Jump to content

Wat's the best software to make psytrance?


Recommended Posts

The new software synth Rapid by Parawave is really good for psytrance. I comes loaded with all kinds of EDM/trap/pop presets but making trippy psy sounds in it is pretty easy. Ths basic character of the synth really reminds me of Access Virus, fat and edgy. 

 

This is a short psytrance demo I've made with this synth, almost no external processing except for reverb/delay and very basic equalization, all sounds are basic psytrance patches which I've made from the init preset.

 

https://soundcloud.com/recursion-loop/parawave-rapid-psytrance-demo

 

If anything, I'm not associated with the developer anyhow, just really like the synth.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have and that's a kind of problem :(

 

I remember some of my better tunes were started when I was at friend's house, drinking beers, watching TV, etc.

I guess this is because one doesn't stress himself to "do something" and just has fun, instead of "working" :)

I believe this is also why often collaborations are much better than those artist's individual output.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess this is because one doesn't stress himself to "do something" and just has fun, instead of "working" :)

Yes, that's pretty much it. I really want to break away from my amateurish mindset and finally make something worth releasing on a decent label but when I try to be serious abot my music all the fun goes away. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's pretty much it. I really want to break away from my amateurish mindset and finally make something worth releasing on a decent label but when I try to be serious abot my music all the fun goes away. 

 

I know exactly what you mean. And having a family (3 kids) + a full-time job doesn't help either.

 

Can't wait till I get retired (or at least the kids move out) and finally have the time for travelling with wife, music-making, reding, watching movies, etc. ;):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly the same here except that I only have two of them.

 

Maybe we need a thread "what is the best software to make psytrance if you only have a half an hour per day when you are tired and wasted" :) Btw, in this scenario software really helps because of its immediacy, as much as I'm loving my Access Virus i think I'll move to software.

 

But don't lay it away, chances are that when you get retired you'll just have no more passion for music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But don't lay it away, chances are that when you get retired you'll just have no more passion for music.

 

...or I won't have hearing anymore :)

 

BTW, I found this to be awesome for fooling around on-the-go: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.singlecellsoftware.caustic

It also has a Windows PC, iOS and Mac versions.

 

Here's an album/ep made using Caustic:

 

 

Album made with tablets and phones in various foresty places, coffee shops, beaches, and balconies with Caustic 3 for Android.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have that Caustic app installed on my office PC, I've made a two minute goa sketch in it :)

 

But it is way too limited, making complete tracks with proper stucture and decent quality in it would require much more patience than doing this with a normal DAW and plugins, I truly admire that guy you linked.

 

True, but on the upside you can sketch tracks while standing in a line, commuting, on the beach :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

I'm thinking of switching to a new DAW, because the tracker paradigm - I'm using Renoise - which I grow up with was working great on Amiga (just 4 tracks, 8-bit samples, etc.) to get the most of it, but seems to really constrain my creativity and more importantly gets in the way of the workflow now, with practically unlimited possibilities with regards to sound sculpting and arrangement.

 

Upon checking many "Best DAW" lists, watching videos, etc. I'm leaning towards either Ableton's Live or Bitwig.

 

I can upgrade from Live "Lite" (which I got with my Arturia Minilab) to "Standard" version for EUR 240, while Bitwig would cost EUR 300, but the latter seems to come with more stuff (instruments, effects, samples) as default - so the price difference isn't really that big and important. But which has better features and more familiar work-flow for someone who only worked with trackers? Both seem to operate on very similar principle: 1st you come up with a collection of clips and ideas, that you can organise in "scenes" and then you can arrange those clips & scenes in a full track - this very much fits into my idea of how I want to work. I understand Live is much longer on the market (since 2001 vs. 2014 for Bitwig) which makes it thoroughly tested, feature-packed and stable, but then Bitwig doesn't really seem to be missing any key features and on top of that has a lot of small things (like side-by-side clip & arranger views, in-track mix of MIDI and audio clips, per-note setting of selected MIDI parameters, etc.) which are really great, especially for electronic music. I guess Bitwig appeals to me more, because it seems more modern (for a lack of a better word), but on the other hand Live - with already being on version 9 - gives more confidence as a product.

