Hey all! I am seeing a lot of comments wishing I explained the values I chose more, rather than giving the precise numbers. Moving on, I will definitely incorporate more of the the "why" into the videos. In the mean time, how about we do a qna on this comment thread- is there something you want explained that wasn't in the video? Comment below and I will respond! This will also help me know what things I should explain in depth for future videos (maybe I will even make a video related to your question). Additionally, if you prefer to have more of a group discussion, we have an amazing Discord community full of like minded sound designers! Join here: discord.com/invite/EuUt939zmH Thanks for the support everyone!
IMO you should probably do less of choosing very specific values, unless there's a sweet spot, in which case you should make that clear. In practice we just turn the knobs until it's at a roughly good place, then we fine tune it as needed. When doing a tutorial it's natural to use the values of a preexisting patch that already works, but that's a less instructive approach in my opinion. The way you approached the effects is a good example of what I mean, it just makes a bit more sense (explanation would be appreciated but you already realized that ;) ). Also i'd like to know how that custom wave is "bitcrushed". I suppose it's the subtle additional high harmonics, which is kind of what bitcrushing does (but less extreme than that)?
@@nitroanilinmusic Yes, I agree completely, and this is my process as well when creating patches. However when recreating the patch, there are a lot of people that want this specific "recipe" which ensures that their version will sound the exact same. While I understand how this is less educational, in the past if I don't show these values I get a lot of comments asking for them. I do want to move away from this approach though, and it makes me excited how many people are looking for the deeper reasoning rather than just wanting a usable patch asap (which in the past has been the opposite on my other channel). So expect more vids with reasoning instead of exact values in the future, I'd love to give this approach a try! As for your bitcrushing question, thank you for the correction. By adding the higher harmonics we aren't actually "bitcrushing" the sound by definition (which involves quantization to reduce resolution of the waveform). Instead, we are mimicking the effect caused by bitcrushing with more control in a predictable way. If you want to hear the version actually bitcrushed, use the "quantize" wave morph option on the oscillator, or the "bitcrush or downsample" distortion modes in the effects tab. The amount these effects are applied will affect the amount of higher harmonics added to the original sine wave. I personally prefer the sound of the method I used, but play around with it and come to your own conclusions.
As others have stated, the constant reading of values can be very misleading to learners. I find it more worthwhile to give people a clock position, “set the knob to around 9 o clock” then play through the change from default to the new position, which gives agency to the viewer following along, but also invites them to listen for the same change. I also would love to see more about the *why* in the sounds. I could tell you were trying to emulate tape wow and flutter, but highlighting this would not only be excellent, it would encourage learners to integrate such sounds into more sounds. Fun video, would love to see more strategies for creating organic sounds in Vital. It’s mega powerful for creating your own analog models, for instance, outside of just tape pitch wow!
One minute in and I was already impressed. Another useful video. Please keep doing what you're doing. Electronic music isn't my first love, but I'm developing a taste for it as I study music, and having more experienced people who are open about sharing their own journey and how they make the sounds that they make is a real motivator and confidence boost. Not to mention that the information is helpful. You were the one who finally made wavetable synths click for me. I don't know why I didn't get it before, but I watched just one of your Vital tutorials and the whole thing just clicked. I've been experimenting with synths like Serum and Vital like crazy ever since, and I'm starting to feel like the sounds I make are actually interesting and worthy of releasing for others to hear. I hope to see more of your creativity coming for a long time yet. Thanks a bunch!
Comments like this make me so happy!! Wavetables synths are really amazing (esp Vital haha) and being able to share that with people is the whole reason I started making videos. So thank you for the comment, it inspires me more than you could know :)
Dude good job with this video! really informative and gives me insight into the thinking behind organic sound design. Also I love how you’re not yelling in my face “7 MASTER TRICKS YOU NEED TO KNOW”
Great points! Really enjoyed your breakdown of making digital sounds more organic. I definitely try to incorporate these type of techniques in my own tracks.
This is extremely inspiring! I am just starting out on my sound design learning journey, but these are the kind of sound and techniques that made me want to learn sound design. This is the perfect benchmark for me to aim at. I hope you do a full series. Thank you so much for this ideo and the inspiration.
This is great! I've been avoiding electronic sounds/genres for a while now because they've always felt bland and lifeless when I use them. Seeing the entire process of adding some imperfections here is really inspiring!
