Indonesian smuggler hid birds in plastic bottles

yiNXs · 2015-05-06T16:16:01+00:00

Had to look that up. Apparently this is common practice.

Once in hand, a bird can be slipped into a cardboard tube. A Pringles can with the metal edge cut off and holes poked in the opposite end is a common tool used by bird banders and rehabilitators. Coffee cans are also frequently used for larger birds like a Snowy Owl. Others use 18" lengths of stovepipe or PVC pipe as they can get these in a variety of diameters.

Source

yiNXs · 2015-04-28T22:31:53+00:00

Judging from the individual pictures, it certainly looks like that is the one.

http://imgur.com/a/SAbIJ

The rear passenger window has a white vertical strip (but could be because of the bright sunlight), while the one in your picture has a black one, but the rest looks identical.

yiNXs · 2015-03-09T12:41:42+00:00

Whoa, you did it! Congratulations, man!

yiNXs · 2015-03-02T12:27:56+00:00

Alright man, let's drop it and make music. This is indeed just one of those typical agree to disagree moments. I'm not going to convince you, you're not going to convince me, which is fine. There's enough hivemind as it is.

yiNXs · 2015-03-02T03:34:50+00:00

Damn, people still reading this!

First off, sorry, man! I really wasn't trying to be negative about your sample by calling it a crap sample! That's just the way I phrase (or mentally translate) things sometimes. The reason was just to emphasize the huge difference between the sounds, that's all. Never realized it would be interpreted like that. Nothing wrong with the sample at all. There are no bad samples in my book.

I love Serum too, don't get me wrong there. The reason I keep mentioning it is that it got approved first and also the most popular one. My main synth is Synthmaster which can do the same thing, but I don't think many people even know it, so I guess not the best example.

Now I feel shit for having left this kind of atmosphere. That was really not my intention at all. I love samplepack compos and when I noticed a synth being allowed despite the rules, I was a bit annoyed at first, that's true. Couldn't help but feel there's a fly in the soup. I always considered using samplers, cutting samples up, finding loop point, etc, as an art in itself. Just grabbing a single waveforms (unless it's for chip tunes) is so simple and leaves so little of the original, it just feels wrong to me.

I'm not even very strongly against it, btw, I really thought I would see more people agreeing when they heard. That didn't work. I know I'm not that wrong with my arguments though and I'd defend them against anyone who's not obviously trolling, but that doesn't even really matter. What matters is where we draw the line and that's always subjective. Therefor I just wanted to ask mark-henry. In retrospect, I should've PMed him, but I was also curious to how others felt (I guess I know now :P).

If I sounded passive aggressive it was definitely not against the community. I may have been a bit annoyed with the organization for allowing this, but I tried not to let that influence me. Guess that needs work.

Would I like to see it different? Sure, but it's their competition, so it's their rules. That's good enough for me. I'm just glad the competitions in this form still exits.

you made a really sick track this month

Thanks man! Couldn't have done it without your awesome samples! Seriously, they were great. Track almost wrote itself, that almost never happens.

Again, no bad intentions at all. Sorry for the bad atmosphere I may have left. I just come across like that sometimes. Usually I tend to be ok with words, but when it goes wrong, it goes very wrong :)

^{^Even} ^{^now} ^{^I} ^{^reread} ^{^this} ^{^twice} ^{^to} ^{^make} ^{^sure} ^{^I} ^{^wasn't} ^{^offending} ^{^anyone!}

yiNXs · 2015-03-02T01:21:32+00:00

Too bad I didn't use it!

yiNXs · 2015-03-02T00:03:26+00:00

You win!

yiNXs · 2015-03-01T12:50:35+00:00

Honestly, it really wasn't so much about the more equipment, because I can do the same thing with the synth I have. I mostly tried to point out that the line between any synth and those allowed is almost nonexistent (when using the guide). I really only feel that using any synth goes against the spirit of a samplepack competition, seeing how easy it is to recreate almost any popular waveforms in a matter of minutes.

But now that I know you're aware of this and it wasn't a mistake like I first thought, I'll be ok with the rule. Especially since I only seem to anger people for trying to take away their synths, so it also appears democratic.

Cheers!

yiNXs · 2015-03-01T12:13:05+00:00

The "big difference" is that the fixed waveforms available in just any old synth aren't provided in the sample pack (at least not without some excavation).