 

Any suggestions, ideally based on experience with both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I'm thinking of switching to a new DAW, because the tracker paradigm - I'm using Renoise - which I grow up with was working great on Amiga (just 4 tracks, 8-bit samples, etc.) to get the most of it, but seems to really constrain my creativity and more importantly gets in the way of the workflow now, with practically unlimited possibilities with regards to sound sculpting and arrangement.

 

Upon checking many "Best DAW" lists, watching videos, etc. I'm leaning towards either Ableton's Live or Bitwig.

 

I can upgrade from Live "Lite" (which I got with my Arturia Minilab) to "Standard" version for EUR 240, while Bitwig would cost EUR 300, but the latter seems to come with more stuff (instruments, effects, samples) as default - so the price difference isn't really that big and important. But which has better features and more familiar work-flow for someone who only worked with trackers? Both seem to operate on very similar principle: 1st you come up with a collection of clips and ideas, that you can organise in "scenes" and then you can arrange those clips & scenes in a full track - this very much fits into my idea of how I want to work. I understand Live is much longer on the market (since 2001 vs. 2014 for Bitwig) which makes it thoroughly tested, feature-packed and stable, but then Bitwig doesn't really seem to be missing any key features and on top of that has a lot of small things (like side-by-side clip & arranger views, in-track mix of MIDI and audio clips, per-note setting of selected MIDI parameters, etc.) which are really great, especially for electronic music. I guess Bitwig appeals to me more, because it seems more modern (for a lack of a better word), but on the other hand Live - with already being on version 9 - gives more confidence as a product.

 

Any suggestions, ideally based on experience with both?

Just in case anyone was wondering, as of today I've become a happy owner of Ableton Live 9 Suite. After a lot of research, reading & watching tutorials and extensive hands-on testing I came to the conclusion that at this stage it will fulfill my needs better: it's more mature, more feature-packed and complete; and since it's not as flexible (modular) as Bitwig it will let me focus better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi there!

I have used/tryed several DAWs since mid-90s: FastTracker, Jeskola's Buzz, FruityLoops (and the later FL Studio), Ableton Live, Cubase, Studio One, Reaper... But the one which has fitted me like a glove has been Bitwig Studio. I'm impressed on how simple is being creative with this software. It boosts your workflow and it works really nice: no need to wait for minutes to load any plugin. But the reason why I decided to finally buy this one a couple of weeks ago was its integration into its application. I mean: You can duplicate clips/samples/whatever into the arrangement view, but also into the clip edition view, which can be individual or multiple. It's charming, because I finally found a DAW which is not too complicated (quick workflow) and that really cares in a matter of harmony (which is what music is all about, if somebody had forgotten it).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there!

I have used/tryed several DAWs since mid-90s: FastTracker, Jeskola's Buzz, FruityLoops (and the later FL Studio), Ableton Live, Cubase, Studio One, Reaper... But the one which has fitted me like a glove has been Bitwig Studio. I'm impressed on how simple is being creative with this software. It boosts your workflow and it works really nice: no need to wait for minutes to load any plugin. But the reason why I decided to finally buy this one a couple of weeks ago was its integration into its application. I mean: You can duplicate clips/samples/whatever into the arrangement view, but also into the clip edition view, which can be individual or multiple. It's charming, because I finally found a DAW which is not too complicated (quick workflow) and that really cares in a matter of harmony (which is what music is all about, if somebody had forgotten it).

 

Good to hear it works for you! What would you say differentiates it - in terms of work-flow - from Live 9? I tried both extensively and frankly both worked out very well for me, because of combined session (clips) and arrangement (timeline) views, but I wasn't very fond of Bitwig's interface, while I liked the simplicity of Live 9. Still, the underlying modularity of Bitwig is something great, e.g. being easily able to route certain parts of the sound via specified effects. In the end I purchased Live 9 Suite which even if more expensive (even with Christmas discount & upgrade from Live 9 Lite) seemed more 'complete', starting from the manual which was much better and clearer. Also, the amount of content - free tutorials, packs, M4L devices, etc. - is huge for Live 9, because it's on the market 14+ years, compared to Bitwigs 3+.

