FM Synthesis - An explantion without the maths.

Well, an attempt. This is still going to be cryptic and not strictly true at parts [for the sake of explanation] but if you don't want to delve into the maths of it all just to grasp a better understanding then this might be for you.

First of all my reason for jumping head first into FM Synthesis was  that I intended on making a program that could be run with extremely limited processing resources [I.e an old net book, or modded psp] yet still attain interesting and complex results. This would allow for me to have many instruments on stage for live performances without the need for expensive computers or large and heavy devices. For this purpose FM Synthesis proved to be the best choice.

A bit of history first. John Chowning discovered the technique while at Stanford University in 1967-1968. Yamaha bought the rights to use it after it was patented by Chowning in 1975. Due to the nature of Analog oscillators and the fact that they drift it is not feasible to use them for FM Synthesis (although not impossible by any means), hence it is an almost entirely Digitally practiced form of synthesis. A famous example of a vintage FM synth is the legendary DX7 from Yamaha. In 95 the patent expired and left it open to all developers.

To understand Frequency Modulation synthesis it may be easier to explain it in comparison to other forms of synthesis. I will use the examples of Subtractive , Additive and later AM Synthesis. Subtractive, as the name suggests, alters sounds by taking away harmonics from a source. It does this mainly through filters and volume envelopes. For example, an oscillator producing a sine wave could be run through a low pass filter, at lower frequencies this would give for a much deeper sound if the cut off is set low. Resonance of the filters then stimulate frequencies around the cut off and variations upon these practices give many different sounds. Additive synthesis, again as the name suggests, alters sounds through means of addition. It is significantly more complex than subtractive means. It adds sinusoidal overtones together, this can be used to create quite realistic sounds modelling real life examples of overtone patterns or it can be used to create sounds that would never naturally occur. The overtones dynamics can also be controlled.

FM Synthesis doesn't work by directly changing a sound like Subtractive or Additive, it works by using the source along with a modulation source in the audio range and using the difference in the signals to modulate the frequencies and create a much more complex waveform. Changing a sound with a modulation source is present in other forms of synthesis, such as using an LFO in Subtractive synth to control parameters, but it is the significance of the modulator's frequency being in the audible range that is important. To work with harmonic sounds the modulating signal must be able to react with the original signal by having a harmonic relationship in some way, I.e being similar in pitch. The more modulation placed on the sound, the most complex the outcome is. Atonal and inharmonic sounds are often worked with to create bell like tones and percussive sounds. FM Synthesis is particularly popular for this.

Basically in frequency modulation the user modulates the frequency. Vibrato and Glissando do this already on many non-FM synths but it's taken to a much further and more indepth level with FM synthesis itself. John Chowning said that the idea for FM Synthesis came to him while fiddling with vibrato. He had sped it up so fast that it began to create audible sidebands which altered the sounds timbre as opposed to the increased speed of vibrato as you would expect, this is perceived as a timbral change. Now the vibrato at this speed still was just a change, a modulation, of the original frequency but due to the speed and depth of it the listener hears it as a timbral change, and there in lies one of the simplest examples of FM synthesis.

Frequency Modulation is usually done in conjunction with Amplitude modulation, the amplitude may also appear to change due to modulating the frequencies but this is more often how the ear perceives the sound as opposed to actually changing the amplitude. Along with this you have Phase modulation which is a separate but very closely related process. In fact, many synths used Phase modulation back before the patent was lifted to achieve similar results, such as Casio with their CZ series which used phase distortion synthesis. Amplitude modulation on it's own can create many new timbres for an artist to work with. We are used to having LFO's and other low frequency sources for modulation, with some LFO's even being able to be cranked up into audible ranges, but not all modulation sources need to low frequency oscillators or envelope generators. Generally only more powerful synths allow you to modulate filters, vcas, oscillators etc with higher-frequency sources but with the advent of the VST and such it is accessible to everyone now. It's important to note that Amplitude Modulation is a separate form of Synthesis to FM but is not uncommon for the two to be combined or overlap in many places hence it is a useful aspect to know in understanding Frequency modulation synthesis. An example of AM synthesis would be an audio-frequency oscillator controlling a VCA's gain. The results of AM can often be quite unexpected which makes it a powerful and interesting tool for any sound designer. As with FM synthesis, AM synthesis does not just change the sound like creating a tremolo or fade effect, it actually creates a new timbre. One example of why this is a useful addition is in a fixed frequency modulation. Assuming the Carrier and modulator have a frequency of 100Hz then the three frequencies from the AM lie at 0Hz, 100Hz, and 200Hz. These make up the Difference, the Carrier, and the Sum signals. All of these signals affect the outcome, even at 0Hz. It still has an amplitude (which is the important part) and creates an offset in the signal. This is a Direct Current offset due to having no oscillation frequency. In practice these DC offsets are quite significant.

