[ddots-l] Re: getting more punch on drum tracks

Steve, I'm not picking on you here really, but people that go on these threads 
about older stuff sounding warmer, or somehow more legit, are, in many cases, 
either hearing what they expect to hear, or else are forgetting what else went 
in to what they used to hear.

You called out FM7, so, since you're familiar with that, I'll use it as an 
example. If you have a Korg or Roland keyboard, and dial up an FM Rhodes patch, 
the few velocity-switched samples, even when berried in effects, aren't going 
to be exactly like the DX7 piano patches. I get that. In a lot of cases, that's 
ok, since the newer keyboard is supposed to be able to let you dial up fair 
representations quickly without knowing anything about what you're doing. 
People trade off some quality for that advantage. Still, its accepted that, in 
this case, accuracy isn't the top priority.

However, the FM7 is perfectly like a DX7. When modeling analog gear, people 
frequently go off in to metaphysical territory that vaguely involves some 
facts, like the imperfections in the analog circuits of the original gear being 
discussed. Of course, they miss out on the idea that, since analog circuits 
aren't perfect, there would be subtle differences between two analog devices, 
even of the same model. Still, the DX7 isn't analog. It is 100% digital. The 
waveforms of the DX7 were generated mathematically by a CPU, not from 
oscillators. The modulation of the operators took place mathematically inside 
the DX7 before they ever became real sounds, and, when they became real sounds, 
they were rendered using digital to analog conversion circuits, just like the 
ones on your audio interface. The DX7 was a very simple-purpose computer, with 
an attached MIDI control keyboard, running an entirely  software-based 
synthesizer engine. The FM7 is an emulator of the original DX7 CPU and 
software. Everything that happens inside the plug in produces mathematically 
identical results to the original. It even responds to the same MIDI CC and 
SysEx commands, and will accept data dumps via SysEx. The only real difference 
between the DX7 and FM7 are the D/A converters on the original DX7, and the D/A 
converters on your audio interface, which are profoundly superior. Have you 
loaded the factory presets bank on the FM7? The patches sound identical to an 
original DX7, and by that, I mean they sound like thin plastic crap.

I don't doubt that you hear something, though. The thing is, I don't think that 
you have correctly identified the cause. You can make your software instruments 
sound much better, though, if you take time to think carefully about what's 
involved in shaping the over-all sound.

Part of what you hear is your audio interface. If you're using a low-end 
interface, the quality of the analog signal that is produced by its digital to 
analog converters might not have the character that you'd like for the software 
instruments or samples that you're using. I'm sure you're aware of the endless 
discussions of better A/D converters on high-end interfaces for getting a good 
take from an instrument or mic. The difference in those is indisputable. People 
only argue about which character they prefer, but there is practically no 
argument that the higher-end interfaces give a better result. Going the other 
way, digital to analog converters aren't as difficult to make, and so we get 
very good sound for very cheap equipment. Still, there is better d/a conversion 
out there. You should check out nicer interfaces.

Secondly, and I don't know how old you are, so please pardon me if I'm telling 
you stuff that you already know, but one thing that I've noticed with many 
people that are starting out on modern keyboard workstations and DAWs, is that 
they know very little about legacy studio recording and mixing processes and 
techniques. That isn't important if your main interest is focused more on the 
music than the specific sound, but, for someone that cares about the sound, 
that 1000 foot preset view won't satisfy them. They're very used to dialing up 
a sound, like an FM piano preset on a keyboard, and just having it sound fairly 
good. For someone like that, when they go back and listen to a recording from 
the 80's, made with a real DX7, it sounds like what they have on their keyboard 
or software instrument, a little bit, but not quite. Even if they have a 
modeled software instrument ,like FM7, it won't sound exactly like what they 
heard on that 80's song. The reason isn't so much because the FM7 isn't the 
DX7, but its because, in this case, they aren't recording and mixing like 
they're in a circa 1980's studio.

The original DX7 sounded bad. It sounded thin. It almost never sounded like a 
real instrument, except for some mallet and bell type sounds. People didn't use 
the crap out of it because it was a supremely wonderful instrument, the likes 
the world will never see again. They used it because it was a new sound (people 
had heard enough Rhodes and Wurlitzer pianos to last them for a while), it was 
inexpensive (about $1500, very cheap for a polyphonic synth at the time), and, 
since it was digital, it didn't drift out of tune like analog synths would. If 
you were in 1984, and you wanted an FM7 on your record, there are a few ways 
that you'd go about it.