That makes no sense cuz there's a lot of electronic genres that use imperfections and go off the grid lol, what type of electronic music are you talking about
fucking great vid man! i just wish there was more explanation about why the values are set where they are. eg “a faster attack on env 2 because……….” instead of “attack at 0.6546”
Highlights for me in this one: use fast random modulation of noise levels and use more custom samples, esp. those with more or less fixed pitch, as you show with the granular sample. Indeed a granular sample seems like an easy way to add “living instability” to a patch without fiddling too much with modulating modulators and making six LFOs as I sometimes do. 😁 My tricks (that can be a bad advice, so it would be fabulous to get some feedback on it): modulating unison detune amount, modulating wavetable frame or some other osc effects fast (like < 100 ms) by a tiny amount, using one-off random value to slightly change filter parameters and like, adding a slight vibrato, modulating individual oscillator pitches not in synchrony with each other, again just a small bit
Nice video man, the part about the organic noise layer was really creative. However, I didn't enjoy how you always gave us rigid parameter values without explaining the effects of it or its purpose. It felt like just a bunch of dictated numbers without much meaning. If you instead gave us rough values and tried to explain why were you going for such a small/big/fast/slow value, it would make much more sense and the whole video would've had even more value. Anyway, thank you for your work, you're doing quite a justice for other producers here!
I hear you loud and clear! We will keep this in mind moving forward. It can be a challenge to balance the length of the video with all the info we want to get across sometimes. Eventually, we want to make a full course going over our decision making at every phase of the sound design process. Are there any specific questions you have? I’d be happy to answer them here or in the Discord :) Thanks for your comment!
@@jazensounds453 Thank you. I have a question actually. I kinda lost it at 5:53 where you put the macro on the decay of envelope 2. By doing that you're not controlling the decay of the first oscillator (the unison one). I was curious behind that thought process. Did you actually find it better this way rather than letting all the oscillators fall under the same envelope?
@@maksoofficial By adding this little bit of decay when the filter gets opened, it emphasizes the cutoff sweep effect and makes the sound feel even bigger and brighter than if we controlled the cutoff alone. Try setting the Macro 2 > ENV 2 decay value to something even higher and hear the effect exaggerated. ENV 2 isn't controlling the level of any OSC directly in this case, only the cutoff of filter 2. There wouldn't be a point in adding decay to the master volume envelope (ENV 1) since the sustain is already set to the maximum amount (decay impacts the sound only when sustain is not 100%). As for your second question, I give a resounding yes! It always feels like the "lazy" option to me having the filter cutoff and volume controlled by the same envelope. Despite the fact that it can sound good, I will still use two envelopes set to the exact same settings in those cases. I consider this good sound design technique as it allows tweakability and finer adjustments later down the line. Maybe I decide I don't want the cutoff envelope to be the exact same as the volume envelope. If I had a shared envelope in this case, I would need to undo a lot of modulations which would be a huge pain. tl;dr: By using separate envelopes, the small effort it takes is almost always worth it as it gives you more control in the end.
@@jazensounds453 Thank you for the answer. :) That ENV 2 thing sound very reasonable. I was actually asking for a slightly different thing but I didn't describe it very well when I look at it back haha. My point was why don't we send the 1st oscillator to the Filter 2 as well (while still being sent to the 1st filter), so all the oscillators are unified and have the same envelope filter. But I tried it and it actually sounded worse. The plucky sound was too detuned because of that 1st oscillator and also the whole synth didn't have much sustain as the 1st oscillator lost all the sustain because of the 2nd filter. So yeah. It's actually a cool patch providing a sustained pad base with a plucky top. Cool
@@maksoofficialGood on you for trying it out! I think I tried it as well when making the patch and came to the same conclusion. Sometimes it is hard to predict what will sound the best, and you just have to go off your ear. I don't have an exact answer in this case for why it doesn't sound too good except for maybe some phasing issues or overcrowding of a similar frequency range. But yeah, it is a great thought to give it a try!
MAN I bet you're getting barraged with tutoring requests! I think people don't realize how awesome it is to engineer unique sounds that still sound organic! I just found your channel and joined your discord. I'll definitely start studying your videos! If you ever take requests for sound replication, I'll try to def meet the criteria to submit suggestions
Great stuff, but I do agree with other comments that say that you should elaborate on why you select such specific values. I'd like to know what idea or what concept are you following in order to reach those values. I know a lot might come from experience or experimentation but if the video aims to facilitate the process of achieving an organic sound, I think explaining the reasoning behind some choices would've improved the quality of the video as study material a lot. Nonetheless, don't take this comment as an attack, you're not the first or the last to do things like that. I was just giving my two cents as a viewer and also as a person interested in using digital synths. The material is pretty great in any case! I get the vague idea, from what I know about how sound behaves and how old chips works. You're trying to mimic the imperfections caused by the passage of time or the physical constraints of the devices, but still, I think I'd have been great if you elaborated it further...