From this you can take that AM synthesis is a tremolo in the audible range, while FM synthesis is vibrato in the audible range. We now see that the two are quite similar, just based on different approaches and as such work well together and leave for more options. FM synthesis is considerable more complex than AM synthesis in that it produces more than just 2 side bands [which is what AM produces] for this reason understanding AM leaves for way to understanding FM better. At a low frequency the modulation (the vibrato if you prefer) simply affects the source in the way you hear, a bending up and down of the frequency. It's when you move the modulators frequency closer to, the same, and further than the frequency of the source then you get much more interesting results. At higher frequencies the modulator begins to distort and affect individual cycles of the source. This is simply due to the fact that the modulator is affecting the source at a much more rapid pace with closer to, the same or even more cycles itself. As such it is able to change then entire timbre by affecting the sound as a whole [affecting nearly all the cycle], or near to it, as opposed to just changing it in parts [such as changing a large number of number of cycles at a time]. If you think of a sine wave going from 0Hz to 22Hz you hear that speeding up of the cycle's repetition as the frequency raises until you cannot discern the individual cycles and the timbre changes. It's the same process just applied differently and to another cycle, it's in this difference of the 2, or more, cycles that FM Synthesis comes about. These differences created by the side bands as a result of FM synthesis are not always harmonic, hence the often heard percussive and bell tones from FM synthesizers. The amplitude of the carrier and modulator obviously have effects also leaving AM synthesis as a component within FM synthesis to an extent in that regard. The modulator determines the timbral and spectral components of the sound, along with the amplitudes there in, this is directly proportional to the modulator's amplitude but also inversely proportional to the Modulator's frequency. As far as the carrier frequency is concerned though, the placement of the spectral components [side bands etc] is determined by the frequency of the modulator alone.

As a result of this FM Synthesis is capable of unique sounds that no other form of synthesis can obtain. When you also take into account that it is extremely suited to the modern digital world of sound production and it's processing requirements are minimal then it becomes a very attractive form of synthesis to pursue, understand and implement.

For any of you who program in Csound then here is a basic model, this might also prove as useful for understanding the process better. 

instr 1
kindx chnget "index"
kmf chnget "mf"
kamp expsegr 0.01, 0.1, 10000, 10, 0.01, 1, 1
amod oscili kindx*kmf, kmf, 1
acar oscili kamp, p4+amod, 1
outs acar, acar
endin

Hopefully that is useful to someone out there, for those of you more knowledgeable on FM Synthesis; feel free to correct me on any mistakes.

Cheers! 

Electronic Music Discussion - Drum and Bass

As off the top of my head. I do not claim to be well read or versed in Drum and Bass, just talking about it.

Leave comments in reply, post your favourite tracks etc. Eat an ice-cream.

I think everyone has heard the term Drum and Bass before but surprisingly few often know what the genre is and I've often heard The Prodigy being claimed as Drum and Bass. I walk up to these people, and I vomit at their feet.

Drum and Bass is probably my favourite genre these days, it's got a huge history, an amazing culture, endless energy and it's just an incredibly enjoyable form of music.

Somehow it's managed to stay "underground" in that it has resisted being swarmed by posers and hipsters that often ruin so many genres, cue Metal, Dubstep, Electro etc. I think a lot of it comes down to the genuine "I don't give a fuck" attitude that a lot of the listeners have. Not the pretentious or destructive "I don't give a fuck" but more so the letting people do as they please. Hipsters tend to thrive on being noticed and are gluttons for punishment so any place they aren't wanted they'll be at. I guess that's a part of what makes them hipsters in the first place.

Now I know a genre is the music at the end of the day and getting caught up on the trends is in poor taste but Drum and Bass, in particular, is often looked at as a culture more so than just a genre. For that reason it's difficult, and probably wrong, to speak about the genre without referencing the culture surrounding it.

The music itself is generally up around the more extreme bpm regions for dance-able music at 170bpm - 180bpm. Sharing this range with hardcore, breakcore etc. It's most notable by it's syncopated break beat drum patterns and it's emphasis on all things bass. Drum and Bass can't be fully appreciated without good subs, simple as.

Here is an incredibly popular example that you all know, and is ironic to my previous statement as it's a remix of the Prodigy.

An example of "Old school" Drum and Bass [well, Jungle].

Another Pendulum track to give you an idea of the sort of common modern Drum and Bass sound [the melody at 2.20 is one of my favourite melodic passage of all time, way too good. I vomit with a smile.]:

A quite modern Drum and Bass track that incorporates many of the "filthy" elements of popular Dubstep:

One of my favourite Sub-genres "Liquid Drum and Bass", extremely chilled yet energetic. Amazing for chilling out but not getting lazy, or having in the background while doing work etc. Awesome.

Oh and finally, if you want to boost your work out sessions in the "desperately clutching at your heart by the end" zone then Drum and Bass is the way to go. ;)

Essential Software for Students 2011

On your entry to college you'll find that the days of pen and paper are long behind you. The modern fields of expertise for all students now have many software options and it can be a daunting task when trying to pin point the right one for you. Often the industry standard is the way to go as you'll find yourself using it in most positions during, and of course after, your college years. With a steep learning curve, and often a steeper price tag, this isn't a decision you want to make on a whim so here I've compiled together a brief overview of my personal favourite software packages, what students they suit and hopefully, an insight to which is right for you.

Image Software

Winner: Photoshop Elements.

It's safe to assume that you've heard of photoshop before. Not alone is it the leading product in graphics design but it has went as far as to become the common term for any digitally enhanced image. The expression “photoshopped” in description of an edited picture is a term that most of us use daily. This very integration into everyday dialect stands testament to the product, and speaks volumes about it.

Photoshop is the industry standard, this is a huge plus in it's favour. You'll find that your college will be teaching primarily through photoshop, in most cases, and when you finish your degree and try to make head way into the business it'll most likely be the software presented to you to showcase your skills. There isn't much to say about photoshop really, it wins hands down in the image editing world. The major drawback about photoshop is that it does come with a hefty price tag.

