sounds like it has a sub harmonic generator like dbx 120xp or a good octaver pedal
or a synth that can have a sub-osc like juno-60/jupiter-8 or sh-101
try tal uno-60
or powercore 01 or sonictimeworks sh-1001
+ mda sub vst set to dist.
or ik amplitube octaver or ampex svx octaver, one sounds awesom & the other sounds like crap
but cant remember witch one is witch!
its an analogue synth doing that bassline 100% mate. you wont get the "same" sound out of a vst...
same patch could easily be programmed with a Sequential Pro-One, DSI Evolver or the Moogs etc... and it was surely done on one of the above in the first place...
I'd say a Sequential Circuits through a nice amplifier. (desk) Probably Prophet 5 yes.
You can get close using software tonally, but that really fat punch is hardware.
maybe use a vst and route it through some fat outboard? It will get you in the ballpark tonewise but you'll still miss the juicy bit.
there's a couple of synths now that I know can do that. Moog, SE, that kind of stuff. Maybe the Prophet 08 too (?). someone who uses it can try and post. (?)
__________________ "You must have Chaos within you, to give Birth to a dancing Star" Friedrich Nietsche
For SALE: ATC SCM7 bookshelve passive monitors, Bryston 3B Power Amplifier, Emagic ATM8 & Unitor 8 midi interfaces (16 i/o through USB)
sound like Minimoog or clone SE1x or Voyager..maybe you should try trilogy ( BUT I dont believe you will get this Warm BASS) ..preset is Rubber moog ..or something like that if I remember
its an analogue synth doing that bassline 100% mate. you wont get the "same" sound out of a vst...
same patch could easily be programmed with a Sequential Pro-One, DSI Evolver or the Moogs etc... and it was surely done on one of the above in the first place...
Em I Do realise it was an Analog synth mate...
The point of the post is to see if it's "Possible" to get close in VST world.
I'd say a Sequential Circuits through a nice amplifier. (desk) Probably Prophet 5 yes.
You can get close using software tonally, but that really fat punch is hardware.
maybe use a vst and route it through some fat outboard? It will get you in the ballpark tonewise but you'll still miss the juicy bit.
there's a couple of synths now that I know can do that. Moog, SE, that kind of stuff. Maybe the Prophet 08 too (?). someone who uses it can try and post. (?)
Cheers man, It really does sound Fat in the cliched sense of the word!!
The thing is I think it's almost all to do with the envelopes and how fast/accurate they are ----
A lot of the VST's i've tried just are not quick with the decay, and alot of the resonance on the filters sounds rubbish compared to a real analog synth.
It's a shame but I "thought" the Minimonsta would be capable but alas not,
it IS fat though but the filter lets it down when you use a real wet resonant sound like the Bassline in question.
sound like Minimoog or clone SE1x or Voyager..maybe you should try trilogy ( BUT I dont believe you will get this Warm BASS) ..preset is Rubber moog ..or something like that if I remember
Thanks for the tip man,
I too thought Trilogy would be up to it, but not so unfortunately, all the presets and the waveforms didnt go deep enough, I felt as if someone had Hi passed the Plugin!!
nope, it doesn't have to do with envelope's speed. i don't know who comes up with this trash because digital synths have fast envelopes too, look at the virus as a good example.
the sound comes mainly from the filters and oscs. that bassline has a juicy resonance (not over the top) which it gets from the interaction between the filter and the filter envelope and you just wont get that same "sound" out of vsts because digital filters don't sound like analogue filters yet... so the answer to your question is simply "no".
you can get sounds that resemble that bassline but it won't be "it"... so just get a 2 osc analogue synth and be done with it
......snip........ the interaction between the filter and the filter envelope ....snip....
thumbsup this is an important difference. not just the speed, but the shape (resolution) and the combination. Also the oscillators are important. DCOs or digital oscillators just feel different. the whole thing really matters LOL
maybe an outboard analogue filter (&envelope) can make that minimonstra punch a bit more..
I'm certain that for this track the mixing through a quality desk (with amps & eq) contributed to the sound in a large extend. I'm pretty certain that this was mixed in a pro studio on a good board. For now: A good amp in combination with a dynamics processor can make a sound more punchy. However it would be more effective if gotten right at the source (the synth).
nope, it doesn't have to do with envelope's speed. i don't know who comes up with this trash because digital synths have fast envelopes too, look at the virus as a good example.
Ok it has to do with lots of factors , but speed is one of them, no trash!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg_KPX
you can get sounds that resemble that bassline but it won't be "it"... so just get a 2 osc analogue synth and be done with it
I would if I had the cash mate belive me, but the rent beckons again...
That bass sound is classic early 1980s Prophet 5 in unison.
It's possible to get something similar by using something current with similar characteristics, something like a Prophet 53, Creamware Prophet, Prophet 08, Waldorf or CZ series. The rest comes down to going the extra mile with good synth, outboard and EQ programming. Anyone who claims something like it can't be gotten doesn't have sufficient depth in these areas IMO. To get exactly the same might require the real thing, but I've heard a Casio CZ-101 do a good Prophet imitation in the right hands. All it takes is a willingness to delve further into the synth's capabilities.
