My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Show off original scores and recordings made with Linux!

Moderators: MattKingUSA, khz

Post Reply
mclstr
Established Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:10 pm
Contact:

My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Post by mclstr »

I am a big fan of Open Source and have been since I first learned of RMS and Linux.

But this one is an experiment using only commercial software on Linux.
I limited myself to Bitwig, it's built in effects plugins and DiscoveryPro as the only synth.

Why Bitwig?
I often use open source DAWS. There are advantages with Bitwig for me because of the way I prefer to work. All DAWs have limitations though and Bitwig is no exception.

Why the DiscoveryPro?
I have a Nord Lead II and in the past it was usually my main synth because of the ability to control most parameters with real knobs and record these changes to the track in real time.
And for this reason the DiscoveryPro became one of my favorite software synths. It is a VST modeled after the Nord Lead II, can read Nord Lead II sysex files and the CC controls match the knobs on the Nord Lead II.
So no configuration needed. It can be controlled by the Nord Lead and changes recorded the same as if I was recording the Nord Lead, but now I had unlimited tracks and all setting were instant recall in the DAW.

mclstr-on-the-comanche-crossing
jonetsu
Established Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:05 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Post by jonetsu »

I don't see Bitwig as a 'mixing board' DAW. Because of Bitwig's clips and scenes I always compose, sketch and arrange in Bitwig then export to a proper 'mixing' DAW, Mixbus32C. Discovery Pro is a great synth with up front sounds. The morphing capabilities can make it go overboard, much like playing a distorted guitar near an amp at good volume. DPro is a nice addition to more fancy synths like Zebra2.

The piece is OK, but might be not of the best ones you've made so far. It sounds hurried in a way.
Luc
Established Member
Posts: 741
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:04 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Post by Luc »

Why is Mixbus32C a "proper" mixing board and Bitwig isn't?

I've seen the same said about Tracktion.

Both Tracktion and Bitwig can mix. Bitwig has a separate mixing window while Tracktion has all mixing features "inline," but both can mix.

Why do people say that Tracktion and Bitwig can't mix?
jonetsu
Established Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:05 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Post by jonetsu »

Luc wrote:Why is Mixbus32C a "proper" mixing board and Bitwig isn't? I've seen the same said about Tracktion. Both Tracktion and Bitwig can mix. Bitwig has a separate mixing window while Tracktion has all mixing features "inline," but both can mix. Why do people say that Tracktion and Bitwig can't mix?
Bitwig does not have a monitor channel. This means the output for listening is either regulated by the hardware speakers (a volume knob or some other external means) or by sliding the master bus fader, which does not make any sense. Are there solo/mute options such as AFL/PFL/SIP ? Can you adjust solo boost when soloing ? Does the monitoring strip support plugins (no such strip in Bitwig anyways) ? Since the compariosn is with Mixbus32C, is there bass/tmid/high adjustments on the mixbusses and master bus ? The layout in Bitwig have tiny sliders for send amounts, not easy to see.

Moreover, for me it's the sound and ease of flow of Mixbus32C. It's the compressors/limiters/levelers available embedded on each single channel. It is the mixbusses/stems which by their presence makes it almost mandatory to have a 3rd tier approach to mixing, each mixbusses featuring tape saturation and bass/mid/high adjustements. It is also the Harrison and x42 plugins, such as the spectral compressor, and the drum and bass character. The easiness of region gain adjustment. And it very likely looks like Mixbus32C v4 which will be available in about a week from now, will have even more from this company who are making mixing consoles sicne the 70s and are making some of the largest mixing consoles used today in the film industry. Although in the end, it is the sound. It's not easy to mix, so it's important for the UI to accomodate as much as possible.
mclstr
Established Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:10 pm
Contact:

Re: My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Post by mclstr »

After many years of sitting in front of classic Neves, modern Neves, various SSLs, APIs, Midas, Yamahas, ... as well as all the outboard gear that comes with state of the art recording studios, I am perfectly happy with the flexibility and patch-ability of Bitwig and most modern DAWs. In many ways I prefer them over the traditional mixer design.