Enter “Photoshop Elements” which is a much cheaper, although limited, version of it's big brother. Saying that though I'd recommend Elements due to it being very much suited to learning the software well without overwhelming you with all of the advanced features, or leaving you broke. Elements is in no way a weak package and you'll find yourself able to accomplish plenty with it, the best bonus is that when you feel yourself growing out of Elements you can upgrade it at a cheaper cost than buying the full version straight away. This makes for quite a realistic option for most students.

Head on over to www.photoshop.com where you can download a trial version of the software to try right now!

Pros: -Industry Standard.

-Huge user base, plenty of free and paid for tutorials online.

-Extremely powerful.

-Constantly improving, Adobe hold their flagship software with pride.

Cons: -Hefty price tag.

-Can be overwhelming to beginners.

Courses suitable for: Graphics design, Media, Web Design, Photography etc

Alternatives:

Corel Painter – This is a software package much more suited for painters and people creating art similar to real life work with a canvas and brush as opposed to image editing. Often used with a graphics tablet, Painter allows for incredibly similar to real life options and a vast array of tools that's any painter would use in real life. The modelling and real to life action of the tools is superb.

Paint Shop Pro – Similar to photoshop in a lot of ways but at a vastly lower price tag. Good entry level image editing software that still has plenty going on under the hood.

GIMP - The most impressive feature of Gimp is that it's free but don't let it's lack of a price tag fool you, it's still quite powerful and has some unique features that even photoshop doesn't have!

MS Paint - Alright, maybe not that one.

Print Design:

Winner: Adobe InDesign

Another Adobe product here. Again this is the industry standard in print publication and as such is often regarded as the quintessential software in the business.

While the business may not be as strictly one software based as image editing it is much more dependent on specific software at the individual business level. With Photoshop and image edting you can get away with using different software as it's the final exported image that is important but with print design the software , it's formatting and integration, is incredibly important. For this reason you'll find that any magazine, newspaper etc will have everyone working on the same software so it can all be brought together as one finished product. Without this “across the board” approach it would leave for quite a few headaches in the later stages of putting the final product together.

For this reason going with the right software is extremely important. InDesign does play off it's own merits though, there is a reason why it is the industry standard. Each version of InDesign has been received to critical acclaim with the lastest version, CS 5, being no exception. A major bonus to InDesign is it's incorporation with Flash. With it being from the same company it is safe to assume that it gets the most in depth treatment and integration with it's siblings but this proves especially useful for print software, what with Flash being such a large element of our modern online experience. This allows for seamless work through online publication which is an ever increasingly important aspect of the business.

InDesign, it's latest version in particular, is a well designed powerhouse. Once you get use to it's controls and how it works you'll find the work flow a joy. Take into account the fact that you'll find yourself most likely using it in the future regularly in your work place and it makes for a bit of a no-brainer. Although, as with any of the professional industry standards, it does come with a steep price tag. Thankfully there is a trial for you to test before hand and there is also an educational version available for students to get them in there early!

Pros: -Industry Standard.

-Powerful and well designed [excuse the pun].

-Integration with other Adobe products, particularly Flash.

Cons: -Price Tag

-You may find other software such as Photoshop more immediately useful and worthy of your money.

Courses suitable for: Graphics Design, Journalism, Media, Business etc

Alternatives: -Quark, this is the other big player in the field. It may be worth looking at potential companies you hope to work for and what software they use. Making your decision based upon that. It is more expensive though.

-Scribus, is a free alternative. Gaining more recognition all the time and it is capable. Especially when you take into account the lack of a price tag!

Web Design

Winner: Serif Webplus

While Webplus may seem like an unlikely choice and many would lean towards DreamWeaver, the industry standard. I do believe that Webplus wins in a few ways though, primarily in it's price tag and ease of use.

Webplus is much much more student friendly in this sense and can get great results. Having an industry standard software in web design isn't nearly as important as other fields due to the fact that you'll often find yourself working freelance so it's what suits you best, not the company. Most people don't mind what software you use so boasting the title of DreamWeaver doesn't have as much gravity as in other fields [such as music and branding with Pro Tools].

Webplus comes in at under 100 euro, vastly cheaper than Dreamweaver and many of the other web design software out there such as Fusion. While it may be cheaper it is still professional and can get the job done in most cases. For quite advanced work on major sites it may not hold up but by that stage you'll most likely be making a living of web design and looking to upgrade. Webplus suits students in many ways, it has built in tutorials, a well written manual and a strong online user base to help you out. It is a robust product that contains a large image library, powerful tool set and extremely easy to use interface while still allowing you to take on more advanced tasks. Take all this into regard with it's price tag, it's integration with youtube, flash etc and you have a winner.

Pros: - Price

• Professional
• Easy to use and pracitical for learning
• All in one solution, you'll not find yourself having to leave the software often.

Cons: - Not a huge number of templates at 75

• Not as widely used as some others
• Not any major complaints really though.

Courses suitable for: Web Design, Media, Business etc – The usefulness of a website to all modern students can't be overlooked, and with the ease of use and professional results of this software I'd say it really suits most courses both directly and indirectly.

Alternatives: -Dreamweaver, this is the big player in Web Design but it's reflected by it's price.

-Coffee Cup Visual Site Design, this is another easy to use and relatively inexpensive software. Also quite popular.

-www.wix.com , a site that allows you to develop a website online for free. Great for people just looking for one quick site, Also includes hosting and for a subscription you can be rid of ads and get yourself a .com domain name. Highly recommended for people looking for a single site but don't want to learn the entire skill set of developing a site or pay a professional.

Video Editing

Winner: CyberLink PowerDirector

Video editing is possibly the most competitive field of software due to the sheer number of packages on the market. For this reason it ranges in price tags similar to a night out and then to a new car.