If you were in a hurry, such as using it for an overdub, you'd hook up the DX7, 
and track its cheap and thin sound direct. It would continue to sound cheap and 
thin until the time came to mix the multitrack. When you started mixing, the 
first thing that you'd do is to really get to work with the EQ. If you've never 
recorded a real DX7, you might not know how noisy its wonderfully authentic 
post D/A amplifier is. You wouldn't believe how much high frequency hiss you'll 
get. So, you need to roll that off with a high shelving EQ, but, you can't be 
too steep with it, or else you'll take away too much of the signature 
brightness in the tones that it produces. Next, that FM piano preset is so 
wonderfully dynamic, which is really expressive, but that also means that it 
will be berried in the mix unless you really hit it with compression...a lot of 
compression. Now that you've got the dynamics worked out, though, you notice 
that that horrible  hiss is back, since compressing the DX7 also brought up the 
noise floor of not only the DX7, but the tape, too. You EQ a little more, and 
maybe use an expander or gate to hide the hiss on the track when the keyboard 
player wasn't actually playing. It sounds cleaner, but it still has a crap thin 
tone. So, you need chorus. Everyone used chorus on the DX7 pianos. The DX7 had 
no built-in effects, but it should have, since almost no one ever used those 
sounds raw. If they didn't use chorus, they used heavy gated reverb. Anyway, 
back to the mix. Now, you have a mixed track of a simple FM piano performance. 
Of course, the fact that you were tracking to tape adds a certain character, 
mostly the weird EQ curve that is applied to it in association with the Dolby 
noise reduction that you're trying to use to overcome its own hissy noise 
floor. Once the mix is finished, someone will master the mix, and part of that 
will involve a multiband compressor using tube amplifiers. The tubes will add 
distortion to the tone of the whole thing, but some people actually like the 
fuzzy sound of the harmonics that are added by overdriving the signal just a 
bit, so a little of that might add an additional mark on the track's sound. If 
you ended up listening to the song on vinyl, since it was the 80's, there would 
be additional post-mix EQ and drastic dynamic compression applied so that the 
track would be louder than the popping and crackling noise floor of the vinyl, 
and also so that there weren't any drastic peeks in the sound that could cause 
the needle to jump out of the groove. This all colors the track, and 
contributes to what someone might associate as the sound of the DX7, even 
though the DX7 was just the seed in a long sequence of processing that formed 
the finished sound.

Now, that is just for someone that wanted a simple FM piano. If you were a 
serious keyboard player going in somewhere to track a song that featured FM 
piano as a primary instrument, then you probably wouldn't be using a DX7. 
Instead, you'd be using one of the Yamaha TX rack units. The TX816, for 
example, combined 8 DX7 synth engines, complete with independent outputs. What 
a lot of people would do is to hook up their controller, set all of the TX 
modules to the same patch, and slightly detune them from each other. Some 
people would also make other tweaks, like slightly changing the velocity 
response of each module. Then, you feed all of those to a mixer where you 
create a sub-mix by panning the 8 TX modules around in the stereo field. Then, 
instead of tracking the modules directly, you track the stereo output of the 
sub-mix.  This is like recording a huge, stereo, thick-sounding DX7 ensemble. 
What you get on tape is a really thick and glossy sound that is similar to 
using a stereo chorus on one DX7, but doesn't have so many of the subtle harsh 
frequency beating artifacts of using a stereo chorus on a single DX7, since 
each of the modules in the rack can be independently tuned to a pleasant 
sounding offset. When you get to the mix, you still need to clean up the track 
a bit, but there was less hiss on the TX modules than the DX7s. Still, you have 
compression and EQ working. You still have the mastering considerations, and 
any post-mastering processing that made it in to the medium where you heard the 
recording, like Vinyl, radio, film, etc.

