lines on the knobs and sliders in order to quickly dial up a patch. Also, the big boys like Emerson had multiple synths set up to a certain family of sounds, but yeah, I think people also had better memroies in their brains, as well. a brain is like a muscle - stop using it and it gets weak and flabby.

[donaldcrunk]

 

I heard someone- Hans Zimmer, perhaps?- say that, for him, composition and sound design are not two separate endeavors, but are intertwined in the process of making music. That is, the sound he creates suggests the musical material, the musical material in turn suggests the sound, and they both arrive at the destination together. I can't honestly say I've worked this way before, but I'd be interested in hearing if anyone here has.

 

 

i certainly don't want to compare myself to hans zimmer in any way, but i can relate to that approach to creation. i tend to think in terms of frequency spectrum and timbre at the same time that i'm creating crude melodies and harmonies. i've sort of created a world of immediate interface around myself so that i don't have to separate the sound design process from the composition. controls to immediately effect both are available. this has required relinquishing the traditional forms of input (keyboard, fretboard) that i'm used to for knobs and other esoteric controls, and isn't appropriate for everything - it also severely limits the tonality i have on tap since i'm using mostly analog. sounds have to be forced in new directions rather than abruptly changed, and with a looper involved sometimes sounds have a momentum of their own and need to be wrangled into new keys and patterns. so that's a challenge.

 

but i spent the weekend writing some crude pop music (gotta bring back the VOCALS) around the modular - and with a modern DAW, the workflow was so smooth and quick and everything synced so nicely and sounding so good that i couldn't do it any faster with a Kronos. this is key for me since my attention span is short.

 

 

before the modular, i tended to do some rough composition and patch creation at the beginning of the track, and multitracked layers as i went, each layer referencing the frequency content of the one before it. that is not nearly as elegant and takes a lot longer. this way i can set up a big patch, get a couple other toys synced up, and have a seperate synced track for everything. the trick is not to bite off more than you can chew (or control) with each pass. or something.

[soundwave106]

No kidding. My Motif XF came with 1024 presets and 3977 waveforms

 

With Omnisphere's latest version plus the Moog tribute library, I have over 8700 presets.

 

If I spent 1 minute auditioning each preset, it would take me one full week. With no sleep, bathroom breaks, time for eating, etc.

 

I bet the next update will put my Omnisphere install at OVER 9000 presets.

[Minocan]

Presets are good for wide variety of brainstorming. I'm not an adept sound designer, nor I have credible background on electronic genres and their sounds. Some presets strike me, so I find my own approach by their guidance. (It helps especially on modulations) I set modulation matrix templates for Q for example, thanks to different variety of presets.

 

I got evaluation key for Waldorf Largo, checking presets and see if some are worth transfering it to a Q.

 

It helps.

[Metrosonus]

type in keyboard jockey for funny contextual image get the following image in return

 

 

fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffu

 

[realtrance]

I don't think preset users realize what they're missing. For example, when I auditioned the preset pianos on my Fantom XR, I didn't like any of them. I wanted a close-miked, full-bodied (ie, less hammer attack and more bass) sound. So I dove into the raw waveforms, found some more to my liking, and layered/modified them to come up with the piano sound I really wanted. Just out of curiosity, I inspected all of the preset pianos, and discovered that the particular raw waveforms I used weren't even used in those presets. (The waves may have been used in some other preset, but layered with some other sounds to create a preset you wouldn't use as an "acoustic piano". But those waves weren't used in any of the identifiable acoustic piano presets). I found instances of other waveforms, such as some sax and guitar waves, not used in any appropriate patches. If all you're using are presets, your keyboard may have sounds you've never heard.

 

This is very much on the mark, in my opinion.

 

For me, it really depends on what I'm doing.

 

If I have a synth that I'm using to create a melodic line in a recorded track, chances are very high I'll if not create my own preset from total scratch, heavily edit something that's "close" to what I want until it really fits in the mix (including location, frequency spectrum it's hogging, etc.)

 

If I'm just enjoying myself playing the instrument, I'll generally start with a preset and explore the pre-defined mapped controllers, whatever they may be, to see what kind of range the preset has, and I'll be more focused on making music. If I start to discover limits and develop an idea in my mind/ear that the preset almost catches, but not quite, by the time I've played it for awhile I'll start to be familiar enough with its architecture that I have some idea of what I can do to it to get it closer to being what I want. But I keep myself from getting too deep into "edit mode," since in this scenario, I'm primarily interested in the music.