I totally get it, is there anything I can answer for you now? I will keep this in mind moving forward and try to explain the decision making process better. Thanks for your feedback!
@@jazensounds453 Ty for answering so quickly. I was wondering about the first part mostly, why or how you decided to settle for the values you chose for the frequencies of the cutoff filters? I guess the idea is to make the harmonics more imperfect or more rich by adding variety, but I'd like to know what led you to do that.
@@Vintagestep For me, getting the filters right can be one of the hardest parts since such a small difference in value can make such a large impact on the sound. So usually, I will be constantly adjusting them when designing the patch. Very rarely I get it right on the first try, and I know for a fact I probably went through 5 or 10 different values on this patch before I got one that I felt satisfied with. As to why I settled on the specific values I chose, I don't have a specific technical reason in this case. They just sounded good to me and matched the idea I had of where I wanted the sound to go. Does that make sense/ answer your question?
@@jazensounds453 Definitely, I also read the other question you answered so that really adds a lot. Thanks for the insights, I will keep all of this in mind. When I tried to make House my keys sounded quite flat and lifeless, this will help a lot I'm sure!
Did you see the new tool Micro music? Its an AI that recognizes sounds you send and shows exaclty how they are made in vital. Do you think this would be a good way to learn sound design?
From what ive seen its an interesting tool but outside of basic sounds it can only really give you the basic sound timbre. Plugins like synplant 2 will do that a lot better but it doesn’t exactly have the easiest to understand ui like serum or vital and even that ones still somewhat limited. Id say at the moment it would probably be best just to look at existing sound recreations or general synthesis content and of course experimenting on your own to learn. Give it a few years and im sure we should have at least a few good ai synth tools but as of now most of what we have is still in the early developing stages.
If you let go of a note before the decay hits 0 it will go directly to the release so giving it a longer release can stop it from abruptly cutting out if you play a shorter note
You don't explain much about why you are doing this and that. As viewers, we just get a bunch of numbers thrown at our face: "I will set this to 0.5; I will set that to 1.844; I will set this to 3,7..." --> uh... ok... Why are you doing it? What are you trying to do here? Is this a high value? a low value? Make us hear the difference, with and without that new setting you just added. The only way to learn something with this video is to reproduce the exact same thing on our side and play around with the settings. That's a bit unfortunate. I have the feeling that you have a lot of knowledge to teach, however the educational value of these videos could be improved a lot. If you focus more about the "why", it could be great! :)
lmao I find it quite funny how you talk about "natural imperfections" and proceed to give precise values to each and every knob possible without explaining what you're actually doing. this vid should be called 'Home - "Resonance" synth remake'
for how much time this video takes up, you explain very little you're reading off numbers while you input them. Like okay???? No one programs synths like this? What sorts of things are you thinking about when you set the values? Surely saying that we want a "medium slow attack" is more intuitive than the number in vital. Also, it'd be nice to know what your goal is before you start an action. Like, why did you want to enable osc. 3 and set it an octave higher? Basically, a tutorial is more useful when it teaches the audience how to think about programing synths, from the sound concept, to the individual parts of the sound, to the precise settings. Justification is better than dictation. Sorry for the negativity. But hey, I'm boosting engagement.
Hey all! I am seeing a lot of comments wishing I explained the values I chose more, rather than giving the precise numbers. Moving on, I will definitely incorporate more of the the "why" into the videos. In the mean time, how about we do a qna on this comment thread- is there something you want explained that wasn't in the video? Comment below and I will respond! This will also help me know what things I should explain in depth for future videos (maybe I will even make a video related to your question).
Additionally, if you prefer to have more of a group discussion, we have an amazing Discord community full of like minded sound designers! Join here:
discord.com/invite/EuUt939zmH
Thanks for the support everyone!
man, channel that listens to feedback, with a very calming delivery, great information. instantly subbed!!