The industry standard is generally hailed as Avid, which is an incredibly powerful package but can reach up to nearly 2 grand in it's price tag. Not realistic for a student but thankfully you don't need to go for such high-end software to get great results. CyberLink Powerdirector is an extremely useful package often a large amount of useful tools, a stable easy to use interface, and all at a reasonable price [under 80 euro in most places!]. Powerdirector is constantly growing in popularity and there are many tutorials out there on how to do professional effects and production techniques within it's capable walls.

It comes with quite a few usable transitions and effects. You'll also be glad to hear that many of them aren't completely “public access tv-esque” cheesy, as is common in this price range. For basic editing and creating a polished product it is quite capable and more restricted by the quality of your input than the software itself. It's compatible with all codecs and is a relatively easy program to run, leaving it suitable for even lower range laptops [just don't expect the preview video to run that smoothly]. Under the hood there is quite a bit going on, even though it may not seem apparent. You may find yourself jumping through menus the odd time for things but overall the clean and pleasant interface leaves it worth the menu hunting. Powerdirector can even do functions like green screen that you may not expect of such a low cost software package. The amount of “picture in picture” videos/images you can have is quite surprising and leaves for a lot of possibilities although if you're using many of these expect your computer to feel the strain. Also, there is a video wizard that will create all your transitions and effects for you. While this will not suit most it is a useful feature to have if you're really stuck for time and want to make a video seem somewhat more finished.

Overall a very capable and usable video editing software that is constantly being updated and growing. For under 80 euro you'll be extremely hard pushed to find anything better. Oh and there is a trial version available for you to get straight into it!

Pros: -Great price

-Up to date

-Plenty of useful options

-Definitely capable of professional productions

-Much faster than most video editing software

-You can up scale SD to HD and it actually looks good!

Cons: -Some tools aren't obvious and can be hidden away to keep the interface tidy

-Eh.. that's pretty much it! Not much bad can be said about PowerDirector!

Courses suitable for: Film, Media, Music, Business etc

The world of vlogging and viral marketing is so huge now that video is an important tool that all students should embrace to give themselves a step ahead of the rest!

Alternatives: -Avid, the industry standard and used by most major films. The price tag is representative of this though.

-AVS Video Editor, another cheap package. Offers few advanced features but quite affordable.

-Windows movie maker, it's free and can be quite useful. Just don't expect much.

Music Software:

Winner: Cubase Elements 6

Next to the video editing world there is audio editing, in terms of hefty price tags and competitiveness. Unlike Video there isn't many usable low cost consumer products that will sort you for years but thankfully all the big players have cheaper versions of their flagship softwares which can be gradually upgraded as suits you. Allowing you to grow with your software and at a realistic pace.

It's probably not totally untrue to say that audio software has some of the steepest learning curves of all, this is particularly due to a lot of audio software being based on principles of it's real life analogue counterparts, such as the order of which you do things affects the outcome. For this reason it goes further than just knowing the software, you must also know the history and the mechanics. For this reason the stripped down versions are actually a blessing in disguise [apart from the obvious blessing of a lower price tag!]. Throwing yourself in the deep end can often just be too overwhelming and slow down the whole learning process. It's also important to note that, unlike most other software types, audio software is vastly different from one to the next.

This makes it hard to really suggest a particular software to a person as it's pretty important to try all the available trials that you can to get a feel and find one that suits you best. In the end though I had to pick a winner and my final conclusion was the Cubase series. I am somewhat biased as I am a Cubase user myself but overall in recent years critics have agreed that Cubase is arguably the best, technically speaking. Too much of audio software is preference and a gray area so it does come down to technicality to pick a winner. Steinberg, the creators of Cubase, did invent most of the basis of modern music software so they do have a history to back up their claim to the throne as king. Or whatever leader type software would have, a monarchy doesn't seem likely. Ahem.

Anyway, Cubase itself is the winner due to it's range of useful features. In particular it's consistency across the board. While many audio software packages deal primarily with recording or with the digital midi side of things, Cubase is up to a high professional standard on both. It also is miles ahead in other aspects such as having built in video editing and timelines, extremely useful for scoring for film. Cubase also has notation editing built in which is often overlooked but does leave it as covering both your production software and your composition software. While software like Sibelius and Finale, which are primarily for writing sheet music, may be more advanced in their notation they also cost the same price as the full version of Cubase for only one tiny feature of it.

Cubase Elements is a realistic approach for any student that won't leave you stuck for cash but will leave you with a very much usable set up that you can upgrade over time and get professional results from the word go.

Pros: -Extremely professional and respected

-Completely capable for nearly all applications at the entry level Elements.

-Large userbase and online presence.

-Upgradable at anytime, even years later.

Cons: -You will need to upgrade for some of the more advanced stuff.

Courses suitable for: Music, Music Production, Film, Media and other courses that require professional audio.

Alternatives: -Pro Tools, the industry standard and often a sort after name.

-Logic, Mac only but competitively prices and comparable to Cubase in features.

-Reaper, free for private work and extremely usable. Also extremely cheap to buy a licence.

-Sibelius, this is just for students interested in writing sheet music and composition, this won't allow you to create a finished track or such but does allow for completely professional sheet music.

And there you have it. This covers some of the most common software types that students ask for, thankfully most companies now recognise the importance of students and how daunting the price and scale of their full software may be. Hence useful trials along with entry level versions of their software that can be upgraded over time.