If I want tape saturation, limiting, compression, ...there are plugins for that. If I need busses, I create busses.
The EQs, compressors, limiters, that come with Bitwig are easily as good as the any I've used.
Now I wish I could say the same for their built in synths/samplers:-)

Faders? I don't use them. I use my controllers and or mouse for programing automation.

I'm old and burnt out on the subject, discussions on gear or software bores me to tears anymore:-)
jonetsu
Established Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:05 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Post by jonetsu »

In Linux hardware emulations are not too common. There's OvertoneDSP. And there's Mixbus32C. So it's about the sound. Do the Bitwig plugins emulate known hardware ? They do not. Although the main drawback for me is that if I want to vary the audio output, I need to do it with the master bus slider. I spend that much time in doing a mix and then wham, move the main slider because of switching to headphones, or switching to the behritone. Or because I want to hear at a lower or higher volume. Always the master bus volume control. Always alter the mix done so far. Not so nice I find.

I always use a fader to adjust volume. I like the subtle travel done by actually using the fingers to move a slider by just that tiny amount. Not too long ago I thought this would be ridicule to have a real fader. Now I see what difference it makes to actually move a real fader in the sensible range of the scale.

I care about gear as I care about a trusty hammer, a good ol' bike, a car that goes on after all those years, a guitar, a teapot. There's some kind of relation being made with the tool I find. What I tend to not like so much are people arguing over their tools. Aren't they making music at all ? I make over more than 100 sketches a year, some go to further completion and show up on Soundcloud. Some will eventually further find themselves in a EP or something. I do not have the time to argue over tools. But when asked, I will gladly say what I think and even discuss.

I only got more serious about recording and mixing a bit more than a year ago, when I actually bought Bitwig and some synths, and Mixbus. I think I now have the pen, the ink and the paper to do stuff. This said, I started making sounds decades ago using PVC plumbing pipes and that was good enough then. I think, as it still happens today, even this very day, earlier today, that the unrecorded 'magic' communion still exists when playing an instrument. That emotions can be brought up spontaneously while playing, and this is what matters in its most basic essence. Now, to be able to share this would be great, although it's not easy to do, the first obstacle being the 'record' button. Of any DAW.
Luc
Established Member
Posts: 741
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:04 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Post by Luc »

Hmm. The more you write about it, the more I think you're just talking about your very personal preferences, in spite of which Bitwig can mix, as perfectly described by mclstr:
mclstr wrote:(...) If I want tape saturation, limiting, compression, ...there are plugins for that. If I need busses, I create busses. (...)
jonetsu
Established Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:05 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Post by jonetsu »

Luc wrote:Hmm. The more you write about it, the more I think you're just talking about your very personal preferences, in spite of which Bitwig can mix, as perfectly described by mclstr:
mclstr wrote:(...) If I want tape saturation, limiting, compression, ...there are plugins for that. If I need busses, I create busses. (...)
There's also the layout of the board. No EQ and no compressor/limiter/leveler plugins means you see all of the controls right away, right there in your face all the time. Easy to go through when making EQ decisions. No need to click to switch tracks or even worse, to click to switch track and to click to make a plugin appear. All there all the time in your face like a mixing console. Very good for the mixing workflow. The sound out of the Mixbus32C is so good as is, when properly mixed, that the use of plugins is not that much.

Also, I tend to like, and this is a preference, hardware emulations. I like much the OvertoneDSP Pulltecs and Fairchild. What else is there in the Linux world for hardware emulations ? Ah yes, there's Mixbus 32C.

I mentioned it before, yet again, I do not like to alter the master bus when switching from the HS to the Behritone to the headphones. I do not like to alter the master bus when listening at different volumes. Most if not all mixing engineers are not doing that and there's a good reason for it. Is this a personal preference ? I think not.