IMO you should probably do less of choosing very specific values, unless there's a sweet spot, in which case you should make that clear. In practice we just turn the knobs until it's at a roughly good place, then we fine tune it as needed. When doing a tutorial it's natural to use the values of a preexisting patch that already works, but that's a less instructive approach in my opinion. The way you approached the effects is a good example of what I mean, it just makes a bit more sense (explanation would be appreciated but you already realized that ;) ).
Also i'd like to know how that custom wave is "bitcrushed". I suppose it's the subtle additional high harmonics, which is kind of what bitcrushing does (but less extreme than that)?
@@nitroanilinmusic Yes, I agree completely, and this is my process as well when creating patches. However when recreating the patch, there are a lot of people that want this specific "recipe" which ensures that their version will sound the exact same. While I understand how this is less educational, in the past if I don't show these values I get a lot of comments asking for them. I do want to move away from this approach though, and it makes me excited how many people are looking for the deeper reasoning rather than just wanting a usable patch asap (which in the past has been the opposite on my other channel). So expect more vids with reasoning instead of exact values in the future, I'd love to give this approach a try!
As for your bitcrushing question, thank you for the correction. By adding the higher harmonics we aren't actually "bitcrushing" the sound by definition (which involves quantization to reduce resolution of the waveform). Instead, we are mimicking the effect caused by bitcrushing with more control in a predictable way. If you want to hear the version actually bitcrushed, use the "quantize" wave morph option on the oscillator, or the "bitcrush or downsample" distortion modes in the effects tab. The amount these effects are applied will affect the amount of higher harmonics added to the original sine wave. I personally prefer the sound of the method I used, but play around with it and come to your own conclusions.
Wonderful video, especially for such a new channel!! Super informative and easy to follow, keep it up :)
As others have stated, the constant reading of values can be very misleading to learners. I find it more worthwhile to give people a clock position, “set the knob to around 9 o clock” then play through the change from default to the new position, which gives agency to the viewer following along, but also invites them to listen for the same change.
I also would love to see more about the *why* in the sounds. I could tell you were trying to emulate tape wow and flutter, but highlighting this would not only be excellent, it would encourage learners to integrate such sounds into more sounds.
Fun video, would love to see more strategies for creating organic sounds in Vital. It’s mega powerful for creating your own analog models, for instance, outside of just tape pitch wow!
wtf is this doing with only 450 views.
It deserves a thousands more
Subscribed like a minute in because anyone who has spent this much time recreating tracks has LEARNED some shit.
Nice I wasnt expecting to learn how to make the home resonance synth from this video when I clicked on it but I'm glad I did
One minute in and I was already impressed. Another useful video. Please keep doing what you're doing. Electronic music isn't my first love, but I'm developing a taste for it as I study music, and having more experienced people who are open about sharing their own journey and how they make the sounds that they make is a real motivator and confidence boost. Not to mention that the information is helpful. You were the one who finally made wavetable synths click for me. I don't know why I didn't get it before, but I watched just one of your Vital tutorials and the whole thing just clicked. I've been experimenting with synths like Serum and Vital like crazy ever since, and I'm starting to feel like the sounds I make are actually interesting and worthy of releasing for others to hear. I hope to see more of your creativity coming for a long time yet. Thanks a bunch!
Comments like this make me so happy!! Wavetables synths are really amazing (esp Vital haha) and being able to share that with people is the whole reason I started making videos. So thank you for the comment, it inspires me more than you could know :)
Loooove coming across a gem of a creator like yourself. Great stuff.
Dude good job with this video! really informative and gives me insight into the thinking behind organic sound design. Also I love how you’re not yelling in my face “7 MASTER TRICKS YOU NEED TO KNOW”
Great points! Really enjoyed your breakdown of making digital sounds more organic. I definitely try to incorporate these type of techniques in my own tracks.
This is extremely inspiring! I am just starting out on my sound design learning journey, but these are the kind of sound and techniques that made me want to learn sound design. This is the perfect benchmark for me to aim at. I hope you do a full series. Thank you so much for this ideo and the inspiration.
this is a great video brother! pretty juicy pls keep going!
This is great! I've been avoiding electronic sounds/genres for a while now because they've always felt bland and lifeless when I use them. Seeing the entire process of adding some imperfections here is really inspiring!