Please leave a comment if you have any questions about specific software or would like to see another software category in here.

Women's magazines.

Right, so I finished work and was waiting around for the tills to shut so I could leave. So I was staring at all the magazines, the majority of which were women's such as "Woman's way" "Hello" etc etc

Now, the majority of women that read these are the type to go on about video games causing violence , wanting "satanic" music banned and vulgar movies destroyed.

Have you ever seen these magazines? They are TOTALLY fucked up. Seriously, every story is something like "My child tried to kill me... so I bludgeoned him to death. With his sister" or "A simple operation ruined my life, and I took it out on my family. Whom I bludgeoned with another family."

These women are apparently built like tanks.

Really though, those magazines are disgusting. They have a picture of a pleasant standard woman, with bright colours etc but every story is TOTALLY and utterly fucking sick, that shit wouldn't be reported on the news cause it's so fucked.

Now it's not like I have never heard stories like it before, or that the material is more shocking then half the stuff on the internet truthfully, but it's the context and the fact that they want other entertainment banned.All the while they read the darkest most fucked up material just to perpetuate their gossip fueled fuck heads.

[/rant]

Oh, and here is some proof:

 

Google+ VS Facebook - The social war, hello!

We all know facebook, weather you're a seasoned social networking pro or a hermit that leaves the house once a month for a bag of baguettes, or whatever hermits eat in monthly amounts. So you may have missed Google+, quite understandable as it's still not yet released to the public [-ish] but if you are a regular facebook user then you've probably seen if crop up, particularly people mentioning invites [currently the only way onto it] and such.

So what is Google+? It's Google's Social Networking site, it's answer to facebook if you will. Now you may be thinking to yourself there is hundreds of social networking sites out there and new ones regularly, on a local, national and international level. The internet is completely saturated with these sites and everyone wanting a slice of the social pie [which sounds like a dodgy pie]. How does Google+ stand out? Well first and foremost it's from Google. Google is no longer just a search engine, it's went as far as to become a word integrated into our daily dialect. When you're online you'll often hardly notice it, it's beautifully transparent. A lot of us may not even realise just how much our Google account knows about us and how much it affects our online experience. From simple and obvious things like news specific to us and our local weather down to more "under the hood things". Those ads you see with youtube videos, on various message boards, auction sites and to the right of this very blog, have you ever noticed that these ads aren't as random as they were 6 or 7 years ago? Well it's simply due to google monitoring your online activity, in a good way mind you not the paranoid conspiracy theory way, and they use this monitoring to tailor the ads to suit you. Someone else logs in on your computer and boom, the ads are changed.

Why is this relevant to Google+ vs Facebook? Well, that's just one aspect of google's monolithic size and influence on the internet. As big as facebook is, it's just that. Facebook. It doesn't leave the boundaries of it's virtual url plastered walls. Google on the other hand is like a faithful dog companion, ehhh with a notepad writing down what you're doing while telling you current breaking news headlines. You get my point though.

Google has obviously been planning this for quite sometime, I'd say it's safe to say this was in the works even before facebook but google took their time and rather then releasing a service and building on it they simply watched their market and users and built a solid product to be released and blow people away. Now obviously they will still tailor to feedback but it means that if you make the switch your now on a fully fledged and independent platform, you're not sitting around for it to grow into itself. You may think that this would leave for a learning curve to Google+ but it hasn't, they have made getting started pretty simple, with a helping hand and videos to show you the ins and outs.

Now down to the pros and cons. Bear in mind I've only been using Google+ for a day at this stage and due to the small number of my friends on it I have yet to test many of the social services and group settings but saying that, this is from google and most of these services are simply tweaked versions of already widely used and loved services they provide so I'm not too worried about technical difficulties.

Google+ PROS:

Integration - this is the big one, most of us will have a gmail, a youtube account and some other form of google  account. These will all be integrated into one, you can update all your accounts from any accounts with one simple click. Now while a lot of this has been available on facebook like twitter and youtube integration it has never been this tailored, smooth and useful. You can switch between all your regular pages that are on the one  account and not have to log in or out. You no longer log in on individual pages, you simply log in your Google account and then all sites recognise you. You'll actually have a solid individual online presence for once. It's pretty awesome. A good example is that the chat on Google+ is the same as to the left when you're checking your email and on google chat etc and it's all in real time. Oh facebook and Twitter are already linkable. Take a look here for an idea of everything that could/probably will be integrated: Clicky

Multiple Log ins- This is a great idea, something that I have been dying to see incorporated into facebook: Being able to log in with more then one account at a time! Google+ allows you to do this seamlessly, why is this useful? Well for the majority of people it's useful for when friends are over and they want to  check their facebook [Check my plus?]. They can simply login and use their account and you can switch between the two  at anytime. I'm not sure if there is a limit to how many you can have logged in at once but I can't imagine anyone ever needing much more then 5 or 6. Now where this really comes in useful is for business orientated users. I have a band page, a dj page, a record label page, a personal page and a made up page that I use to tell my friends what I really think of them. Anyway, this suddenly makes it so much faster and quicker for me to get through all my work and social networking. As a musician I don't want to be constantly logging in and out of pages to update, cross check, transfer info etc I want to be using that time for more constructive purposes. I'm sure you're probably already thinking of how this can be used for yourself, great feature.