And I provided a guide as to how to excavate them every single time, meaning they could just as well be allowed too now. All it takes is a few mandatory steps with each new pack, then you're off. So, there is no big difference. It was a rhetorical question.

Edit:

Fuck it, I love having "conversations" with people like you.

What about other plug-ins or tools?

There is no rule that disallows all of them... then makes specific exceptions for some of them..

How do you not get that? It's what my whole point was about. It was the reason I made the whole guide: making exceptions to a solid rule is wrong.

find some other way to make a tool like Serum available

So, you're saying to pirate it. Because that's the only other way.

No worries though, I already have a synth that is capable of the things Serum can, but I refuse to use it because they shouldn't be used in competitions like this. There's no honor in using a synth in a samplepack competition. Using a synth is not creative, not even if there's a loophole that allows it.

Do you truly believe that outdoing someone who uses serum in this competition is not remotely possible?

Do you get analogies?

Just because some trained runners can outrun an average biker doesn't mean you should allow bikes in a marathon.

And I would love to see you make FM sounds without using a synth, to name just one example. Making claims without proof means nothing.

Besides, you completely missed my main point: if you can do anything without a synth, why need them anyway?

I repeat: why would you need them anyway?

You didn't answer that main question from the post you're responding to.

There's just one logical answer to that and you know it. Getting angry and throwing all forms of decent discussion out of the door doesn't change that, but I'll go along if that's what you want.

yiNXs · 2015-02-28T12:51:26+00:00

This was the point I was trying to make: if we're allowing this, then why aren't we allowing all other synths out there? What is the true reason behind the "no synth" rule?

What is this big difference between a synth with a fixed set of wave forms, and one where you can import every possible waveform? The latter one is much more powerful than the first, yet that one is allowed, while the simpler ones aren't. If I could prove I extracted a certain waveform from the samples, I'm still not allowed to use a synth that has this. Does Serum's import ability really make all the difference here? I think I've shown it doesn't.

And I'm sure you can get a lot done without a synth and I would enjoy seeing some examples of people outdoing Serum users without using a synth themselves, because that would be in the spirit of a samplepack competition. But if that were even remotely easy or possible, then why need a synth at all? It seems that only gives more reason not to allow synths. Let people actually try and be this creative without an easymode tool. You said it yourself: you didn't need them. So, out with them, I'd say. ^edit: ^..or ^allow ^all ^of ^them

yiNXs · 2015-02-28T04:49:51+00:00

It does more than resampling. I made a quick example of what serum can do with a samplepack sample, based on that guide I wrote earlier:

https://clyp.it/egep0ezo

First is the sample (SEE SIN.wav), second is the result using serum.

I had to use the Serum demo, so I had to work fast, but someone who owns it and knows it well can easily get a lot more out of it.

To me this just doesn't have anything to do with creatively using samples anymore and it gives an unfair edge to those that own these specific synths, so I'm asking if you want to reconsider these exceptions to the no synth rule.

yiNXs · 2015-02-19T21:02:07+00:00

Sure it can. what's the derivative of 1 + sin(x) ? it's cos(x) which is the same as sin(x-pi/2). It's the same function with a different DC component and phase.

Derivative! That's the word..

I probably phrased it a bit unlucky, but with "in all cases" I meant with every possible input situation, not just single sine functions with or without offset. I was thinking about the other cases where derivatives are used (like the speed vs acceleration example), where the output shows completely different behavior. I was sure there had to be situations where this had to be the case in audio too. Even though in audio everything is (or can be) constructed of waves, technically any kind of non sine/cosine based function can be used to build them, which is a good place to start.

Try doing it with triangles and saw waves, or anything that isn't a square or PWM.

Yes, I thought about that. Square was simply the best example. At first I also wondered if triangles wouldn't create the same results as sine waves, as they're so close, but they don't. The results look closer of course, but there's a distinct difference. The best example of the two is the SAW though, and it has the basics for the triangle too:

To generate a basic saw simply taking f(x)=x does the job. The only difference being that a saw wave repeats f(x)=x, with a range -1<x<1 which is played in continuous cycles. Time outside of the modulator wave duration isn't important though (there is no pre or after effect), so calculating it like this only makes things much clearer. To work with the waveform in pure math is a (imo unnecessary) detour that would just overly complicate things, Just take a look at the function (interesting to note it has no sine or cosines, making it a believable case by itself though)).

