Ableton Forum

Hey, I wrote up a few tips for Operator that people may not know.
I only ever write these things after a cocktail or two so let me know if it makes no sense, needs clarification or some audio examples.

http://angstromnoises.com/13-advanced-t ... -operator/
there's a lot of this sort of thing ...

Great stuff man!

Thanks for sharing. Didnt know about the repeat thingie
M

Tip 14: If you are a newbie, there are better things to learn than Operator.

Angstrom wrote:Hey, I wrote up a few tips for Operator that people may not know.
I only ever write these things after a cocktail or two so let me know if it makes no sense, needs clarification or some audio examples.

http://angstromnoises.com/13-advanced-t ... -operator/
there's a lot of this sort of thing ...

Well, I don't use Operator really, but this is great fun. Great tips.

Respect, Angstrom!

It is good to see competent voices pay hommage to operator.
Some of the unperceived gems today.

If you make all your hipster VST-synths naked you can hear
that operator plays in the highest league of sound.
You just need to add your bells and whistles by yourself.

Particulary your first tip reminds me on some discussions i had with several support teams.
Comparing waveform outputs via oscilloscope can show you clearly how many marketing guys
cheat when claiming their product enables "Wave Morph".

In fact, most of the time it´s just a simple amplitude crossfade between two different osc waves.
Which is relatively simple to implement and sonically different.

So everyone can check this out, following Angstorms first tip.
Watch the "true" wavemorph evolve in any oscilloscope.
Then take your favorite synth claiming to do wave morph, set one wave to sine, next to saw, slow morph.
Watch and hear the result.
Finally use osc 1 sine to slowly crossfade into osc 2 saw.
Does it look same?
Compare it with Angstorms tip 1.
Different?
Ooops, your favourite synth is cheating you, that´s not morphing!
Call the support team!


There are different ways of marketing.
Some make you hot,
Some believe you`re dump...

dumb

...both.

these are great
thanks man!

Martin Gifford wrote:Tip 14: If you are a newbie, there are better things to learn than Operator.

I don't think that's the case because this is not about Operator as much as it is about the principles of synthesis

My first real synth was a Casio Cz101 , a limited digital synth with an abominable interface - and while I will never need to limit myself to a Cz101 again the concepts of synthesis I learned back then on that limited synth still apply.

I can look at a modular and see an ability to apply phase distortion, or cross modulation or formant analysis ... and it doesn't really matter where I learned those concepts as long as I understand them. The fact that Operator is limited means it's more interesting to explore concepts on it. There are complex topics in synthesis such as : how do harmonics in real world instruments decay, what are their phase relationships, and how can I emulate that process without hitting it with a big resource hammer.
A limited toolset is a constraint , and creativity comes from constraints.

These tips are about how I enjoy making the most of a limited toolset to get new outcomes.
It's a mental exercise as much as anything, and as with all exercise the rewards are often reaped later.

What if you get your exercise by reaping wheat, then the reward would be immediate, no?

Thanks again for sharing this sort of stuff, looking forward to checking it out later today.

Tarekith wrote:What if you get your exercise by reaping wheat, then the reward would be immediate, no?

Hang on. Are you eating raw wheat? This is a strange lifestyle!

BTW I added a few audio examples, hopefully they assist understanding of what I'm attempting to explain

Angstrom wrote:

Martin Gifford wrote:Tip 14: If you are a newbie, there are better things to learn than Operator.

I don't think that's the case because this is not about Operator as much as it is about the principles of synthesis...

I have about 200 songs and part songs with Ableton instruments, and some of them are good, but the sounds are bad. It's hard (at least for some people) to go back and swap out the instruments for something else because the instrument was part of the inspiration for the song. So all a wasted effort. Maybe I'll pay some smart synth person to make patches in a nicer sounding synth that are close to the original but better sounding, if it's possible.

I would have been much more inspired and I would have a better portfolio of material if I had have gone for great sounding instruments from the start. In the early stages its important to stay inspired and to use your inspiration productively while its there.

I don't mind that process, I will often jot down ideas with my basic template set which has some quick to use low-rent instruments and effects. If the "demo" song is really worth saving I'll swapping out the basic sound with something equivalent but better. I don't mind replacing the sounds with better more deep and rich versions, replacing drums with a more complete library, putting fancy reverbs on everything, etc.

In the olden days it was pretty common to write a song with whatever abominable sounding instruments were easily to hand and then re-record the whole thing nicely. I think while that's an onerous process it does have a benefit of focusing and refining the song.

Of course - I enjoy making synth patches and have never used the factory presets, they sound very bad to my ears.

As an example of what I prefer - some of my (free) operator presets are here with an audio preview - http://angstromnoises.com/free-ableton- ... s-presets/

Angstrom wrote:I don't mind that process, I will often jot down ideas with my basic template set which has some quick to use low-rent instruments and effects. If the "demo" song is really worth saving I'll swapping out the basic sound with something equivalent but better. I don't mind replacing the sounds with better more deep and rich versions, replacing drums with a more complete library, putting fancy reverbs on everything, etc.

In the olden days it was pretty common to write a song with whatever abominable sounding instruments were easily to hand and then re-record the whole thing nicely. I think while that's an onerous process it does have a benefit of focusing and refining the song.

Of course - I enjoy making synth patches and have never used the factory presets, they sound very bad to my ears.

As an example of what I prefer - some of my (free) operator presets are here with an audio preview - http://angstromnoises.com/free-ableton- ... s-presets/

Hey, those are great sounds! Do they use much CPU? I have a pack with good (not great) sounds, but they use a heap of CPU, which defeats the purpose of Operator being efficient.

About replacing sounds... Depends on the person. I love quickly finding or creating a sound that triggers a song and you don't have to fix anything! Other people love tweaking. I only wrote my original comment to warn the type of newbie who is in danger of becoming quickly uninspired. I've seen it so many times, a guitarist for example will start off being inspired by Hendrix, but get distracted into deep jazz or something then wonder where the inspiration went.

Martin Gifford wrote: Hey, those are great sounds! Do they use much CPU? I have a pack with good (not great) sounds, but they use a heap of CPU, which defeats the purpose of Operator being efficient.
.

not too much, that wet funky bass sound is 7% on my 4 year old PC desktop machine for example.


you can download them at that previous link though, and see what they are like on your system!