Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

Just out of curiousity I was wondering if other people have a 
similar experience when using a real analog synth(like Evolver) 
in the context of predominantly digital sounds. I'll work for hours 
on a great sounding patch in Evolver but when I go to use it with 
other sounds from my predominantly "virtual" analog collection 
or with samples that have been digitally processed and filtered 
within my sequencer, I find the sounds from Evolver really stand 
out, in fact they stand out so much it's not practical to use them. 
They often just don't fit in because the sound is so radically 
different. The exception is when I'm making leads, basses, or 
some kind of traditional sounding patch. Then it's great. But 
when I create very textured sounding patches and sequences I 
find it difficult to find a context that fits well with them. I absolutely 
love the sound of them on their own but have the damndest time 
finding a place for them. I don't know, maybe they just need to be 
compressed or filtered so that they will fit better with other 
sounds. Anyone else have this problem? Have any creative ways 
of dealing with it?

steve

Yup, same problem.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhamaryder [mailto:dhamaryder@...]
> Subject: [Evolver] mixing analog and digital sounds
> 
> Just out of curiousity I was wondering if other people have a 
> similar experience when using a real analog synth(like Evolver) 
> in the context of predominantly digital sounds. I'll work for hours 
> on a great sounding patch in Evolver but when I go to use it with 
> other sounds from my predominantly "virtual" analog collection 
> or with samples that have been digitally processed and filtered 
> within my sequencer, I find the sounds from Evolver really stand 
> out, in fact they stand out so much it's not practical to use them. 
> They often just don't fit in because the sound is so radically 
> different. The exception is when I'm making leads, basses, or 
> some kind of traditional sounding patch. Then it's great. But 
> when I create very textured sounding patches and sequences I 
> find it difficult to find a context that fits well with them. 
> I absolutely 
> love the sound of them on their own but have the damndest time 
> finding a place for them. I don't know, maybe they just need to be 
> compressed or filtered so that they will fit better with other 
> sounds. Anyone else have this problem? Have any creative ways 
> of dealing with it?
> 
> steve

--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "dhamaryder" <dhamaryder@y...> 
wrote:
> 
> within my sequencer, I find the sounds from Evolver really stand 
> out, in fact they stand out so much it's not practical to use them. 

One suggestion is this - don't develop patches for the Evolver on its 
own and then try to find a use for them. I get the same problem when 
I try to develop great-sounding patches for almost any of my more 
modern gear. One of the best things about the old analogue synths was 
that they were simple and direct enough to be tweaked while you were 
using them, so you developed the sound to fit the context, not the 
other way round (in fact you couldn't save patches at all on a lot of 
older gear).

If you really want to use your killer patch, another approach would 
be to start with it as though it was a phrase sample or loop, and 
develop your ideas around the patch. You would then only add what was 
needed - perhaps all this would involve would be some minimalist 
drums, vocals and some FX.

i think this is the same problem with all instruments of different
tonalities - an electric guitar can totally drown woodwinds, KORG M1
piano doesn't really mix with real, soft instruments etc..

basically, for me it just means that evolver isn't a do-it-all synth
for every occasion - which i didn't buy it as, luckily. also, i tend
to avoid most "virtual" analog synths because of the fact that just
one monophonic analog (or proper digital) synth with character
(evolver, ms20 etc) can sound much better and communicate more than 10
virtual analogues stacked together.

so yes, i have the same experience and believe in it :D

t.. / polyfonken (http://www.polyfonken.com/stash)




--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "dhamaryder" <dhamaryder@y...> wrote:
> 
> Just out of curiousity I was wondering if other people have a 
> similar experience when using a real analog synth(like Evolver) 
> in the context of predominantly digital sounds. I'll work for hours 
> on a great sounding patch in Evolver but when I go to use it with 
> other sounds from my predominantly "virtual" analog collection 
> or with samples that have been digitally processed and filtered 
> within my sequencer, I find the sounds from Evolver really stand 
> out, in fact they stand out so much it's not practical to use them. 
> They often just don't fit in because the sound is so radically 
> different. The exception is when I'm making leads, basses, or 
> some kind of traditional sounding patch. Then it's great. But 
> when I create very textured sounding patches and sequences I 
> find it difficult to find a context that fits well with them. I
absolutely 

> love the sound of them on their own but have the damndest time 
> finding a place for them. I don't know, maybe they just need to be 
> compressed or filtered so that they will fit better with other 
> sounds. Anyone else have this problem? Have any creative ways 
> of dealing with it?
> 
> steve

One problem I've encountered with the Evolver is that the stereo signal 
path and multiple delay lines really encourage the programming of very 
wide sounds with crazy panning and a lot of stereo depth.  Stereo synth 
sounds are pretty hard to  place in a mix so I have started to program 
all of my patches in mono.  I also feel that the depth and space that 
delay can create is a choice that should probably be left for the mixing 
stage and so I've tried to stop overusing the evolver's delay.  So those 
are two factors that I think give the Evolver a lot of it's initial "wow" 
appeal (as heard in the presets) but make it tough to use those sounds 
musically.

