I feel like the answer is to just refine my ears, but maybe someone has wisdom to share.
I like to run through the presets on any device and reduce it down to the “best sounding” ones. But over the years I’ve realized I’m just picking the presets with the most amount of harmonic content and then mashing them together into a wall of mud and noise.
On a computer this is easy to fix with EQ so I never thought hard about it. Now I want to get better at identifying presets that sound weak in isolation, but amazing when pieced together with supporting sounds.
I do understand basic mixing practices and have put together some full albums worth of music that passes amateur judgement. Stuff “High-pass-everything” and removing unnecessary harmonic content from each sound I get.
But I want to develop the ability to identify or craft a sound that will not need the EQ carving live. I want a collection of parts ready to be combined freely during a live improvisation
I think this is not possible. The “awesomeness” of each sound depends on the context in which you want to put it in. If you ask me it’s the better way to have great presets where you have to use some filtering
I don’t want to sound dumb or like I’m stating the obvious but I have to meet the question where it is.
Do this same process you describe of preset culling… with a mix running in the background.
Make a folder of some of your fav tracks from other artists that capture the periphery of what you think you want your sound to be. Ideally there will be sooooome room in the mix for the types of sounds you want to demo. Loop a section without a lead, bass or pad or whatever space you want to fill. Do your culling within that environment or your own WIPs.
You could be strict and only rate or sort presets when you’re actually making music. Browse in the moment and only save what has worked for you in a real session. You’ll build up a bank in no time. You could even make a small rule. “I’m going to demo new sounds in this mix for 5 minutes and then pick from my saved stuff if that doesn’t work” that way you are always re assessing and learning what works and doesn’t.
This post is a bit “Doctor my elbow hurts when I do this” but I am trying to be genuine with my suggestions. Hope these help.
E: and not to throw a wrench into the above suggestions but a good arrangement goes way farther for “mix density” than you might think.
Avoiding clashy tones and build up can be solved in the compositional stage as well.
I would also turn off any fx in the patch, especially verb or fake stereo spread stuff. Imo it’s better to use 1 or 2 reverbs in the mix to create a sense of space with verb and panning rather than having all kinds of different verbs and stereo spreads baked into your sounds which can easily turn to mush.
It might help to think about traditional instrumentation and the roles different instruments play in an arrangement. Is a patch kind of an electric piano type sound, or a string like sound, or fluteish, etc. If it doesn’t fit at all into any of those classic categories there’s a good chance it might be more of a sound effect type sound in which case it’s probably going to be a focal point when it appears and should be used more as an accent rather than something that plays throughout.
You can also use that line of thinking to figure out if you’re trying to combine say too many brash horn-like sounds at once, or too many long sustained sounds without any shorter percussive sounds to balance it out.
You say you’re going for “most harmonic content” but many classic traditional instrument sounds are quite simple, and the same is true for the sounds used in a lot of great electronic music. Complexity can come from the arrangement, from the interplay of different sounds, and the musical ideas themselves, rather than directly from the synth patch. And contrast is a powerful tool. A harmonically rich sound that pops up at a key moment amidst an arrangement that’s mostly simpler sounds might have a bigger effect than all harmonics all the time.
You have given yourself the answer in the post topic.
Make a beat, loop it, play through presets while the beat is running.
You will identify the presets that fit immediately + you will come up with a nice sequence naturally.
And you are right, most presets are desigend to sound impressive and show off the capabilities of an instrument. Most boring presets are sometime the ones which fill the gap perfectly or close enough.
Another way is to filter the preset in post. At least if you are recording into a DAW. Narrow the bands down to the frequencies where you find the magic of the preset.
There’s different ways to create division in your arrangement:
Not all tracks need to be playing at once. A theme can carry through to different instruments while the others go silent or fall back to whole notes.
Limit each track/patch to two octaves max range. Have each track/patch cover a different part of the note range/spectrum
Have each patch be stylistically different. Utilize portamento, aftertouch, envelope attack, pitch bend in different ways.
Have some instruments play whole and half notes incrementally while others are busier and go across the keyboard. Melody/harmony, Foreground/background.
Categorize instruments into real-life counterparts: Woodwinds, brass, percussion, etc. On a synth that could be patches based on the various waveforms: sin, sawtooth, etc.
Use some patches to add intensity and drama to transitions instead of just relying on fills
Save the sounds you have already used in a track that sounded good and keep using them. There’s a tendency to always start from scratch with electronic music, but why not return to something reliable that worked before?
Something that has already been stated but not explicitly: avoid modulation and FX heavy presets (often 90% of factory presets or preset packs). These are often made to demonstrate what crazy stuff a synth can do, but they rarely work in a track.
FX also play an important role. I often make a sound that I think sounds a bit bland, until I add some reverb, chorus or delay and think “wow, that sounds great”. The same goes for some presets that are FX heavy: dial back all of the FX and you’ll often be surprised at how basic the core sound is. Use that as reference instead of FX heavy patches.
well that depends entirely on the mix in question, doesnt it
what role is this sound? boldly a central element or background element?
where do I have space in the mix, stereo image and frequency wise?
Do I want this sound to be more spiky or more rounded out?
and lastly, would this sound benefit from a dynamic sound signature (ie growing or shinking in some way at certain sections of the song), or is it better as a static thing thats sounds tonally the same from start to finish?
But if I start with a preset on a part for a song and it doesn’t sit well but I still like the sound? I’ll EQ out frequencies that conflict with OTHER parts. Sometimes that means the part will then sound thin or otherwise “incomplete” on its own, but in the mix, it plays nicely with others and our ears don’t notice the “missing frequencies” because other parts are filling in that space.
The “Digi” boxes, while not having proper EQ, do have a range of filters that can be used to get some similar results.
Aside from EQ, I often pull back on the volume of a part, even more than my initial instincts might tell me. That “cool sounding part” you’re in love with can sound a little too present to other listeners.
Just yesterday, I finished up ghost producing a track for a touring DJ. On this particular track, the main melody of the drop is (IMHO) catchy as hell so I initially had the high frequency layers of that melody more present and in-your-face in the mix.
But as I worked on the track, I forced myself to fall out of love with my catchy synth hook and focus on balance for the club and stage. EQs did come into play, but the main thing was remixing the 5 layers of synths for that hook so that the donky bass and sub was more prominent and the top layers were pulled WAY back.
And yet the listener can still hear that top-end melody and sizzle just fine! Our ears are tuned to it. Nothing was lost and the part is still just as catchy. But giving everything more space means that the bass part is now much more punchy and works better as a drop for the club.
Hopefully these ramblings might have a helpful nugget or two.