The point of all of this is that the older stuff didn't sound better to you 
because it was better than what you have now. The older stuff sounded better in 
many cases because it went through many layers of strategic processing by 
people that, in most cases, knew how to mix and process the material that they 
were given in order to maximize the good and minimize the bad. You can select 
an FM7 preset, and can play that through your monitors, but most presets aren't 
going to factor in everything that an experience mix or mastering engineer 
would do to make it fit the situation. Plus, in the case of the second example 
above, you'd need 8 instances of FM7 running to mimic what you heard on that 
80's song.

If you really want to make that classic FM piano sound in Sonar, and do it 
totally authentic, then try this. Load the factory presets bank in an instance 
of FM7, and call up the piano1 patch. Create a new bus, and call it keyboard 
sub-mix. Set the output of your FM7 track to the keyboard sub-mix. Now, clone 
the FM7 track 7 additional times, so to simulate the 8 DX7 engines available in 
your simulated TX816 rack. Go to FM7 instances 2 through 8, and use the fine 
detune parameter to detune them from instance 1, which will be the fundamental 
pitch of the ensemble. Detune will shift the tuning in semitones. I suggest 
detuning them like this: +4, -4, +8, -8, +12, -12, and use your imagination 
with instance 8. Now, pan each instance to a different stereo position. I 
suggest going like this: left 20, right 20, left 40, right 40, left 60, right 
60, left 80, right 80. Finally, so that you can play them all at once, manually 
arm and turn on input echo for all of the tracks. If you don't do this, you'll 
only be able to play one instance at a time with your MIDI controller. Now, you 
have a simulated TX816 rack, and the keyboard sub-mix bus simulates the stereo 
signal coming in from your TX816 sub-mixer. Next, put the Cakewalk tape sim on 
the keyboard sub-mix bus as an insert effect, to simulate the FM7s being played 
back from tape. Set the keyboard sub-mix bus's EQ to post-effects, and tweak it 
to taste. I suggest that you, at minimum, roll off the frequencies below 150Hz 
a bit. Thankfully, the FM7 doesn't produce any hiss (wonder if NI ever got a 
request to simulate that), so no need to attenuate the highs. Add the LP64 
multiband compressor to the keyboard sub-mix's effects chain, since it models 
tube distortion when amplifying. Use the global controls on the compressor to 
squish the dynamics of the keyboard sub-mix a lot. Add a new send to the 
keyboard sub-mix bus, selecting to create a new stereo bus. This will be your 
aux send for the chorus effect. On the new chorus bus, add the Sonitus 
modulator to the bus, and configure it as a stereo chorus. The default 
modulation rate is too high, so slow it down to almost 0. Change the chorus 
send level on the keyboard sub-mix until you have the balance right. You won't 
need very much, since the 8 simulated modules in your simulated TX816 will be 
detuned and chorusing a fair amount on their own. That should get you most of 
the way there. After you've recorded the other parts, and when you wrap up the 
mix, use the LP64 multiband compressor on the master bus, and overdrive it a 
little. If you're really after the 80's, then remember to use very little 
enforcement to lower frequencies, so maybe select the heavy mastering preset, 
and turn bands 2 through 4 up another 2 DB. To go for that fairly well recorded 
4-track home demo sound, substitute the tape sim on the master bus in place of 
the LP64 multiband compressor, and turn up the master bus's output level until 
just before you can start to hear distortion. That's your simulated tape 
saturation. If you try this, I hope that you have fun. Also, I hope that you 
save your setup as a track template, because a setup like this takes a while to 
assemble. Hey, nothing like picking a preset, right? Except it just isn't as 
authentic sounding. *smile* This level of detail is just too much for what most 
people need, so most people don't bother anymore.

It isn't just the DX7. You mentioned the warmth of the Fairlight CMI. The 
Fairlight was a revolutionary machine for its time. Still, thankfully, those 
days are gone, and we have better machines. If you think cleaning up a DX7 
sounds hard, you might not want to dream too much about the Fairlight. Again, 
the mix engineer saves the day. Its 8-bit digital to analog converters produce 
horrible buzzing aliasing artifacts. You can try to EQ that out, but, since 
most of the samples are recorded around 12Khz, there won't typically be any 
strong natural harmonics above 6-8Khz. So, by equalizing away the aliasing, you 
make its very muffled sounds seem even more muffled. So you might try to make 
the weak sounds larger with chorus, or lots and lots of reverb to get over the 
fact that they have almost no high frequency content. I think that the cheap 
keyboard gear was mostly what brought on the massive reverb and super 
effects-washes of most music from the 80's. Lots of effects make crap sounds 
better. Ugh. Who wants a Fairlight. Google around and read about how long it 
took to boot, or how slow it was loading samples from those huge 8 inch floppy 
disks.