 

If I'm looking for backing material, be it pads, rhythms, effects, stabs, again on a recorded track, again, most presets as has been said above are designed to be "showcase wowza" (more so on Roland synths; less so on European synths, I 've found; the latter seem more programmed to be geared towards actual use than store-room floor), so they'll require some work to fit in a mix. If what I'm after can't be edited quickly into the preset I'm using (and this tends to be the case particularly with sample-based sounds), then I'll go deeper, or start from relative scratch. But usually, if I'm familiar enough with a synth, I know where to go as a good starting place, so starting from scratch isn't really necessary most of the time.

 

If I'm into deep electronic innovation and weirdness and mustn't there be sounds we haven't heard before mode, whether playing or recording, that's where I'll really go in and deep-edit or start from scratch. I created a patch set for the Andromeda some years ago, based entirely on the principle that I wanted to create a bunch of sounds that simply weren't already available on the instrument in some way in the other available patches out there. This was a fun research and experimentation effort, and I got to some interesting results along the way. I also did a bunch of "deep tweaks" on some of what I thought were the nicer patches on the A6 factory list, to get them closer to what I thought sounded musically interesting.

 

It's an interesting thing to think about, as when I was working with the Waldorf Q, again many years ago, creating patches on this really deep synth involved really getting to know the instrument, and its many sweet spots in terms of sheer simple things like MIDI values for certain filter/resonance/routing settings, types of modulation routings and configurations and meta-modulations, and so starting from scratch was actually of benefit, as it forced me to study a wide range of elements on the synthesizer to get control of them in the course of developing a sound. That whole experience also taught me the incredible amount of work it really takes to create a fully-fleshed-out patch on a complex modern synth that really takes advantage of its features. Sure, there's a set of things you learn to do to make conventional synth sounds that you can take anywhere, but really maximizing the originality of a modern instrument -- be it hardware or, even more, software -- requires deep attention and mastery, focus and patience, and a _lot_ of subtle experimentation. Many sounds on a complex digital synth are literally small, subtle values away from being either awesome or vanilla. I find most of the patches on the Virus TI, for instance, for all its remarkable capability, pretty vanilla, but with radical potential once edited.

 

The one thing you really do learn from tweaking "bad" piano or other non-electronic sampled emulations and turning them into the right, fantastic sounds for you is that, yes, you'll save a huge amount of money and have much more of an instrument to play, and play with, if you're not lazy and work with what you have, instead of going out and buying umpteen synthesizers and VSTs in the hope one of them will be the "right" one or have the "right" sound.

 

I truly believe all synthesizers sound, at base, pretty much the same; their differences come out in how well you know them, know the fundamentals of sound and synthesis, and can implement your knowledge in mastery of the instrument.

[soundwave106]

 

The one thing you really do learn from tweaking "bad" piano or other non-electronic sampled emulations and turning them into the right, fantastic sounds for you is that, yes, you'll save a huge amount of money and have much more of an instrument to play, and play with, if you're not lazy and work with what you have, instead of going out and buying umpteen synthesizers and VSTs in the hope one of them will be the "right" one or have the "right" sound.

 

 

Time is a huge factor here. As in:

(*) If you are a gigging musician, your band is not going to approve if you spend 2 hours tweaking the right patch at practice. You'll need to spend that 2 hours at home, if you can.

(*) If you are a commercially paid home studio musician, the same applies. In today's environment, you need to bang out tracks *quick*. Time spent sound designing could be money lost.

 

I have a pretty nice mix of presets, tweaked presets, and completely from scratch patches, personally. It really all depends (how much time you have to tweak, whether a sound fits instantly, etc.).

[realtrance]

Yes, that's why I've made a lifelong commitment to myself never to do music for money; my time is my own there, and I can spend as much or as little as I want, on this or that. Anything I've ever done for money has quickly been sullied by the inevitable slavery involved (especially these days). I'll keep my slavery to work I don't care about.

[Gux]

whoever says they dont use presets is a bull{censored}ter.

 

ps. you cant bull{censored} a bull{censored}ter

[veracohr]

No. For these reasons:

 

1. I really enjoy making sounds. I'm much more a sound creator than a player, and it with my music and the synths I have it works out well. I'm even aware sometimes that a sound I've just created I made almost exactly the same on a previous song, but I don't really care. I like it.

 

2. I usually know exactly what I want a sound to be like, and it would take me longer to audition a bunch of presets looking for something I can edit than creating from scratch.

 

The exception to this is usually FM8. I'm not good enough with FM, so sometimes I'll start with a preset and edit.

[realtrance]

 

No. For these reasons: 1. I really enjoy making sounds. I'm much more a sound creator than a player, and it with my music and the synths I have it works out well. I'm even aware sometimes that a sound I've just created I made almost exactly the same on a previous song, but I don't really care. I like it. 2. I usually know exactly what I want a sound to be like, and it would take me longer to audition a bunch of presets looking for something I can edit than creating from scratch. The exception to this is usually FM8. I'm not good enough with FM, so sometimes I'll start with a preset and edit.