Circles - On facebook you had friends and that was it. They later added lists but seeing as you already had a friends list of 300+ [seems to be average although it's not uncommon for over 1000]. I'm sure you didn't want to go sorting through that list to establish who was who etc and add them to relevant lists. Now while facebook does have a similar option, google does it from the word go and so much better. The fact that it's from the word go is extremely important, I can't stress this enough. It means that you start sorting people as you connect with them, not after. It's also a big feature and part of Google+, possibly the biggest yet while with facebook lists is a feature a lot of people don't even know exists. It is also set up so that others can't tell what circle you've added them to just that they are in one of your circles. This is ideal as you can have people as friends, then others as acquaintances, more as family and then a list for people that are unreal at wearing yellow, or such. I'm sure we all know someone that we class as an acquaintance but they obviously class you as a friend, the truth is you don't want to share every personal post with that person there are the posts that you'll be sending to your friends list. Again facebook does have this feature in lists so Google+ aren't being that creative but it's the execution of this feature, the seamless nature of the circles and the focus on it that makes it work. So you can have difference posts for different circles [you select underneath a post which circles are added, your most used circle will come up by default but this is all changeable and very smoothly so].  That person can then add you to whatever list they want. You can also make your own lists so say you were a promoter organizing nights in Dublin and Belfast, well you wouldn't want the Belfast people receiving info about a gig in Dublin. Although you're completely free to do so if you want to, of course.

Groups, hang out spots - This is going to be probably the main feature for most people. The hang out spots allow for a real online community feel and group chat that facebook has been truly lacking in [sure in a group page you could have group chat but... come on, it's awful]. This allows you to chat in real time with all your mates via text, audio or video! Most people's internet connections can handle a few video streams at a time now [generally a youtube video at 720p is more then like 3 or 4 streams so compare it to that]. Basically it's taking the best from forums, messengers, etc etc and cramming it all into one. It's solid.

It's clean - This is due to it being new of course but google are pretty damn good at fighting spam, I know we've all seen spam comments on youtube but considering the sheer size of youtube and the relative amount of spam, well it's pretty impressive. Now of course this adds a whole new dimension of spam options than is available on youtube but it seems that google might be more up to the job of creating a better, cleaner, platform for socialising. Just please google, never allow apps the privilege to post to friends walls, I really don't care if my friend needs a sweet new trowel in farmville. I just want to know what the 3 people I'm stalking are at dammit. Stalking circle? ...ahem.

Android - Currently the fastest growing mobile OS, it's going to dominate pretty soon. It's even cheap, some phones running Android 2.2 are only 50 euro new on pay as you go! Android is owned by google, so I don't think I need to explain how awesome this could become. I can see people in 3 or 4 years with Android tablets instead of laptops altogether. Hell, even phones instead of laptops! Wireless tv output, anyone? Imagine wireless keyboards and screens at cafe's where your phone syncs up and you simply work away on that? Alright, back on topic ahah.

It suits everyone - Well, hopefully. Facebook always favoured personal pages, simple as. Google+ has a bit more of a professional air about it, it seems nearly a blend of LinkedIn and Facebook at times, which is awesome.

Google+ CONS:

It's unknown - I still have yet to see much of it's features, such as band pages. Band pages are myspaces life support, although considering the sheer saturation and transformation in myspace 2.0 it seems much more like a zombie now.  Facebook fell flat on it's face for band pages, artists of any kind and businesses. While there was some great apps etc it just doesn't really cut it. I currently pay a monthly fee for my music pages which adds a huge amount to it, with a decent music player linked to my soundcloud and visuals but that only appears when someones doesn't like the page, it just seems backwards. There is too much resistance from facebook to let people have some control over their pages.

It's not customizable - Facebook is in the same boat but at least it has apps which might not do the job very well, or for everyone, but they give you something. Google+ doesn't have apps yet so it doesn't have any of this 3rd party goodness, although a lot of 3rd party apps are what is ruining facebook so it's a bit of tough one. Do you balance it by only allowing certain apps thus crippling much support and development? It's a hard one. I can understand from a spam point of view and from trying to get less computer savvy people on to a social networking site by taking away html customization but come on, at least give us something akin to Bebo where it's simply a few picture slots on your profile. A lot of people may think it a trivial thing but how did you feel about wearing a uniform at school? It may seem like a harsh comparison but it is a social networking site with your own personal page, so when not be able to actually make it your own?

It's still new - Very new. I hardly know anyone on it so a lot of the features are still hard for me to try out, and there is no guarantee that there will be a big flock over all of a sudden.

Is it too much? - This may be a problem for some, with the integration of all of Google's sites together and a seamless transition between them all on one account will this cause a relapse of people from sites outside Google's servers? Probably not for a lot of people, you have wikipedia, other mail servers etc but if Google+ does become the dominant de facto social networking site then new users to the net will flock to it, set up their account there and have less and less reason to leave the familiarity of google. Ironic, I'm sure, as it all stems from a search engine but think about it, people will have less and less reasons to leave. Imagine if google bought wikipedia? That'd be it for most users. Truthfully, this probably isn't much of a threat and it might just mean there is an easy place for less computer friendly users to enjoy in familiar settings and allow other sites to grow in complexity and usefulness but it's still something to bear in mind.

Possible Pro for some/Con for others
Adsense - Google own Adsense so it's quite possible to see an integration into Google+ at some stage [this is why I didn't foam "AD FREE!!" as a pro in this post]. Why is this a good thing? Well, look at youtube partnership. If you are a regular video uploader then you can apply for Partnership. This will place ads on your video allowing you to generate ad revenue. This is a huge incentive for people to keep creating videos and keep the quality up, many of your favourite videos on youtube may very well have had less effort put into them, worse gear due to money or even not have existed at all if the ads were not there.