If you're wanting to improve your sound, then read some books on mixing. It 
will help a lot! Even old stuff is great. The ideas are absolutely the same. We 
track to digital instead of tape, and the effects are in the computer instead 
of in a rack next to the console. The processes work almost identically, though.

Have you heard some of the multitracks of pop songs that have been floating 
around the Internet recently? Go listen to some of those raw. It will really 
open your ears as to what the right sort of strategic processing can do for 
normally uninspiring sounds.

Regarding the drums, you know, the original topic of the thread, I can't 
believe that no one has brought up the PX7 percussion plug in Sonar 8.5. That 
combines lots of effects that are commonly used for processing drum mixes in to 
one plug. They also have lots of ready to go presets. And so much about the 
over-all sound of drums is about processing! Most of the drum softsynths don't 
have a lot in the way of built-in effects. Even when they do, you usually only 
get the complete processing if you use their main stereo output. You have a lot 
more control if you let the synth use the individual outputs, which usually 
correspond to each of the mics that would be used when tracking a physical drum 
kit in a physical studio. Then, it is just like you have a multitrack recording 
of a drum session, and you can bring all of your mixing tools to bare in order 
to get the sound that you want.

Bryan

-----Original Message-----
From: ddots-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ddots-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Steve Wicketts
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:00 PM
To: ddots-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ddots-l] Re: getting more punch on drum tracks

Hi Mike,

The reason I've been discussing the issue of softsynth soft sound is I don't 
under stand why my new tracks for my live Shows is taking so long to have the 
presence that I get when using the Motif.

I'd never consider myself a producer, I'm a musician who can't yet afford a 
producer, and may sometimes ask obvious questions.

I can't speak the science of sound like you and the other guys do, I just know 
what sounds good.

An example is, The FM7 does not sound like the DX7 even though they are both 
digital processors.
There is a difference and that difference is the warmth and depth of the sound. 
The DX7 sounds better.

The TR909 and TR808 still are hot property, once again there's a warmth to the 
sound.

I can only explain myself in simple terms,, If I was buying a sports car, I 
wouldn't expect to only be able to do 10 mile   per hour unless I add extra 
boosters and a turbo.
I want a sports car that gives me 150 miles per hour.
I don't have any desire to know what's going on under the bonnet, I just want 
150 miles per hour.
If you know the car can do 150 miles per hour, then you also know that 10 is 
going to be a breeze.

The Roland R8 from the 1980's gave you a snare which was the equivalent to a 
pretty good sports car.
25 years on I'm hearing software drums that are the equivalent to a bicycle.

I am getting close to the sound I want to hear, It's not an over produced sound 
I'm after, it's a live feel sound for my backing tracks.

I want the crowd at my Shows stomping their feet not tapping their glasses.

It's reassuring to hear that others on the list have been experiencing the 
similar issues, it's also reassuring that their are experts like yourself who 
can explain the process.

Sorry if my questions have been bugging you.

Steve W



        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Mike Christer <mailto:m-christer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        To: ddots-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:50 PM
        Subject: [ddots-l] Re: getting more punch on drum tracks

        Hey guys!

        I was wondering about this anti-software snare drum thread, and came to 
the inevitable conclusion...

        Surely this discussion is quite redundant?
        Not everyone wants or needs a kick ass snare, and there are literally 
hundreds of plug-ins out there that'll give you the appropriate 
beef/punch/attitude?

        Isn't it simply a question of processing?
        Mike



                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Steve Wicketts <mailto:steve.wicketts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                To: ddots-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
                Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:40 PM
                Subject: [ddots-l] Re: getting more punch on drum tracks


                Hi Phil,

                Will be upgrading to Sonar 8.5 in the next few Months.

                Phil, my remarks about the quality of software snares, is me 
having a gripe about Superior and the other software companies.
                I apologise if it sounds like I'm aiming my gripe at you as 
that's not my intention at all.
                The HSC set you created for Superior is brilliant and if we are 
talking accessible drum software, there's nothing to touch Superior.
                Superior gives more overall control to a producer than if there 
was a real drummer in the drum room.