>I also feel that the depth and space that 
> delay can create is a choice that should probably be left for the 
mixing 
> stage and so I've tried to stop overusing the evolver's delay.  

Yes, I've found that also and try to do the same.

I've come to the point (a couple years ago) where I make "analog"
music/songs and "digital" music/songs (hardware or software - I keep
the two separate.)

This approach might appear foolish and limited, but it works for me
(maybe because I am lucky enough to have most of the humble
gear/software I desire - and because I enjoy the limits/boundaries of
each.) 

I'll go on long digital kicks (won't even touch any of my
machines)....Then, a week later turnaround and go nuts with CV and
drummachines until I tire (or get antsy for the vst.)
[For example - the last 2 weeks straight, it's been software only. 
But today, I finally busted out some hardware: MD/XBase/MoPo and Evo
all together.  (Plus I've been fiddling/modding with my 'modularized'
MG-1.)  And it will be hardware for this whole week, I'm figuring.]

***So, all in all, I can't offer any help on mixing the two worlds,
because I don't want/need to.

(lol)

Chris

--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "dhamaryder" <dhamaryder@y...> wrote:

> 
> 
> >I also feel that the depth and space that 
> > delay can create is a choice that should probably be left for the 
> mixing 
> > stage and so I've tried to stop overusing the evolver's delay.  
> 
> Yes, I've found that also and try to do the same.

On 10/17/04 2:46 PM, "z_flash_ram" <z_flash_ram@...> wrote:

> 
> I've come to the point (a couple years ago) where I make "analog"
> music/songs and "digital" music/songs (hardware or software - I keep
> the two separate.)
> 
> This approach might appear foolish and limited,

I agree, and it's not limited at all, you/we have the additional resources,
really we need more limits to push I guess.
Sometimes I think in digital space and sometimes in analogue,  both become
diluted when you try and combine them, well, at least for anything
relatively minimal, or even emotive, it's perhaps like a landscape you
vision and maybe it's rural or urban. It can be done but can it be done
without that merger being a significant part of the subject? That's a bit
more rare.
   There are exceptions of course but for creating, limits are a often a
very great thing for me.
best,
phil

--+
cloaca recordings
http://www.cloaca.net/

Really? So the way you guys deal with it is by keeping them 
separate? What if Evo is the only real analog piece of gear you 
own(like me)? That's interesting. I don't know, I think there has to 
be a way of assimilating both into the same piece of music. I 
have this cd by Red Shift and on it they mention using digital and 
analog synths so I'm assuming they're able to do it somehow. 
But maybe they're using the analog stuff for more of those basic, 
bread and butter kinds of sounds. Like I said, when I use 
basses, leads, and traditional sounding pads I don't have any 
problem mixing the two. It's when I get into complicated, evolving 
drones and sequences, that's when the sounds really sticks out.
For example, that video clip of Dave Smith playing the 
"experimental" patch. I bet something like that would be hard to 
mix with virtual analog and soft synth sounds, even something 
like Absynth.



--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "p. hendricks" <ph@c...> 
wrote:
> On 10/17/04 2:46 PM, "z_flash_ram" <z_flash_ram@y...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I've come to the point (a couple years ago) where I make 
"analog"
> > music/songs and "digital" music/songs (hardware or 
software - I keep
> > the two separate.)
> > 
> > This approach might appear foolish and limited,
> 
> I agree, and it's not limited at all, you/we have the additional 
resources,
> really we need more limits to push I guess.
> Sometimes I think in digital space and sometimes in 
analogue,  both become
> diluted when you try and combine them, well, at least for 
anything
> relatively minimal, or even emotive, it's perhaps like a 
landscape you
> vision and maybe it's rural or urban. It can be done but can it be 
done
> without that merger being a significant part of the subject? 
That's a bit
> more rare.
>    There are exceptions of course but for creating, limits are a 
often a

> very great thing for me.
> best,
> phil
> 
> --+
> cloaca recordings
> http://www.cloaca.net/

So, you could try to make the Evolver sound more 'sh*tty and virtual'
by processing the Evolver with VST effects, or make the virtuals sound
more 'sh*tty' and analog' by routing the VST instruments out to the
Evolver EXT-In and sending it back to your cpu.  