I'm sure embedded youtube videos will have the ads appear allowing the uploaders to generate revenue without having to force viewers over to youtube. You could even comment, like, favourite etc from Google+ with it appearing on the actual youtube video also, awesome eh? It also means that people making blog posts, posting pictures, creating games/apps or any other number of creative things to google+ might be eligible for some sort of partnership. This could mean that 3rd party support won't be nearly as dominant on Google+ and leave for a site full of lush user content. Now I haven't heard anything about this but I'd imagine it could be a possibility and, to be honest, it'd be great. Have you ever imagined making money of facebook?

Why this would be a con for some is the obvious thing of ads but you have to remember there is ads all over facebook and if you really dislike them that much to can download a plug-in to block them. So, yeah.

Just a thought.

Conclusion

Overall Google+ seems to be the better site, better thought out and more innovative [although there is no denying a lot of it is simply improving and building on facebook]. I'm well aware facebook was very innovative back in the day but I mean for recent times. I think a lot of why google+ is better isn't even because it has better or newer features though, I think it's because it's a fresh start. For a lot of people facebook has been their longest social network, and for many their first. This lets them start over again and do it right from the start with organising friends etc so it doesn't become so cluttered. They should really take away the public figures on your page of how many are in your circles and how many circles you're in, that just creates petty competition, even more so then facebook friends. If Google+ becomes the next big thing then I can imagine every 5th message being "Please add me to your circle, LOLBBQ".

The integration and the hang out spots is the real pull towards Google+ for me, it's also still early so changes are possible. It's just more practical for me as a user. I think it's too late for me and facebook as my contacts have become so cluttered, being able to add people to circles as opposed to a friend request leaves it a much more viable choice then starting over on facebook. With google having so much day to day usage stuff under it's belt, from it's prized search engine, to it's email service, to their own browser that many would use to log in, even down to the Google OS that some people's computers run on! Google have the chance to create something unlike any other.

The reality of it all is though is that it's too early to tell really, I'm sure facebook has already started putting the finishing touches to some backlash to the features in Google+. This should be an interesting period for the internet but it ultimately comes down to the users and who migrates or not. I can see Google+ becoming a platform for the age group of 16 - 30, professionals and artist pages [assuming they add in decent support and features] while facebook will remain for everyone else, but also including these people. People are incredibly unpredictable, maybe they'll take a disliking to both and head back to Bebo.

Alright, maybe not that last one.

Currently listening to: Decitronic - Rainforest

New free track - Also unexplained return!

I DON'T NEED TO JUSTIFY MYSELF TO YOUS!

Ah just playing, from this day onwards I will be making a post almost daily and I will have 3 free tracks a week for you all to download and enjoy!

Todays track is a pretty interesting one, take a listen to it here and have a read while you enjoy it [and if you like it make sure to download it ;)]  :

http://soundcloud.com/efxhand/acid-sunrise-super-lsd-rmx

There is it a remix of Acid Sunrise's track Super LSD by EFXHAND.

The intro is particularly awesome, I'm a huge fan of talking over music and strings with beats underneath so it hits two pressure points of goodness for me there. Along with that is the arp that comes in just a little after, very trippy [a word I use sparingly as fuck, mind you].

This is a track that deserves a few listens, it's pretty damn original and refreshingly so in the increasingly stale world of Dubstep but it does not let you in easily. The track is a bit much to consume at first for a lot of listeners so it may takes a few listens to really "get it on your ear" and to really appreciate it. I recommend downloading it, throwing it in a playlist for the bus or such and let it grow on you. It's a keeper in my books as it gets better everytime I listen.

Part to note: The section at 3.31 is just top notch, give a bit of needed room and really just delivers. ;)

Dubstep VS Brostep [ish]. Is the bass cannon blowing chunks? OF FUCK?

Flux Pavilon and Doctor P seem to have taken the reigns for this era of Dubstep [I'm guessing this is the 5th wave now, or perhaps 4th. Someone clarify this for me!]. Or should I say Brostep?

There is a lot of hatred back and forth from the "old school" [anything under a decade doesn't justify the term old school in my books but we'll roll with it for the moment] days of dark, atmospheric, sub driven ways of Dubstep and the more modern ravey, upbeat and mid-range orientated "brostep". Of course brostep isn't a term coined by anyone except people insulting the style [..ish], or in this instance seperating the two for cross examination. I quite like brostep alongside the "truer" dubstep so happy days for me.

You may be asking why would people hate on the evolution of a genre? Actually there is a good chance you didn't. People crave change but also hate it, I'm a victim of this myself.

You have 2 sides to the evolutionary coin; pros and cons. We'll go ahead and use brostep and dubstep as an example seeing as it's in context.

Dubstep started off as underground, you had that immense scene where nearly everyone was on the same wavelength. BULLSHIT. That doesn't happen, that's just wishful/nostalgic thinking. Scenes stay the same, it's just in smaller scenes it's much easier to avoid the parts that you don't enjoy and siphon through the bullshit.

Anyhow, back on point [there's a point to this?]. Dubstep started off as a particular genre with a particular tone. It gained in popularity with surprising speed and as a result the natural progression of any genre was witnessed on a larger and faster scale. Cue people getting drowned in a cuntstorm of double con sided coins.