For instance, now that I have mixed something at about -85dB let's see how it sounds when cranking it up through the HS system. Wham ! Push the master bus fader ! This is ridiculous. This is a 'preference' which I could say is shared technically by a good number of mixing engineers. What would you suggest ? Let me know if there's a way to do it in Bitwig without moving any of the faders used for mixing. A hardware mixing board could perhaps be one, but that's outside of Bitwig. BTW, proposing to go behind each of the 3 Yamaha HS component and twiddle the volume knob thus messing the monitoring settings for the room, is not a valid solution. :)
mclstr
Established Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:10 pm
Contact:

Re: My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Post by mclstr »

Regarding: "Push the master bus fader ! This is ridiculous. "

Or create more than one separate monitor buss in Bitwig. One buss can fed off of an aux send and sent to control room headphones, the other fed from the master for studio headphone, maybe another to the boom box in the bathroom, another to an FM transmitter so the mix can be auditioned on the car radio, ...

No need to touch the master fader.

Bitwig and most DAWs have more extensive routing if needed.
I remember one number I did in Qtractor that had at least ten busses for all the external stuff that I was using. I try to avoid that anymore though:-)
jonetsu
Established Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:05 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Post by jonetsu »

Maybe. It still depends on the master fader and if it's low then there's a limit to which the 'buss', the audio track, combining all the inputs can be pushed to. A Bitwig tool can be added to the audio channel out before it gets to the master bus enabling more volume boost. So there's always a way to do things and Bitwig certainly is good enough to offer those possibilities. I can see, as you said, that having many of these output busses can be something to avoid. Which is one more thing in favor of a 'proper mixing board' :?

It is possible to mix tracks in Bitwig. I use the mixer when composing, sketching and arranging. What I have commented up there is " I don't see Bitwig as a 'mixing board' DAW" (to the rhetorical question of 'Why Bitwig ?') which has to do with a mixing board, a console. Where most of the things you need are right there and not behind mouse clicks. Where there's no need to create additional output busses for monitoring. I do not use any synths in Mixbus32C. It's only for further editing and mixing. And for its sound.
Luc
Established Member
Posts: 741
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:04 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Post by Luc »

jonetsu wrote:Also, I tend to like, and this is a preference, hardware emulations.
Everything in your comments is about preference. You're talking about workflow, and that is personal. It doesn't mean that this one or the other program can't accomplish the tasks.

This topic has stepped into Vi x Emacs territory. You may love or hate either one, but both can edit text, indent, search and replace, etc. The only difference is in approaches.

You're evidently attached to the analogue era paradigm. Your penchant for hardware emulations confirms it. You love the skeuomorphic approach, but that isn't necessary for us to accomplish whatever we want. Skeuomorphism does not equal functionality, and vice-versa. Old gear was constrained by physical limitations, while software isn't. In software, we can abstract everything in countless ways and still do the job, likely better than in the more traditional ways.
jonetsu wrote:What else is there in the Linux world for hardware emulations ? Ah yes, there's Mixbus 32C.
You say that as if we couldn't run Windows plugins on Linux. I think that is almost insulting to the people who brought that valuable functionality to our dear platform. It exists, it's there, why not use it? Out of preference? Fine. Don't then. But is it usable? Absolutely.
jonetsu
Established Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:05 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Post by jonetsu »

Luc wrote:Everything in your comments is about preference. You're talking about workflow, and that is personal. It doesn't mean that this one or the other program can't accomplish the tasks.
I do believe that certain workflows facilitates tasks. That's represented in software by the GUI of an application. Having less clicks makes it easier to do to things. Like seeing most of the relevant data at once.
Luc wrote:This topic has stepped into Vi x Emacs territory. You may love or hate either one, but both can edit text, indent, search and replace, etc. The only difference is in approaches.
vi and emacs are much more similar. Does not apply IMHO, they are too similar and differ only by their functions. Both 'GUI' are basically the same. And with both you can write code (and more). Now move to Circom Smalltalk and write an application where you cannot use your editor and all you can edit is one object at a time in a small window. That would be a large difference in the GUI. Same with Squeak. Compare Squeak code editing (basically like traditional Smalltalk) and vi or emacs.
Luc wrote:You're evidently attached to the analogue era paradigm. Your penchant for hardware emulations confirms it. You love the skeuomorphic approach, but that isn't necessary for us to accomplish whatever we want. Skeuomorphism does not equal functionality, and vice-versa. Old gear was constrained by physical limitations, while software isn't. In software, we can abstract everything in countless ways and still do the job, likely better than in the more traditional ways.
This is what you believe, this is your preference. The first four sentences I wrote above says why I think in this use case of mixing audio, that workflow is affected by how data is presented to the user. Personally as I've said I use both Bitwig and Mixbus32C. Composing, improv, sketching and arranging takes place in Bitwig's Clip Launcher/Arranger. I use the Bitwig mixer obviously in these processes.