 

But in the future I'll really consider switching to Bitwig, because indeed it shapes up to be awesome, especially for music like ours.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think ITB psytrance production is not DAW-centric at all, it's more the matter of  what synth plugins you pick and how you program and process them. Any DAW with basic functionality is just as fine as the next one. If you incorporate hardware synths into your workflow then some DAWs may handle them better than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think ITB psytrance production is not DAW-centric at all, it's more the matter of  what synth plugins you pick and how you program and process them. Any DAW with basic functionality is just as fine as the next one. 

 

I disagree - both Live and Bitwig are centered around the Session view / Clips idea, which in turn work best for repetitive / loop-based music, i.e. trance. Most artists using those work by creating their tunes in Session view with clips and then are recording the live performance to the Arrangement view, to further tweak the automations, add the one-off events like transitions, breaks, etc.

 

Sure, plugins are important but they work the same everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different strokes ... I know many psy and trance producers who use Cubase and Logic. I use Studio One which has essentially the same linear workflow as Cubase. I tried FL Studio and Live too but didn't quite like them, especially this clip/session concept in Live seems somehow cumbersome to me - I understand how it works but I don't like that I have to keep in my head what is going on in each of these sections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different strokes ... I know many psy and trance producers who use Cubase and Logic. I use Studio One which has essentially the same linear workflow as Cubase. I tried FL Studio and Live too but didn't quite like them, especially this clip/session concept in Live seems somehow cumbersome to me - I understand how it works but I don't like that I have to keep in my head what is going on in each of these sections.

 

Yeah, I can see that. I believe Live/Bitwig works great for people who:

- used to work with trackers on Amiga or PC many years ago, because the concept of 'clips' is a generalisation of tracker's pattern,

- are completely new to music-making, so they can easier wrap their head around a 4-bar loop, than an infinite timeline.

 

So, indeed it's literally different strokes, for different folks :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to hear it works for you! What would you say differentiates it - in terms of work-flow - from Live 9? I tried both extensively and frankly both worked out very well for me, because of combined session (clips) and arrangement (timeline) views, but I wasn't very fond of Bitwig's interface, while I liked the simplicity of Live 9. Still, the underlying modularity of Bitwig is something great, e.g. being easily able to route certain parts of the sound via specified effects. In the end I purchased Live 9 Suite which even if more expensive (even with Christmas discount & upgrade from Live 9 Lite) seemed more 'complete', starting from the manual which was much better and clearer. Also, the amount of content - free tutorials, packs, M4L devices, etc. - is huge for Live 9, because it's on the market 14+ years, compared to Bitwigs 3+.

 

But in the future I'll really consider switching to Bitwig, because indeed it shapes up to be awesome, especially for music like ours.

The thing is that being the couple of a programmer since quite years ago makes me notice certain details. As of my point of view, Live's a great DAW, but I feel that they have been dragging bugs so long that they have decided to not pay attention to them anymore and carry on by other ways. I can't imagine why they have not implemented a multiple pattern edition function (multiclip edition), which I think helps a lot to those who hasn't learned anything about music in their first contact with the software. Beside's the price. I don't think that everybody could afford it.

 

But to answer your question: the workflow is boosted since there is no "technical" blockage. A simple example of this is the fact that you can search your plugin's presets from Bitwig. It is really helpful and saves time. Instead of loading a plugin and search into the plugin's presets, you can have a look at them at once, enter a search by words, bla, bla. But the best of this is that you instantly hear the sound. Much better than going into a plugin and dive into it, I think. Even the parameters of a plugin are "searcheable". And you have the option to choose which display mode fits you better. There are several other interesting things into Bitwig, but the thing is that each one could work whithin its comfort: work in where you feel comfortable. For instance, I would never be comfortable working into Rebirth, nor Cubase.

The problem out there is that I believe that people wants a DAW-for-all and make music just pushing one button. Much Goatrance was made with hardware, and to do that you would not need much more than Audacity (freely downloadable) and all your machines/effects (of course!). We all want to sit one day in front of the computer and push a button to "sound nice" but this does not work that way, I think. So I believe that having a software which offers what really helps in music making is something to consider: nice price, nice capabilities and nice usage, mixed with outstanding stability.

 

I don't think if others would like it too, but as Abba said: "I do, I do, I do...".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...