With a growing and evolving genre you have the pros of recognition, expansion, larger community and a sharp drop in the costs. On the other side you have the cons of lower quality in terms of consistency, more people saying "Dubstep? I love that band! AND I FUCK MY FAMILY" and of course the dreaded scenester. Scenester: The person who is into a scene due to it being cool and not really giving a fuck about the music. It's important to note that a lot of them have honestly convinced themselves that they do care about the music.It may seem that I'm saying this from an elitist point of view but what I mean is that they really are passionate  about the music in question but once something else becomes popular they drop it and bull on to the next thing which, as far as I'm concerned, equates to not really giving a fuck.

So following on with the trend of other genres you have the older dubstep which is not nearly as easy to approach [weather it's better or more enjoyable is purely personal taste, no matter how much you try to argue one is better then the other; the problem doesn't lie in the music itself] and then the more modern brostep which is vastly more commercial, approachable and marketable. Those last three words, the controversial fucks of words that they are, are good to some and curse words to others. Anyhow I don't think I really have a point to this at the moment, it's more just of an overview/train of thought but I'll come back to it in much more detail in the future. I'm sure you're foaming at the mouth with the sheer thought. Fuck you. I just wanted to clarity what brostep was [which truthfully I could have done in one sentence but ahhhhhh, again, fuck you].

So coming back to the Bass Cannon, this is the new track by Flux Pavilion that has taken brostep by storm and, as a direct result, caused a huge amount of phlegm gems, erupted from the depths of old schooler's under a decade sub beaten lungs, to form into one mass lump of pure cunning prick. It's taken the scene like a motherfucker altogether, people are going mad for it.

Now I like Flux Pavilion ALOT [although truthfully he is one of the least consistent artists that I've come across] but this track is just alright. His other tracks such as Got 2 know, Digital Controller, excuse me remix, cracks remix [probably his best track], etc are much, MUCH, better in my opinion. I'm dumbfounded at the attention that bass cannon has received. It's in no way a bad track, trust me and no doubt timing has a lot to do with it and when I heard it I did enjoy it quite a bit but I was taken back by the attention that it received. It does a fantastic job of summing up brostep, in my opinion. It's very chripy, seemingly bass heavy [it's not really subby, it's very mid rangey which gives it presence and size, old school dubstep is very subby in where it's often more so felt then heard and is the main focus], and on first listen it really gets you pumped. And that it does well, but it's not a track that I would put on a playlist at all. There is nothing original about it to make it a "classic" yet it seems to have taken that status almost immediately [FUCK TIMETRAVEL]. I think it more just boils down to the smart marketing by the lads over at circus records.

Point to be made on what I was saying about the sub bass in brostep: There is clearly sub bass actually there, my point wasn't it's existence. I was making reference to the fact that the midrange punch and "dirty" parts of the synth are the emphasis of brostep. Which I love, it's not a bad thing I'm just making a distinction. Old school dubstep is often very roomy with the focus on the sub itself. I'll dedicate an entire post to this point in the future with examples so hold out for that. With glee they said.

The track in question: Flux Pavilion - Bass Cannon

And two remixes worth listening to that make it a much more interesting track in my opinion:

Filth Collins Remix - Alot more interesting melody wise and overall timbre wise.

Aura Remix - Admittedly the production on this remix could do with a good bit of work but I really like the variation on it. Works really well, the main "go mental" part probably could have been expanded without so many gaps but I think this is a pretty interesting and fairly original rendition. Thumbs up.

Look at those thumbs go.

This is loads more remixes out there, considering it has taken the scene by storm there is a huge amount of potential by jumping onto the remix bandwagon so search for a few and feel free to post your favourite of them in the comments section below.

I'm probably going to regret this post as it was originally just to show 2 remixes of a popular track and it somehow stemmed into this mess of contradictions and incoherent ramblings but take what you want from it. Establish that I'm an asshole so that we can go onto youtube and harrass eachother over the comments. Go on. We're both cool.

I'll look over this again and get my head straight on whatever seeming "points" I was trying to make and I'll also do a breakdown of the timeline of dubstep etc. Hopefully I'll have as much of the history, and evolution covered in the coming weeks that I can so I can move on to what is currently evolving and then things will get really interesting but for now we'll walk.

AND SHUT YOUR MOUTHES YOU DIRTY WHORES.

P.s: Maybe I'm retarded and not paying attention to anything but this seems to be one of the first dubstep tracks with an official properly made video so make what you will of that.

Oh and bass cannon repeating in the background constantly is annoying as shit.

28th April - Here is where you DAMN WELL TAKE IT.

Todays track:

The Noisy Freaks - D.R.E.A.M (nilow remix)

Hello world, friends, family, you, fuck.

Starting off this blog is a rather “lucious” dubstep track, free at that. This is one of those tracks that I’ve come across beating my way through the hoards of pure SHIT on soundcloud with the download button enabled until I reached one worth fucking onto my hard drive and then RAMMING DOWN PEOPLE’S THROATS.

JUST RAM RAM RAM.

Ah this track is actually fairly gorgeous though, it makes for a nice mellow break in between other tracks that unnecessarily force you into enjoying yourself. Saying that this track isn’t exactly what I’d class as light, it’s still got a few heavy sounds in there but in the overall context it’s in helps creates a pretty nice flowing mood.

The lead melody is where it’s at in this track with it’s near old school anologue sound, layered with reverb at times to move it back and some really interesting rhythms keeping this an interesting track overall.

As of writing this I’m finding myself letting this track happily plod on loop in the background and it’s not making me gurgitate the words FUCK and MY CUNT from the pits of my stomach, so yeah, it’s doing something right.

Nice work.

So there you have it: The Noisy Freaks - Dreams (nilow remix)

Hit up Nilow on soundcloud: www.soundcloud.com/nilow