Do not psyche yourself out with some of the stock rhetoric that it must be the original-the programmer makes a huge difference in the equation.
That bass sound is classic early 1980s Prophet 5 in unison. Very easy to get that sound.
It's possible to get something like it on something current like a Prophet 53, Creamware Prophet, Prophet 08 or something like it such as a Waldorf *IF* someone's willing to go the extra mile with some good programming AND EQing chops. Anyone who claims that's not true really doesn't have sufficient depth in these areas IMO. I've heard a Casio CZ-101 do a good Prophet imitation in the right hands. All it takes is a willingness to delve further into the synth's capabilities.
Do not psyche yourself out with some of the stock rhetoric that it must be the original-the programmer makes a huge difference in the equation.
Of course, the close the sound is to the real thing to begin with, the less effort it will take to get it.
Analogbass you are the man!
It was you that gave me the heads up on the midnight star "Operator" bass sound,
Needless to say, I spent a few...ahem hours on NI's Pro 53 trying to replicate the bassline with a 8bar loop of the Song underneath in Cubase.
I got to say I did get pretty close, but missing some depth, such is the nature of doing the whole "Emulation" thing.
I shall get myself a cup o tea and fire up Pro53 once more!!
I got to say I did get pretty close, but missing some depth, such is the nature of doing the whole "Emulation" thing.
I shall get myself a cup o tea and fire up Pro53 once more!!
The real deal still sounds the best BUT if you take a Pro 53 or Creamware Prophet, etc. and program it well it can get part of the way there. Then you can add some of the missing analog depth by experimenting with EQ and/or outboard, leaving you with something that sounds DAMN GOOD-if you really use all the potential of what you have. Won't sound the same, but good, arguably even comparable!
Also try stacking two synths together-this was more in vogue during a relatively brief window in the mid-late 80s. Unfortunate, because it can be awesome if the willingness to do some trial and error's there. Try one hardware and one software synth, for example a Pro 53 and a CZ-101 or TX-802. You'll get sounds will be different than classic analog but DAMN GOOD, could even be almost comparable yet different. Unique, not something usually heard-no way to predict the results before trying, just use different combos and see what happens, then tweak to taste. Jeff Lorber used to do this, layering analog and digital.
As i said, i've heard some mean CZ-101 basslines that were almost in to the analog realm when someone actually took the time to program it & add some EQ and/or outboard.
The real deal still sounds the best BUT if you take a Pro 53 or Creamware Prophet, etc. and program it well, add some EQ that can add some of the missing analog depth, and/or use outboard, you'll have something that sounds damn GOOD-if you really use all the potential of what you have. Won't sound the same, but good!
Also try stacking two synths together, one hardware one software for example a Pro 53 and a CZ-101 or TX-802. You'll get sounds will be different than classic analog but DAMN GOOD, could even be compare yet different. Unique, not something usually heard.
Cool tip man, at the end of the day, if it sounds good enough for my tunes then I just use it I couldnt care much If it is not an "Exact" duplicate of a particular sound.
As long as it serves the song then it works imo
To be honest I was kind of hoping you'd chip in here A.Bass, you know your Funk!!
BTW just curious but where do you get your info on these early 80's funk players I keep pestering you about?
I have honeslty spent weeks googling on Terry Troutman and the like but theres very little in the way of a "Gear list" etc...
Cool tip man, at the end of the day, if it sounds good enough for my tunes then I just use it I couldnt care much If it is not an "Exact" duplicate of a particular sound.
As long as it serves the song then it works imo
To be honest I was kind of hoping you'd chip in here A.Bass, you know your Funk!!
BTW just curious but where do you get your info on these early 80's funk players I keep pestering you about?
I have honeslty spent weeks googling on Terry Troutman and the like but theres very little in the way of a "Gear list" etc...
A few things helped me..
-I grew up listening to those records, and it was interesting to hear the different and great sounds and try to discern the characteristics, even before i knew the differences brand to brand. By the time i learned the brands in the mid-80s it was almost second nature recognizing them, having heard them so many times on records-keep in mind that in the early-mid 80s there weren't really that many synths used, generally a relatively small number of synths and drum machines.
-Back then during the golden gear age mid-70s to late 80s, it was in vogue to list the gear used on a fair number of albums..not all, but a fair amount of them did. Like reading a menu at a fine dining establishment you could smack your lips salivating over what were often extensive gear lists-keep in mind also that in that era virtually everything was expensive and high-quality sound.
-I've read Keyboard from that era to about 10 years ago, which often discussed what was used.
-After you've owned all the classics it's a lot easier to figure out what was used.
-A lot of the musicians were not really synth gurus, didn't program the synths particularly well or hired a synth programmer to do it for them, and played follow the leader, buying/using what everyone else was using. In the case of Roger, he was likely in part at least following what P-Funk his major influence was using. In the early 80s P-Funk used Prophet on cuts like Atomic Dog.