That makes no sense cuz there's a lot of electronic genres that use imperfections and go off the grid lol, what type of electronic music are you talking about
@@billysanchez-eh6nn I'm talking about my own music. I've been avoiding MAKING electronic music, not listening to it.
fucking great vid man! i just wish there was more explanation about why the values are set where they are. eg “a faster attack on env 2 because……….” instead of “attack at 0.6546”
Highlights for me in this one: use fast random modulation of noise levels and use more custom samples, esp. those with more or less fixed pitch, as you show with the granular sample. Indeed a granular sample seems like an easy way to add “living instability” to a patch without fiddling too much with modulating modulators and making six LFOs as I sometimes do. 😁
My tricks (that can be a bad advice, so it would be fabulous to get some feedback on it):
modulating unison detune amount,
modulating wavetable frame or some other osc effects fast (like < 100 ms) by a tiny amount,
using one-off random value to slightly change filter parameters and like,
adding a slight vibrato,
modulating individual oscillator pitches not in synchrony with each other, again just a small bit
Great stuff bob thank you. Looking forward to vids with values explained.
Love and blessings!
Excellent thank you very much👍
you're... you're back 🤩
Your back*
what about his back btw?
Thanks bro, really cool. Iam gonna use random more for sure.
Really good stuff. Nice job :)
Thanks Mil!!
Nice video man, the part about the organic noise layer was really creative. However, I didn't enjoy how you always gave us rigid parameter values without explaining the effects of it or its purpose. It felt like just a bunch of dictated numbers without much meaning. If you instead gave us rough values and tried to explain why were you going for such a small/big/fast/slow value, it would make much more sense and the whole video would've had even more value. Anyway, thank you for your work, you're doing quite a justice for other producers here!
I hear you loud and clear! We will keep this in mind moving forward. It can be a challenge to balance the length of the video with all the info we want to get across sometimes. Eventually, we want to make a full course going over our decision making at every phase of the sound design process. Are there any specific questions you have? I’d be happy to answer them here or in the Discord :) Thanks for your comment!
@@jazensounds453 Thank you. I have a question actually. I kinda lost it at 5:53 where you put the macro on the decay of envelope 2. By doing that you're not controlling the decay of the first oscillator (the unison one). I was curious behind that thought process. Did you actually find it better this way rather than letting all the oscillators fall under the same envelope?
@@maksoofficial By adding this little bit of decay when the filter gets opened, it emphasizes the cutoff sweep effect and makes the sound feel even bigger and brighter than if we controlled the cutoff alone. Try setting the Macro 2 > ENV 2 decay value to something even higher and hear the effect exaggerated. ENV 2 isn't controlling the level of any OSC directly in this case, only the cutoff of filter 2. There wouldn't be a point in adding decay to the master volume envelope (ENV 1) since the sustain is already set to the maximum amount (decay impacts the sound only when sustain is not 100%).
As for your second question, I give a resounding yes! It always feels like the "lazy" option to me having the filter cutoff and volume controlled by the same envelope. Despite the fact that it can sound good, I will still use two envelopes set to the exact same settings in those cases. I consider this good sound design technique as it allows tweakability and finer adjustments later down the line. Maybe I decide I don't want the cutoff envelope to be the exact same as the volume envelope. If I had a shared envelope in this case, I would need to undo a lot of modulations which would be a huge pain. tl;dr: By using separate envelopes, the small effort it takes is almost always worth it as it gives you more control in the end.
@@jazensounds453 Thank you for the answer. :) That ENV 2 thing sound very reasonable.
I was actually asking for a slightly different thing but I didn't describe it very well when I look at it back haha. My point was why don't we send the 1st oscillator to the Filter 2 as well (while still being sent to the 1st filter), so all the oscillators are unified and have the same envelope filter. But I tried it and it actually sounded worse. The plucky sound was too detuned because of that 1st oscillator and also the whole synth didn't have much sustain as the 1st oscillator lost all the sustain because of the 2nd filter. So yeah. It's actually a cool patch providing a sustained pad base with a plucky top. Cool
@@maksoofficialGood on you for trying it out! I think I tried it as well when making the patch and came to the same conclusion. Sometimes it is hard to predict what will sound the best, and you just have to go off your ear. I don't have an exact answer in this case for why it doesn't sound too good except for maybe some phasing issues or overcrowding of a similar frequency range. But yeah, it is a great thought to give it a try!
MAN I bet you're getting barraged with tutoring requests! I think people don't realize how awesome it is to engineer unique sounds that still sound organic! I just found your channel and joined your discord. I'll definitely start studying your videos! If you ever take requests for sound replication, I'll try to def meet the criteria to submit suggestions
I'm 3:50 in....I think you'd get more views if you if every single time you modified something on the synth, you demonstrated the change.