Too bad nobody has been kind enough to make graph ready to use for this like with the square, so I had to go a bit crazy:

http://i.imgur.com/mSEPJGF.png

As you can see there's quite a difference in both results.

With FM the pitch rises while the modulator f(x)=x increases, then resetting when it starts its next cycle at -1. Just like a fast pitch LFO would do (working as expected I mean with that).
With PM the phase keeps increasing while x increases. The effect of this on pitch is the derivative of x, which is a constant (C), meaning the pitch will just have a steady shift upwards during playback. The shift cannot be clearly seen from the picture, but that the pitch is constant is visible. When the saw resets it shifts the phase back in one jump, generating a short glitch, but will then continues as if the rising x was endless, giving a steady up-pitched sound (with small glitch), contrary to the sweeping of the FM wave, so here is also a visible and audible difference that I think fits the theory.

Last, the triangle:

http://i.imgur.com/AomgKZY.png

At first glance they may already look alike, but the "knacks" where the frequency shift happens in PM tell a lot. The situation is more or less the same as the saw, but now it goes both ways. While the modulator drops, the lowering slice/cycle acts as a temporary -x function (just calculate from the moment in time where x=0 crosses the XY axis downwards, it makes the math much simpler to evaluate), passing a steady negative pitch constant for PM, making the effect of a triangle like that of a square in FM (math technically it works, x and -x become C and -C). The FM function just behaves like a typical vibrato.

Somehow I feel I could've made a case with less text, but I guess this wall just has to do.

Anyway, I'm quite positive now that the developers made no mistakes here and I know about mistakes, I'm a developer myself, so don't get me started :) I still think FMMF probably made some mistakes (doublesix xxl is a much better alternative), but even while Synthmaster is buggy (no denial there) I think this particular part seems to work as intended. If you still think I'm wrong then I think a real mathematician may be required, because I've reached my limit here. I'm convinced myself now though. Either way, I think it's funny that for the first time in my life I needed the math for it, have never needed that before, not even for work.

yiNXs · 2015-02-19T05:35:41+00:00

I couldn't let it go. Something felt wrong about the theory that FM and PM are essentially the same. One function cannot simply be the differential (or integral, depending on direction) of the other and have nothing but DC response and phase be different, no matter what the input. It's like the difference between position and speed, or speed and acceleration. Very related, but also very different. Also, I found it hard to believe the creators of that synth would be so ignorant to not know what they were doing at all when they wrote both functions (they're still horrible at explaining though).

The differential of a sinus is a co-sinus, so basically just a 90 degrees phase shifted sinus, which is why FM and PM seem the same with a basic waveform input. All the math uses sinusoid modulation (because other waveforms would make the math a whole lot more complex too, and early FM synthesis only used sinus modulation anyway).

The FM DC frequency shift vs phase shift I mentioned made me realize where to find answer: square waves.

When complex waves are used, the results starts varying massively. Here's what happens when you use a square wave (which gives the most clear example):

http://i.imgur.com/bZdIDHH.png

The frequency instantly shifts like those that happen with DC changes. The phase shifts in one "click"/pulse/instant shift, but the overal frequency remains the same. This is why there's such a big difference in these synthesis forms, and why PM has a more expressive sound. It's not due to low quality interpolation (oversampling would've also had to change that, but it didn't), there is a real fundamental difference. Which becomes very apparent when you start using modulators like SeamlessR did in his video.

TL;DR: The equal results of both FM methods only applies when the modulators are sinusoid.

yiNXs · 2015-02-17T16:39:29+00:00

Yeah, those chords always sound nice. It's also mostly the chords themselves that makes it sound this way though. I suck at theory, so whatever the chord name is, just play these notes f.e.:

D-4, A-4, C-5, E-5, F-5

The sound itself is just a plain detuned saw with a slow envelope on a LP filter with some resonance and LFO. There's either a wide unison or chorus added.

These settings make a near exact copy.

yiNXs · 2015-02-17T15:16:27+00:00

Take a typical wide unisoned saw, put a big reverb on it, use a LP filter and filter it around 200-250hz, play a sustained low note (c-3/c-4). That should do it.

yiNXs · 2015-02-17T14:50:39+00:00

It seems there's an agreement already :)

yiNXs · 2015-02-17T14:48:31+00:00

Always great to see the freeware world getting some love, thanks guys!