 

 

There are many scenarios where going deeply into editing a sound, in detail, can lead to a fresh musical idea. This is ideal, IMHO.

[KingVidiot]

I use them on a new piece of kit, but I love tweaking the hell out of them. Dissecting presets teaches a lot, especially the characteristics endemic to the device.

[Raymar]

 

There are many scenarios where going deeply into editing a sound, in detail, can lead to a fresh musical idea. This is ideal, IMHO.

 

 

When I first started tweeking patches I would spend a long time turning good patches into something horrible and useless. It took me awhile to get the hang of it.

[McHale]

I have decided to buy expensive gear, delete all the awesome presets and recreate the presets from crappier gear on it. That way, I play presets that are not presets.

[realtrance]

I like to think of it this way:

 

- Bring your instrument exactly to what you have in your head, and all you've done is forced it to conform to a fixed set of ideas.

 

- Play a preset and all you've done is use someone else's fixed set of ideas, without learning anything about the instrument, or the principles of electronic music, sound generation, acoustic space, etc.

 

Real engagement with a musical instrument is a dialectical process, wherein you, and the instrument, change in response to each other.

 

Electronic instruments are unique in that they have so much flexibility, so that their capacity to respond to a new idea is much larger than you'd find on traditional instruments. They're also much more susceptible to generating unintended consequences of manipulation that are fresh, thus likely to spark fresh ideas you might not have been able to conceive outside the dialectical engagement with the instrument.

 

How's that for an answer?!

[keybdwizrd]

It's not about the sounds, it's about the sounds you have and what you do with them. This is true whether you create your own or use them straight out of the box.

 

I visited my daughter in Spain this past week. We bought tickets for a Flamenco concert in Seville - I figured it would be some corny show for tourists, but could not have been more mistaken. Three Spanish guitarists, three vocalists who did amazing hand clapping, a guy with a box drum, and several dancers. Much of the show was improvisation, and the interplay with intense poly-rhythms and super-tight clapping and guitar work made it one of the top five musical experiences I've ever witnessed.

 

Spanish guitars, foot tapping, hand-clapping, singing, and a box drum... A collection of musical "presets" turned into amazing music by a group of very talented people.

[Meatball Fulton]

When I first started tweeking patches I would spend a long time turning good patches into something horrible and useless. It took me awhile to get the hang of it.

 

I've found creating horrible and useless sounds pretty natural myself

[Synthaholic]

The question is: preset what? If you're talking about preset square wave lead sounds and other purely synthetic sounds, then sure, create and tweak away. But if you're talking about programming the monster cello sound, and people like Dave Weiser do it so well, why would I want to spend hours of my time when the end result won't be anywhere near as good? I know my limitations as a programmer, which are many, and I can live with that. I am a keyboard player first, and a programmer way down the list.

[Anderton]

 

The question is: preset what? If you're talking about preset square wave lead sounds and other purely synthetic sounds, then sure, create and tweak away. But if you're talking about programming the monster cello sound, and people like Dave Weiser do it so well, why would I want to spend hours of my time when the end result won't be anywhere near as good? I know my limitations as a programmer, which are many, and I can live with that. I am a keyboard player first, and a programmer way down the list.

 

 

That makes a lot of sense; there are people who are really devoted to creating great sounds, so you might as well take advantage of their expertise. But it's also possible, without a lot of experience, to tweak existing patches to go from "sounds good" to "sounds perfect for what I need." Often changing one or two parameter values is all it takes. Learning what those two parameters are is a whole other issue, but a good way to start is from time to time, change some parameters in a preset and hear how they change the sound. Eventually you'll develop a "mental library" of "if I do this, I get this improvement."

[DocT]

What is a preset? I suppose it is a sound that already exists in your machine or your software before you start making a song.

 

I enjoy sound programming, therefore never use factory sounds for my stuff. But I don't always program sounds specifically for a particular song. Sometimes I feel like making sounds, program a few and then store them.

 

If it happens that I use these in a song a few weeks later, they're basically presets.

 

With this definition of preset, I must say that I use a lot of them. Because I really don't need to reinvent the sine bass or the saw sync lead for each new song. My sounds / presets from last year often are good enough. Ok, the factory saw sync lead would be good too, but then I'd have to admit that I used a factory preset

 

For the preset haters: last year I was among a bunch of 6-7 people who programmed the factory sounds for the Waldorf PPG 3.V. In the end, every participitiant had made between 50 and 80 sounds.