Then when done I export the tracks and change hats to put the hat of a mixer and start Mixbus32C with the mixing process.

The harmonic distortions provided by emulation of transformers and tubes do have a sweet spot in the sound arsenal. Again, there is a strong movement towards hardware emulation. No wonder UA made so many emulations of the 'classic' hardware gear. There are even companies still build similar hardware. Heck, I have a VLA2 and a MPA2. You 'play' them a bit like instruments. Like one can 'play' a Big Muff. Or one can play, thanks to the morphing capabilities, a Discovery Pro to the point of seeing it going beserk.
Luc wrote:You say that as if we couldn't run Windows plugins on Linux. I think that is almost insulting to the people who brought that valuable functionality to our dear platform. It exists, it's there, why not use it? Out of preference? Fine. Don't then. But is it usable? Absolutely.
Well, I am not. Not yet. I will start a thread eventually about this as I see it's not easy to install the stable 2.0 version of wine. The OS offers previous versions and the development version. I'd like the current 2.0 stable. Airwave asks for at least 1.7x with a certain feature.... well this is for another thread.

Apart from that there is no real 100% feedback that one can run any Waves plugin in Linux. UA might be not possible at all. This said, there's also the cost. I would have to wait a bit to spend $500-$700 on quality plugins that can run 100% quality on Linux. Not to mention the full current Kontakt/Reaktor kit which can be interesting, with several quality libs for it.
Luc
Established Member
Posts: 741
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 1:04 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Post by Luc »

jonetsu, my big gripe with your position in this thread is that you're spreading misinformation. If you say that you don't like the way Bitwig does something, that's fine! Bonus points if you explain why. But when you say that any piece of software can't do something that it actually can, you begin to sound dishonest. Linuxers get a lot of information from forums like this one, often in Google drive-by searches, and you're telling them something that isn't true.

Just last week, I had a discussion with someone who said that Linux is a bad choice of OS because you have to spend hours configuring the X server. Say what!? I don't think I have even looked at my xorg.conf in the last 10 years! But people still believe that nonsense. Those misconceptions linger. I have my own gripes with Bitwig, even more so with Tracktion, but please let's not make stuff up.
jonetsu wrote:Well, I am not. Not yet. I will start a thread eventually about this as I see it's not easy to install the stable 2.0 version of wine. The OS offers previous versions and the development version. I'd like the current 2.0 stable. Airwave asks for at least 1.7x with a certain feature.... well this is for another thread.
Let's make that clear, too. 1.7x is what falkTX maintains in the KXStudio collection. Maybe it's not the best for some reason, but it runs at least 95% of all Windows plugins I throw at it. Not perfect, but quite stellar in my book. I have literally hundreds of freeware Windows plugins running fine. Hundreds. More than a thousand. I don't believe that even Kraftwerk, Tomita, New Order, Depeche Mode and The Chemical Brothers combined could ever use that many. (But if any of the aforementioned wants to say 'hold my beer' and prove me wrong, please do! :D )

Now, left to your own devices, you could easily lead some passer-by to believe that Windows plugins do not run on Linux at all, allegedly because we don't have the 2.0 version of Wine. You could make someone give up on Linux before they even try it. Please don't do that. Please be careful before you post negative feedback on stuff that exists and works.
jonetsu wrote:Apart from that there is no real 100% feedback that one can run any Waves plugin in Linux. UA might be not possible at all. This said, there's also the cost. I would have to wait a bit to spend $500-$700 on quality plugins that can run 100% quality on Linux. Not to mention the full current Kontakt/Reaktor kit which can be interesting, with several quality libs for it.
I have tried some two or three Waves plugins. They didn't work. But perhaps I am doing something wrong. FalkTX says he can run Kontakt, which never worked for me either. And there are many other plugins besides Waves, including hardware emulations that you like so much. There are options.