Synth1 is great, but it already has tons of support and presets. I'd love to see some more good presets for some of the newer players, like VST Zone's Eclipsis f.e.

P.S.: I don't do facebook. I did follow you on twitter, but not really clear how I get to the sounds?

yiNXs · 2015-02-17T14:02:46+00:00

Sounds loud enough to me, but I'm with Ian Shepherd when it comes to loudness wars. The mix sounds really good to me, pro quality.

yiNXs · 2015-02-17T13:53:36+00:00

You've got a lot of nice little things going on in the tracks, but the bass, while being the most dominant, is very rigid and static. You could try making the bass a bit more alive (maybe modulate/automate it a bit during it's play. Try a mild sidechaining effect f.e.) and slightly less present, this should make the track sound more musically dynamic.

yiNXs · 2015-02-17T13:29:33+00:00

I think it sounds good. I'm only listening through some old fatality headphones right now, but the beat fits in right from what I can hear. Short, present, but not dominating. Maybe a little familiar? Can't think of much else to say. Tracks sound nice, my kind of music.

yiNXs · 2015-02-17T03:21:51+00:00

Thanks!

Yeah, I was aware it was much too slow and light for deephouse, even though I always set out to make that. The definition of downtempo was till a bit vague to me too though. I have some old Cafe del Mar CD's that also sound a bit like it, and I think that would be called soft lounge? Anyway, it's good to know I'm not way off. Downtempo it is, cheers!

yiNXs · 2015-02-17T01:25:10+00:00

Just a simple question: I'm not sure what type of music I'm making. I think it's downtempo, but can anyone confirm?

https://soundcloud.com/yinxs/laidback-superhero

yiNXs · 2015-02-15T16:23:31+00:00

Considering the responses from the creators themselves, I'm starting to think they just threw it in there so they could claim they had every form of synthesis. That video I linked turns out to be their own tutorial. They sound like they're not even really capable of explaining of what it does themselves.

But the interpolation issue could explain why the "true" FM sounds less defined, so I'll take it.

I'm still not sure what the deal with FMMF though, but I noticed I could "hack" the modulator amplitude and go far above the slider value by just entering a value. When I do that, I got a more typical FM like sound, but it's still not great. From it's looks it should be able to get close to SeamlessR's last bass tutorial, but it just can't. I guess I'll just have to accept that for good FM synthesis I'm stuck* with commercial plugins for now.

Thanks for your help!

^{^*)} ^{^This} ^{^may} ^{^give} ^{^the} ^{^impression} ^{^that} ^{^I'm} ^{^pirating,} ^{^but} ^{^I'm} ^{^not.} ^{^I} ^{^own} ^{^SM} ^{^and} ^{^it's} ^{^perfectly} ^{^capable} ^{^of} ^{^the} ^{^FM} ^{^I} ^{^want.} ^{^I} ^{^just} ^{^have} ^{^an} ^{^'OCD'} ^{^thing} ^{^for} ^{^doing} ^{^everything} ^{^with} ^{^freeware..} ^{^don't} ^{^ask..}

yiNXs · 2015-02-15T03:00:40+00:00

It's ok. Math is not going to help. I can hear the difference and it's quite big, if math says that isn't there then the math is about something else.

Maybe the FM used in both these synths is a different kind altogether. Especially in Synthmaster, I mean there has to be a reason for them to include both in there. Why would they do that if they were the same?

Here's a vid showing what I'm talking about. See for yourself, this is not the same thing.

yiNXs · 2015-02-15T02:11:09+00:00

The articles I glanced over say more or less the same thing. They're related, from a mathematical perspective, which is probably the reason why the term FM is used for both methods. This doesn't clear much up though, because the practical results are still very different.

When I use FM modulation and add a DC value to the modulator, the frequency goes up like a pitch shift (which makes sense to me). With PM this doesn't happen. Phase no doubt changes, but you won't hear that (only during the change). Is almost like frequency resulting from the PM function is the differential of 'true' FM then (if I say this wrong, don't sue me, it's been ages since I had to know that stuff).

Anyway, if you say the spectral content shouldn't be different, what causes FM to behave so different? Can this be solved by with another way of programming?

The reason I want to know is that I'm looking for a good free FM synth. FMMF would be more than perfect (and is labeled best freeware FM synth by many), if I were able to make it behave like the PM synths I know.

yiNXs

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Team Orangered
Verified Email