I then tried to make short demosongs with only with the contributions of a particular contributor using not a single of my own sounds. And, guess what, it worked, was a lot of fun and an entertaining exercise

[zoink]

I am an unrepentant preset jockey with certain types of sounds. With most acoustic instruments (pianos, acoustic guitars, etc.) I don't really need to make my own (though in the distant past I used to do that), since somebody has already put in the work to map out the samples and crossfade them to where they sound good. For those types of sounds I'll usually adjust effects and EQ, but other than that there's no need to reinvent the wheel.

 

With 'synthy' types of sounds, it really depends. If you really know your synths, then good basses, leads, stabs, arp and pad sounds are not at all hard to make, and there's no reason not to since it's a lot of fun to make your own. But I'll still scroll through and listen to presets or other third party patches now and then to get ideas for different approaches to sound design. I find that often a patch will inspire the kind of playing I do, and I'll often play around with presets when I'm just exploring and have nothing better to do. But rarely do presets of this kind end up on anything that I record. And it's not out of fear of not being original -- rather, such sounds just usually don't fit in the compositions themselves.

 

There are exceptions, though. Sometimes I'll like a preset patch on the FS1R, for example, and the sound itself inspires an entire piece on its own. This is often the case when you're noodling around with a preset patch, it evolves into a groove that you like, and you go from there.

 

But I think that reliance on preset acoustic instruments is no more a bad thing than writing 50 songs on the same physical acoustic piano. In that respect, my favorite acoustic piano patch on the PC3X is an actual instrument in its own right. The art is in what you do with that same piano.

[realtrance]

Whatever inspires you is good, there is no right or wrong here, despite what anyone may say. The only wrong is not really maximizing your use of electronic synthesis to learn new things, and maybe not even that, if all you want is something you can play. It really depends on what you want to do.

 

Zoink I'd almost agree with you re: sophisticated, multi-sample/layered sample-based acoustic emulations, _except_ for the fact that these are precisely the kinds of patches I often need to edit, not so much to change the layering, velocity settings for crossfades or any of that more subtle work, but simply to conform a patch to my playing style, type of velocity I strike the keys on the keyboard with, etc. If I want to play such a preset expressively, I often find I have to tweak a lot of the performance nuances to get something that's responsive in the way I like it to be; my assumptions and the patch designer's assumptions are rarely the same. I think most patch designers must be much more heavy-handed than I am. Of course once I've got something "right" in that process, it's not the kind of thing I need to tweak a lot subsequently.

 

On a different note, even with more traditional or unusual synth-oriented patches, there can often be a couple of key parameters that make a huge difference. For example, for all of the synths built by Roland around the time of the debut of the SRX (post-JV) sample sets, invariably, I'd have to go in and tweak the velocity sensitivity of the envelope on almost every patch from +32 to +12, so that it was responsive. I suspect Roland of setting this value so high in the hope people owning their keyboards would break them quickly by pounding hard on them. Or was that from +12 to +32, I forget, but something like that.....

 

On another note, one of the interesting things you'll find once you've seen presets from particular sound designers across a range of different synths, and can remember to identify that that is, say, a "Howard Scarr" or "Rob Papen" patch, you start to get a feel for the kind of sound palette such designers tend to work within, and so can start to focus your expectations of a patch with that extra knowledge in-hand. I know I have my fave patch designers. And they change, periodically, depending on what I'm after, too.

[Darkstorm]

I'll use liked presets as a main start point for tweaking into variations of it and completely diff voices to. A synth has to have a few very good presets to get me interested in it. The makers also have to have to some extent had the type of stuff I have in mind. If its 90% or more "real instruments" oriented, its not gonna catch my attention. Lol.

[selfinflikted]

In my experience, factory presets usually just won't work in the music I produce. In my opinion, presets are designed to 'show off' a synth's capabilities so that it will move from the showroom floor to your home/studio.

 

That said, I will use a preset if it is something that's acutally useful (rare) and that I can't re-create on my own (even more rare). Beyond that, there is a certain guilty feeling I get that is associated with trying to use a factory preset in an original work. In my own little twisted mind, original music calls for original sounds. Further, I often find that the creative process used in creating original synth patches can cross over into the creative process for writing the overall song. For instance, if while tweaking I get one of those "OMG" moments and create a really unique/awesome patch, that patch can influence the entire song and take it in a direction I would've otherwise overlooked by using a factory patch.

 

I suppose in the end, it's all about the creative process and what YOU'RE trying to do. If presets are your thang, take it all the way. It just happens that presets are not particularly *my* thing, because I actually enjoy synth programming and tweaking.

[realtrance]

Just remember that Bach didn't have to invent his own keyboards to make music. OTOH, Mahler _did_ in fact have to change the composition of the orchestra to make his; so, I guess it all depends.