Really, any instruments can (and should) be used together...It's all
about the creators ear and vision of the piece.

Don't be afraid to leave a complex/thick sound alone (like the
'experimental' sequence you mention.)  Sometimes, less is more.

If you really need to layer something over the 'complicated' Evolver
sounds, better take your time.  

Don't give up--you'll find your place/sound, just keep
experimenting/trying different ideas, etc.  

Sometimes I need to take a break, get inspired.  But because I really
get off on sounds, rhythms and music, I keep comming back and
working/experimenting.

Have fun
Chris

--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "dhamaryder" <dhamaryder@y...> wrote:

> 
> Really? So the way you guys deal with it is by keeping them 
> separate? What if Evo is the only real analog piece of gear you 
> own(like me)? That's interesting. I don't know, I think there has to 
> be a way of assimilating both into the same piece of music. I 
> have this cd by Red Shift and on it they mention using digital and 
> analog synths so I'm assuming they're able to do it somehow. 
> But maybe they're using the analog stuff for more of those basic, 
> bread and butter kinds of sounds. Like I said, when I use 
> basses, leads, and traditional sounding pads I don't have any 
> problem mixing the two. It's when I get into complicated, evolving 
> drones and sequences, that's when the sounds really sticks out.
> For example, that video clip of Dave Smith playing the 
> "experimental" patch. I bet something like that would be hard to 
> mix with virtual analog and soft synth sounds, even something 
> like Absynth.
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "p. hendricks" <ph@c...> 
> wrote:
> > On 10/17/04 2:46 PM, "z_flash_ram" <z_flash_ram@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > I've come to the point (a couple years ago) where I make 
> "analog"
> > > music/songs and "digital" music/songs (hardware or 
> software - I keep
> > > the two separate.)
> > > 
> > > This approach might appear foolish and limited,
> > 
> > I agree, and it's not limited at all, you/we have the additional 
> resources,
> > really we need more limits to push I guess.
> > Sometimes I think in digital space and sometimes in 
> analogue,  both become
> > diluted when you try and combine them, well, at least for 
> anything
> > relatively minimal, or even emotive, it's perhaps like a 
> landscape you
> > vision and maybe it's rural or urban. It can be done but can it be 
> done
> > without that merger being a significant part of the subject? 
> That's a bit
> > more rare.
> >    There are exceptions of course but for creating, limits are a 
> often a
> > very great thing for me.
> > best,
> > phil
> > 
> > --+
> > cloaca recordings
> > http://www.cloaca.net/

yes, all instruments can and should be used together but that's really
the same deal as with colors or food. you mix stuff according to the
effect you want. i'd never want evolver to sound as dull as the VST
stuff but when i use VST or even nord lead i tend to stick that stuff
through guitar fx, tape echo or similar things to breathe some life
into it. some people might opt to take the opposite route, using only
a coule of evo oscillators at a time with no extreme modulations,
resonance or fx to make it sound more tame.

also, you buy stuff according to taste. if someone who wants to create
squeky clean digish#t had bought evolver, that'd basically be their
problem - you don't buy a hatchet for a letter opener. ;D

t.. /polyfonken ( http://www.polyfonken.com/stash )



--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "z_flash_ram" <z_flash_ram@y...>
wrote:

> 
> So, you could try to make the Evolver sound more 'sh*tty and virtual'
> by processing the Evolver with VST effects, or make the virtuals sound
> more 'sh*tty' and analog' by routing the VST instruments out to the
> Evolver EXT-In and sending it back to your cpu.  
> 
> Really, any instruments can (and should) be used together...It's all
> about the creators ear and vision of the piece.
> 
> Don't be afraid to leave a complex/thick sound alone (like the
> 'experimental' sequence you mention.)  Sometimes, less is more.
> 
> If you really need to layer something over the 'complicated' Evolver
> sounds, better take your time.  
> 
> Don't give up--you'll find your place/sound, just keep
> experimenting/trying different ideas, etc.  
> 
> Sometimes I need to take a break, get inspired.  But because I really
> get off on sounds, rhythms and music, I keep comming back and
> working/experimenting.
> 
> Have fun
> Chris