                My problem isn't just with superior, it's with most software 
companies that create drums.
                Most software drums don't seem to have the snares beefy enough 
for me and they don't have enough attack.
                It's like they sample a snare then whilst editing they decide 
to cut off the sound of the stick striking the snare.
                Maybe they don't want the time delay between the stick hitting 
and the snare responding, well, that time delay applies to a real snare...
                the Thing I don't understand about Superior, they did an 
excellent job with the toms and the kick drums, as both toms and kicks sound 
really beefy and show a lot of attitude.
                You can get the snares to show a little attitude but it 
shouldn't have to takes several effects to make this happen.

                Moan over, the first one of 2010.
                Steve W



                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Phil Muir 
<mailto:info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                        To: ddots-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
                        Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 6:55 PM
                        Subject: [ddots-l] Re: getting more punch on drum tracks

                        Also, if you have a newer version of Sonar such as 8 
or, 8.5 then, you can always add a bit of tube saturation to your drums.   The 
Tube warmer is to me at least, a good enough reason to upgrade to a newer 
version of Sonar.



                        Regards, Phil Muir
                        Accessibility Training
                        Telephone: US (615) 713-2021
                        UK+44-1747-821-794
                        Mobile: UK +44-7968-136-246
                        E-mail:
                        info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
                        URL:
                        www.accessibilitytraining.co.uk/

                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: ddots-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:ddots-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Steve Wicketts
                                Sent: 18 January 2010 09:27
                                To: ddots-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
                                Subject: [ddots-l] Re: getting more punch on 
drum tracks


                                Hi Len,

                                The thing I've found about software drums is 
they're not usually as punchy as top spec hardware.
                                Drumcure (not accessible) is the only Drums 
software I've come across that really does kick hard.

                                Regarding Sonic Reality Oceanway Drums, I don't 
believe the Sonic Reality snares are any better than Superior.

                                To give the Superior snare more attack:
                                1: make sure you are using all the audio tracks 
across all the Drums.
                                2: I believe three of the microphones are 
purely for the snare, these all need to be assign to one bus.
                                4: on the Snare Bus Channel, go to the effects 
column, add either Sonitus Compression (Drum Destroyer) or Sonitus Compressor 
(Vintage DBX).
                                5: Still on the Snare Bus Channel, put the 
cursor 1 right of the effect column so you are on the Compressor and then press 
your application key (this will ensure that this next effect that we are about 
to add is in front of the compressor.
                                6: Add sonitus Gate, select (Zero One Default 
Gate)
                                This should not only give the snare some body, 
it should add a little punch.

                                Superior Bass drums will not need any 
compression.
                                Using HSC, go to Mixer presets.
                                arrow down to Kick sub menu, now arrow down to 
muscle and press enter and this will blow your speakers off the wall.

                                The guys at Toontrack may have only spent 5 
minutes on sampling the Snares but they spent Days on the Bass Drums.
                                Hope this helps.

                                Steve W



                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: Len Viljoen 
<mailto:len@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                                        To: ddots-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
                                        Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 6:49 AM
                                        Subject: [ddots-l] getting more punch 
on drum tracks


                                        Hi guys. I use superior drummer on my 
tracks. I need to get more punch or power or thickness or whatever it's called 
on my drum tracks. Especially my snare drum sounds a bit thin. Any ideas on 
wich plugins I could use or what form of eq could remedy the problem? Any help 
will be greatly appreciated.

                                        Kind regards

                                        Len viljoen



                                        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 
Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4781 (20100118) __________

                                        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 
Antivirus.

                                        http://www.eset.com




                        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, 
version of virus signature database 4787 (20100119) __________

                        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

                        http://www.eset.com




        __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
signature database 4791 (20100120) __________

        The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

        http://www.eset.com


PLEASE READ THIS FOOTER AT LEAST ONCE!
To leave the list, click on the immediately following link:
ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
If this link doesn't work then send a message to:
ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
and in the Subject line type
unsubscribe
For other list commands such as vacation mode,
click on the immediately following link:
ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subjectúq or
send a message, to
ddots-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
and in the Subject line type
faq

Other related posts: