I don't aways ask for directions, but when I do...

Dark Lizardro

The Lizard that has a hammer
Tribal Leader
VIP Junglist
Messages
4,415
Likes
1,161
#1
Hey there!

I was watching some "How to bass" videos on youtube, about how to make that neuro reese bass with IL Harmor. And the guy on the video was talking about something related to "split the signal into three busses", one with the low end, one with the middles and one with the high end.

But, I couldn't understand if I need to have three instances of Harmor opened up, and just low/high cut them, or if I needed to route the signal into three different ones.

Also, what really would I accomplish by doing that? Because the guy told you could have more control over the sound itself, but this wasn't clear to me at all.

could you help this little n00b?
 

Dugg Funnie

Well-Known Member
VIP Junglist
Messages
1,400
Likes
238
#2
You could do either; I just started using FL a few days ago, so I'm not super well-versed yet, but I believe you could use Patcher to have either 3 instances of harmor open which would technically allow the highest level of control over every aspect of the total sound; or you could route the output of Harmor into 3 different busses each having cut the frequencies not related to which part of the spectrum you want to play with (i.e. the lows have a bus with a LP at around 250 Hz, mids cut below 250 and above 3000, etc...)
 

DjCartel

Well-Known Member
VIP Junglist
Messages
1,186
Likes
167
#3
im not a user of harmor, but if i were making a reece in massive for example, i would play a note for say 1/4 bar, record it as audio and then duplicate it 3 times. then solo the 3 audio channels and get to work. So basically you have the output from the synth recorded as audio in 3 different channels. on the first channel, eq it so you only have the low end, the second channel eq so you have the middle frequencies, and the third channel will be your high end frequencies. This way you can add different effects to the different sections of the sound. Eg, reverb on the high end. You can then create a bus so all three go into one channel, maybe compress a little bit, but i normally have all three running together....

in saying this, you can do the exact same thing but instead of audio strips have seperate harmors running, this will allow you to edit the sound as you go along, but will drain cpu a lot more. hope that helps.....
 

sbstn

New Member
Messages
14
Likes
2
#4
I like to keep "live" and not resampled as long as possible...
in cubase i would recommend doin it that way.

  • 1 instance of your synth(massive, harmor, etc.)
  • get rid of the output routing
  • make 3 new group channels and route them to your stereo output or another bus
  • in this 3 group channels insert your filter to split the 3 bands
  • finally route your synth to your 3 bands, just insert them as send effect
  • tada
 

Dark Lizardro

The Lizard that has a hammer
Tribal Leader
VIP Junglist
Messages
4,415
Likes
1,161
#7
Could you not just resample your reece into kontakt and multi output it?
If I had Kontakt, then yeah, I could... But I don't have it. :(

and I'm using Harmor because, for some reason, it uses less CPU than Massive. Even with all the things you tweak to get the "reece" sound. I'll give the Patcher a try and see how it works. There's one video of this guy that he covers how to use Patcher for this. Gosh, it's pretty painful to get the neuro bass.
 

Mr Fletch

aka KRONIX
VIP Junglist
Messages
3,974
Likes
237
#8
It really depends on how powerful your cpu is. If it can handle having three instances of a synth open then that's one way to go, however, you would have to tweak all of them individually whenever you change the sound / modulation etc. I use Ableton, and all I do is create an audio rack chain consisting of three to four frequency bands on only one synth, by doing this, whenever I tweak the synth, all bands are affected.

The idea behind frequency splitting for control is simple. If you were to add some subtle distortion to a synth, you will be distorting all the frequencies of that sound, thus muddying up the sub range area. Whereas if you split freqs, you can distort just the mids or highs without destroying any low end sound. You can also use notch filters on just the mids for movement, and add some chorus to the highs etc etc.

It's a good rule of thumb to then route back to a singular output channel after all these effects, so you can gel the frequencies back together, moulding with EQ and compression, and finally some more movement to get the whole sound sounding as one!
 

Dark Lizardro

The Lizard that has a hammer
Tribal Leader
VIP Junglist
Messages
4,415
Likes
1,161
#9
It really depends on how powerful your cpu is. If it can handle having three instances of a synth open then that's one way to go, however, you would have to tweak all of them individually whenever you change the sound / modulation etc. I use Ableton, and all I do is create an audio rack chain consisting of three to four frequency bands on only one synth, by doing this, whenever I tweak the synth, all bands are affected.

The idea behind frequency splitting for control is simple. If you were to add some subtle distortion to a synth, you will be distorting all the frequencies of that sound, thus muddying up the sub range area. Whereas if you split freqs, you can distort just the mids or highs without destroying any low end sound. You can also use notch filters on just the mids for movement, and add some chorus to the highs etc etc.

It's a good rule of thumb to then route back to a singular output channel after all these effects, so you can gel the frequencies back together, moulding with EQ and compression, and finally some more movement to get the whole sound sounding as one!
So, the surgical EQ comes after I joined the sound together, then?
 
Messages
180
Likes
21
#14
Try it every way you can think of and see which you like best, there is no need.
Routing will be the easiest on your cpu load though.

Also try not to eq in solo too much.. What you hear in solo is not what you'll get in context and the difference between the two is always bigger than you it'll be.
 
Messages
370
Likes
53
#16
im not a user of harmor, but if i were making a reece in massive for example, i would play a note for say 1/4 bar, record it as audio and then duplicate it 3 times. then solo the 3 audio channels and get to work. So basically you have the output from the synth recorded as audio in 3 different channels. on the first channel, eq it so you only have the low end, the second channel eq so you have the middle frequencies, and the third channel will be your high end frequencies. This way you can add different effects to the different sections of the sound. Eg, reverb on the high end. You can then create a bus so all three go into one channel, maybe compress a little bit, but i normally have all three running together....

in saying this, you can do the exact same thing but instead of audio strips have seperate harmors running, this will allow you to edit the sound as you go along, but will drain cpu a lot more. hope that helps.....
Yeah, this is something I'd have to use. Already have to resample like mad b/c my comp can't handle too many plug-ins and synths simultaneously. It's just a very tedious process for when trying to compose a track is all. But you get used to it after a little while.
 
Top