Most groups then used either a Moog, Prophet or Oberheim. Japanese analogs weren't really widely used or needed, were used more overseas. Rolands came in to vogue later, in the post-analog era of house music beginning in the mid-80s. They became more popular because (1) they were cheaper used than American synths, and (2) most were already midied or easily synced, unlike American synths almost all of which were without midi and required expensive retrofits.
-I grew up listening to those records, and it was interesting to hear the different sounds and try to discern the different characteristics, even before i knew the differences brand to brand. By the time i learned the brands in the mid-80s it was almost second nature, having heard them so many times on records-keep in mind that in the early-mid 80s there weren't really that many synths used in this music, generally a relatively small number of synths and drum machines.
-Back then during the golden gear age, a lot of the albums actually listed the gear used..not all but a lot of them did. Like reading a menu at a fine dining establishment you could smack your lips salivating over what were often extensive gear lists-keep in mind also that in that era virtually everything was expensive and high-quality sound.
-I've read Keyboard from that era to about 10 years ago, which often discussed what was used.
-After you've owned all the classics it's a lot easier to figure out what was used.
-A lot of the musicians were not really synth gurus, didn't program the synths particularly well or hired a synth programmer to do it for them, and played follow the leader, buying/using what everyone else was using. In the case of Roger, he was likely in part at least following what P-Funk his major influence was using. In the early 80s P-Funk switched from a Mini to Prophet on cuts like Atomic Dog. Most groups then used either a Moog, Prophet or Oberheim. Japanese analogs weren't really widely used or needed, were used more overseas. Rolands came in to vogue later, in the post-analog era of house music beginning in the mid-80s. They became more popular because (1) they were cheaper used than American synths, and (2) most were already midied or easily synced, unlike American synths almost all of which were without midi and required expensive retrofits.
Excellent stuff mate, I too grew up with Some of those bands, but was only 4 or 5 and just liked the on stage costumes!! LOL,
I was even at that young age dazzelled by the Music though, didnt understand it but knew i liked it.Then in my teens Got myself a P-Funk LP and the rest is History as they say.
But only within the last few months have started writing music again, with a modest Pro tools/ Cubase SX set up all ITB.
After I've written my basic arrangements/structure etc I REALLY enjoy trying to dial in those old Funk sounds, albeit on soft synths.
The Best so far is Korg Legacy analog, Ms20 for Stereo Basses and Polysix for small sounding Funky riffs/leads.
By the way, Just tried Pro53 in Unison - 8 voices - 20sc both sqr waves,
I have to say it is pretteee damn close!!!!!!!! woo hoo
Do you think The "Operator" Bass and "More bounce to the Ounce" are only Sqr waves im hearing or A combo of Sqr and Saw??
I trying with one osc low octave and one a higher Octave.
The Best so far is Korg Legacy analog, Ms20 for Stereo Basses and Polysix for small sounding Funky riffs/leads.
By the way, Just tried Pro53 in Unison - 8 voices - 20sc both sqr waves,
I have to say it is pretteee damn close!!!!!!!! woo hoo
Do you think The "Operator" Bass and "More bounce to the Ounce" are only Sqr waves im hearing or A combo of Sqr and Saw??
I trying with one osc low octave and one a higher Octave.
Korg Legacy sound pretty damn good...also think you should get a real vintage analog at some point, some of the lesser known ones aren't expensive.
As far as which waveforms are being used, i wouldn't worry. Rather, just take some time over weeks and months to use trial and error of different combos of waves and envelopes and you'll eventually find that it's second-nature. Also of course adjust the pulse-width modulation on whatever wave forms it works on. Then as you're doing, try one octave up, or a fifth up, etc. as well as trying ring-mod, poly mod, etc. on the sounds or whatever other options are available-trial and error, unhurriedly done over a period of time.
Then when a good sound's gotten use trial and error with the EQ to see if the sound can be further enhanced.
Yes, the Pro 53 in unison's not bad-the rest is programming it, using EQ, etc. and you'll have something that might not sound exactly the same but sounds good.
Korg Legacy sound pretty damn good...also think you should get a real vintage analog at some point, some of the lesser known ones aren't expensive.
As far as which waveforms are being used, i wouldn't worry. Rather, just take some time over weeks and months to use trial and error of different combos of waves and envelopes and you'll eventually find that it's second-nature. Also of course adjust the pulse-width modulation on whatever wave forms it works on. Then as you're doing, try one octave up, or a fifth up, etc. as well as trying ring-mod, poly mod, etc. on the sounds or whatever other options are available-trial and error, unhurriedly done over a period of time.
Then when a good sound's gotten use trial and error with the EQ to see if the sound can be further enhanced.
Yes, the Pro 53 in unison's not bad-the rest is programming it, using EQ, etc. and you'll have something that might not sound exactly the same but sounds good.
You Know I tried a Korg Poly 61m once at the Studio where I used to freelance and I absolutely loved it!!
Some of the Presets where Instant ZAPP!!
I always Check ebay just incase I see one at an ok price...
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
