Sound Design

[Jason]

This is a very large and open topic I have some very general questions about. It is something in thinking about, I wanted to hear what others have to say. This I was going to post in the modular synth section, but thought since I have a G2 it really would help me learn somethings using the G2 as an example though not limited to.

When beginning to create a sound to emulate another sound like say Sheridan's Thunder , or maybe G2ian's bird sounds, when you are setting out to make such a sound, how do you start? Do you think ok , this sound has this kind of waveform and I will use this Oscillator? It is hard to imagine its that simple. This can apply to so many things, but mainly I am talking about sound design here , but emulating Organs, strings and other acoustic sound sources too is amazing. That I almost find more manageable to get a handle on conceptually and thinking things through in terms of harmonics and waveforms for these more conventional instruments (not to say its easy) than more abstract things such as birds and thunder. Like for example on my Novation Bass Station in the manual it talks about using square waves to emulate clarinet sounds and just simply reading that it helped me alot in my use of PWM.
Anyway , keep up the good work!
And thanks-

[jksuperstar]

Get samples of sounds! Then get yourself some tools on your computer for sound analysis: Something to SEE waves (like an oscilloscope), see the frequency content (FFT), and also very useful is a "Waterfall FFT", which shows the FFT over time. Steinberg's Wave is good for this, but there are MANY tools available, so see what your're comfortamble with, or already own.

This helps me get familiar with a sound in quantitative terms: actual numbers & waveshapes I can see & understand, rather than "that sounds bright" or other qualitative terms. The more I use these, the more I get familiar with sounds out there.

Zoom out of a wave, and see it's shape. This is directly applied to the envelope settings you may use.

Zoom in and see if it looks like a square wave, and whether the edges have ringing, etc. I'm still developing an ear for natural sounds that contain certain waves, be it square, triangle, sine, etc. I do this not to emulate them (since I use a sampler), but to help me in using effects & filters. Though I've been studying physical modeling more & more, since it helps understanding exactly what you are after, and can also help get "that" sound out of my head that I can't pull up on a screen to look at

[sheridan]

That's all good advice above. Also, for some sounds, you can cheat!! For instruments in particular, search for 'synth secrets' here: http://www.soundonsound.com/ There is a wealth of information there, some 'deeper' than you need, but all very informative.

For other sounds, it is more of a case of trying to break down its properties. For a simple example, when creating the 'burping' patch, it was fairly obvious that the sound was made up from seperate clicks, or knocks, not a constant sound. As for the waveform, I just tried them all and listened to which one sounded closest. The voice module was just to recreate the throat sound, etc.

This patch can be easily tweaked to create all sorts of animal sounds - why not try creating a lion's roar or a dog's bark from it as a small test? (It's attached to a post called 'Burp...' in the FX section) Tip: Lengthen the sound using the red Pulse1 module and adjust the clock timing on the red Burp Trig module.

The main thing that I discovered whilst programming my 'nature' patches is that nature is random... but usually random in a somewhat predictable way. I often needed to have two or even three random LFOs at different speeds and amounts of modulation going to several destinations. For example, my thunder patch didn't sound quite right until I patched in a further (high speed) random LFO to simulate the thousands of reflections that you hear when thunder cracks.

Some of my patches have taken me weeks to complete. Recreating the sound of something can be extremely difficult and frustrating at times, but very rewarding if you get what you were after. Overall though, just experiment... and get tools if you don't already have them - they make the world of difference! You can probably even download freeware audio editors and spectrum analysers at least.

Good luck.

[zynthetix]

[Jason]

Thanks for the input folks! I appreciate this.
I sometimes think and plan things in my head etc before attempting them regardless of the outcome being close or not to the intended result.
So I take this approach often with music and composition. Like ok lets try using this drum machine with this unique effects loop and this kind of filtering. Or for sound design I like to plan ahead alot. Again the act of doing the actual process is where its at indeed, but thinking certain steps through is how I personally get there.
Thanks again!

[sheridan]

Did you try tweaking that patch Jason? I got a reasonable dog barking sound from it in about an hour's tweaking - see FX section if interested.

One other tip about programming with random LFOs: It can be quite hard to set up the modulation amounts going to the various filters/amps/etc., so I insert a constant module to help...

First make sure that the constant module has the same range and polarity as the random LFO, then move the cable from the LFO output to the Constant module output. This makes it much easier to adjust the modulation amounts, when you set the constant value to max or min.

Note that the random LFOs send out more values in the middle of the range than at the max/min of the range, so bear this in mind when setting modulation amounts, ie. when using a constant module at max or min to simulate the max/min of the random LFO, make your modulation settings slightly more than you actually want to hear.

I hope that made some sense to you!

Oh, and one more thing... Analysing tools definitely help to get certain aspects correct, but you will never end up with exactly the same as the original audio clip (unless you are trying to model a simple sine wave). Furthermore, in later stages, when you have just about created your sound, use you ears more than your eyes! Sometimes, a parameter change can make the sound more realistic, but at the same time become further from the audio clip's frequency spectrum for instance.

[Jason]

Sheridan,

I wanted to apologize for not responding sooner. I have not been active on the forum due to general life craziness. I hope that you understand.

Anyway, you make some great points here regarding using your ears and not just your eyes. In our modern society we use our eyes more so in editing parameters, or some of us do, and not always listen to the results.
I hear this complaint from many pro engineers in the studio when working with less experienced people. The less experienced user sometimes feels they must see the compression reduction meter moving to know that it is working instead of listening.

As for the other points, I only kind of understand I am sorry to say.
I am still in the dark when it comes to constant modules I am very embaressed to say but I do admit it. There is something to be said for live & in person interaction. I love the forum, but this stuff is still over my head. I wont give up though! I will for sure study what you are talking about as I know its very important. And I know I can understand it, its just new to me still even. Thank You Sheridan!

[sheridan]

Hey don't worry Jason... I've been away also.

See attached pics to help explain using a constant module to find max/min settings:

Example 1 shows a part of a patch using a random module (coloured purple). This random signal goes to several modules, each with their own modulation amounts, via the S&H1 module. To set these modulation amounts on the various modules easily, add a constant module as in example 2 and move the random module output to the constant output.

Note that this random module outputs values -64 to 0 (neg inv), so the constant module should only be set to -64 and 0 to equal the random module's max/min values, ie. if random module is bipolar, max/min on constant should be -64 and 64, etc.

This way, you can set the constant module to these values and set up the max/min modulation amounts on the several connected modules, without the control signal constantly changing as it does from the random module.

Finaly, when you have set the modulation amounts, you simply re-connect the random module and delete the constant module (back to example 1).

I hope that this is a bit clearer for you. Good luck.

---

Example2.jpg
Description:	Example 2
Filesize:	202.28 KB
Viewed:	4073 Time(s)

---

---

Example1.jpg
Description:	Example 1
Filesize:	181.91 KB
Viewed:	4073 Time(s)

---

[Jason]

I actually do understand a bit more now.
I will need to do some experiments later
this week to understand this in practice.
Thanks for taking the time to explain this.
Very interesting.