The cost is a very unrelated issue. I can't afford those either, but that doesn't mean they don't work. Let's keep personal, isolated issues separated from issues that will surely affect everyone. When you say "software X can't do Y" and it can, that's not cool.
jonetsu
Established Member
Posts: 2036
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2016 12:05 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Re: My Own Personal One Synth Challenge

Post by jonetsu »

Luc wrote:jonetsu, my big gripe with your position in this thread is that you're spreading misinformation. If you say that you don't like the way Bitwig does something, that's fine! Bonus points if you explain why. But when you say that any piece of software can't do something that it actually can, you begin to sound dishonest. Linuxers get a lot of information from forums like this one, often in Google drive-by searches, and you're telling them something that isn't true.
Luc wrote:You say that as if we couldn't run Windows plugins on Linux. I think that is almost insulting to the people who brought that valuable functionality to our dear platform.
First you say I am almost insulting people (eg. the Airwave developers by not mentionning that it is possible to run some Windows plugins in ahem, our dear platform), then that I spread misinformation. I think it is serious enough to spend some time. So let's start by reading what went on shall we.

Do you stand behind what you say ? Or do you just throw things around and balk away ?

Let's consider statements I made.


I don't see Bitwig as a 'mixing board' DAW.

(then you ask: Why is Mixbus32C a "proper" mixing board and Bitwig isn't?)

Bitwig does not have a monitor channel.

Are there solo/mute options such as AFL/PFL/SIP ?

Can you adjust solo boost when soloing ?

Does the monitoring strip support plugins (no such strip in Bitwig anyways) ?

Since the comparison is with Mixbus32C, is there bass/tmid/high adjustments on the mixbusses and master bus ?

The layout in Bitwig have tiny sliders for send amounts, not easy to see.

Do the Bitwig plugins emulate known hardware ? They do not.

Although the main drawback for me is that if I want to vary the audio output, I need to do it with the master bus slider.

Always the master bus volume control. Always alter the mix done so far. Not so nice I find.

(mclstr described a way to not alter the master bus fader in such uses)

Maybe. It still depends on the master fader and if it's low then there's a limit to which the 'buss', the audio track, combining all the inputs can be pushed to. A Bitwig tool can be added to the audio channel out before it gets to the master bus enabling more volume boost. So there's always a way to do things and Bitwig certainly is good enough to offer those possibilities.

It is possible to mix tracks in Bitwig. I use the mixer when composing, sketching and arranging.

I do believe that certain workflows facilitates tasks. That's represented in software by the GUI of an application. Having less clicks makes it easier to do to things. Like seeing most of the relevant data at once.

Personally as I've said I use both Bitwig and Mixbus32C. Composing, improv, sketching and arranging takes place in Bitwig's Clip Launcher/Arranger. I use the Bitwig mixer obviously in these processes.


Which one of the above is misinformation ?
Luc wrote:Just last week, I had a discussion with someone who said ...
I do not care about other people you have talked with.
jonetsu wrote:Well, I am not. Not yet. I will start a thread eventually about this as I see it's not easy to install the stable 2.0 version of wine. The OS offers previous versions and the development version. I'd like the current 2.0 stable. Airwave asks for at least 1.7x with a certain feature.... well this is for another thread.
Luc wrote:Let's make that clear, too. 1.7x is what falkTX maintains in the KXStudio collection.
You go on with 12 lines on wine/airwave and KXStudio, none of which I use.

Let's make it clear. As stated above, this is for another thread.

Don't mix that with a reply in which you say someone is almost insulting people and is spreading misinformation.

If you have a gripe with Ardour/Mixbus then go to these people to solve it out.

For me, as I have mentioned, I use both Bitwig and Mixbus and appreciate both.
Post Reply