Great stuff, but I do agree with other comments that say that you should elaborate on why you select such specific values. I'd like to know what idea or what concept are you following in order to reach those values. I know a lot might come from experience or experimentation but if the video aims to facilitate the process of achieving an organic sound, I think explaining the reasoning behind some choices would've improved the quality of the video as study material a lot. Nonetheless, don't take this comment as an attack, you're not the first or the last to do things like that. I was just giving my two cents as a viewer and also as a person interested in using digital synths. The material is pretty great in any case!
I get the vague idea, from what I know about how sound behaves and how old chips works. You're trying to mimic the imperfections caused by the passage of time or the physical constraints of the devices, but still, I think I'd have been great if you elaborated it further...
I totally get it, is there anything I can answer for you now? I will keep this in mind moving forward and try to explain the decision making process better. Thanks for your feedback!
@@jazensounds453 Ty for answering so quickly. I was wondering about the first part mostly, why or how you decided to settle for the values you chose for the frequencies of the cutoff filters? I guess the idea is to make the harmonics more imperfect or more rich by adding variety, but I'd like to know what led you to do that.
@@Vintagestep For me, getting the filters right can be one of the hardest parts since such a small difference in value can make such a large impact on the sound. So usually, I will be constantly adjusting them when designing the patch. Very rarely I get it right on the first try, and I know for a fact I probably went through 5 or 10 different values on this patch before I got one that I felt satisfied with. As to why I settled on the specific values I chose, I don't have a specific technical reason in this case. They just sounded good to me and matched the idea I had of where I wanted the sound to go. Does that make sense/ answer your question?
@@jazensounds453 Definitely, I also read the other question you answered so that really adds a lot. Thanks for the insights, I will keep all of this in mind. When I tried to make House my keys sounded quite flat and lifeless, this will help a lot I'm sure!
Ok THIS is how you sell preset packs
Did you see the new tool Micro music? Its an AI that recognizes sounds you send and shows exaclty how they are made in vital. Do you think this would be a good way to learn sound design?
From what ive seen its an interesting tool but outside of basic sounds it can only really give you the basic sound timbre. Plugins like synplant 2 will do that a lot better but it doesn’t exactly have the easiest to understand ui like serum or vital and even that ones still somewhat limited.
Id say at the moment it would probably be best just to look at existing sound recreations or general synthesis content and of course experimenting on your own to learn.
Give it a few years and im sure we should have at least a few good ai synth tools but as of now most of what we have is still in the early developing stages.
What’s the point or having release increased if sustain is set to 0?
If you let go of a note before the decay hits 0 it will go directly to the release so giving it a longer release can stop it from abruptly cutting out if you play a shorter note
@@Anima-audio wicked! Very smart! Thanks a lot for sharing such great video
You don't explain much about why you are doing this and that. As viewers, we just get a bunch of numbers thrown at our face: "I will set this to 0.5; I will set that to 1.844; I will set this to 3,7..." --> uh... ok... Why are you doing it? What are you trying to do here? Is this a high value? a low value? Make us hear the difference, with and without that new setting you just added.
The only way to learn something with this video is to reproduce the exact same thing on our side and play around with the settings.
That's a bit unfortunate. I have the feeling that you have a lot of knowledge to teach, however the educational value of these videos could be improved a lot. If you focus more about the "why", it could be great! :)
Which DAW do you use?
Primarily use FL although daws are mostly down to taste since all of them have just about the same capabilities
lmao I find it quite funny how you talk about "natural imperfections" and proceed to give precise values to each and every knob possible without explaining what you're actually doing. this vid should be called 'Home - "Resonance" synth remake'
That's a cool skin, can I get that?
Yes! Comes with our Vital pack "Memoria", top link in the desc :)
great video, but thats a sick vital skin!
Thanks! It comes with our Memoria Vital pack :)
for how much time this video takes up, you explain very little
you're reading off numbers while you input them. Like okay???? No one programs synths like this?
What sorts of things are you thinking about when you set the values? Surely saying that we want a "medium slow attack" is more intuitive than the number in vital.
Also, it'd be nice to know what your goal is before you start an action. Like, why did you want to enable osc. 3 and set it an octave higher?
Basically, a tutorial is more useful when it teaches the audience how to think about programing synths, from the sound concept, to the individual parts of the sound, to the precise settings. Justification is better than dictation.
Sorry for the negativity. But hey, I'm boosting engagement.
what vital skin is this