SID Arpeggios

GeckoYamori · Post by **GeckoYamori** » 15/10/2003 - 22:43

Since I wasn't around during the golden age of C64 I'm totally clueless when it comes to SID programming, and I have little to no experience at all with even chiptune tracking. I've always wanted to replicate the infamous SID-style arpeggios. I've tried doing all sorts of arpeggios and played them really fast, but it always ends up sounding very "fake". I just don't know how to do it! I tried googling for a guide but couldn't find any. That's too bad, as the scene would probably die away after a generation or two, if it weren't for curious little kids like me

Can someone show me how it's done properly? I use FLStudio4, but that shouldn't matter as the Piano Roll is identical to most other sequencers out there.

Chris Abbott · Post by **Chris Abbott** » 15/10/2003 - 23:11

You use pitch bends very quickly and non-continuously, so you don't trigger the attack of the sound every single note. You know which pitch bend values correspond to which note intervals (depending on your pitch bend sensitivity), so you can put in the pitch bend events evenly spaced to give a chord effect. No matter what sound you use, it has that characteristic SID warbling.

e.g. If your pitch bend sensitivity is 12 semitones, then you have to add (or substract) 682.67 for every semitone you want to go up.

If you were looking at a cakewalk event list, and wanted a C major chord

1:0:0 C 3 127 120 <--- note, C 3, velocity, 127, length 120
1:0:15 Pitch bend 2731 <--- (4 x 682.67) i.e. E
1:0:30 Pitch bend 4779 <--- (7 x 682.67) i.e. G
1:0:45 Pitch bend 0 <--- back to C
1:0:60 Pitch bend 2731
1:0:75 Pitch bend 4779
1:0:90 Pitch bend 0
etc.

Of course, if you wanted a different kind of chord, you could make it go:
0
2731
4779
2731
0

Same notes, slightly different feel.

Using the same method over a melody line with a filtered sound means the filter will evolve over the whole melodic phrase, which usually sounds cool.

Chris

tomsk · Post by **tomsk** » 22/10/2003 - 20:50

Hey great ! I've always wanted to know how to do this using modern software. The only problem is.....err....... I didn't really understand much of what Chris just said......

Anyone know how to explain this in Fruity loops Piano roll for the less technical amongst us.
Many thanks for any help, and sorry Chris - but I'm sure more people would love a less technical version of the above.

Tomsk

Chris Abbott · Post by **Chris Abbott** » 22/10/2003 - 21:19

Er... it doesn't get less technical than that apart from this:

you can't do it in a piano roll. You have to edit the MIDI events in a list.

Chris

Infamous · Post by **Infamous** » 23/10/2003 - 4:12

HELP!!!!! i understood it!!!!!

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

as far as i remember you could do that weird noise fiddling with the old 400 command on trackers mixed with the 300 command (tracker ppl will understand this) and go along with a steady 3f0 to cause the instrument to ignore the beginning of the sample and play a few steps after (to create that continuing effect) and then the 401/4f0 command to make it warble like a electronic crackhead robin red breast.......

lovely.

just so you know.... or if you want that wierd arsed bllllllll noise sid tunes made then its 001 to 0ff for ya........not as complicated as it sounds honest.

Rico · Post by **Rico** » 24/10/2003 - 11:29

tomsk wrote:Anyone know how to explain this in Fruity loops Piano roll for the less technical amongst us.

I haven't tried it but...
In FL You can edit the channel pitch event in the event window just below the piano-roll. Problem would be to change the pitch correctly for each note.
Another way that may or may not work is to use FL's "slide" functionality (still in the piano roll) with very short "sliders" so You don't hear the actual glide...

/Rico

Chris Abbott · Post by **Chris Abbott** » 24/10/2003 - 13:24

> Problem would be to change the pitch correctly for each note.
And you'd need to change it multiple times during a note, which requires
great accuracy.

Chris

Rico · Post by **Rico** » 24/10/2003 - 13:49

Chris Abbott wrote: And you'd need to change it multiple times during a note, which requires
great accuracy.
Chris

Yes, but usually You don't have that many notes in the arpeggio, and the copy/paste for events in FL works quite nice in that respect, so when You get the first "iteration" of the arpeggio correct, just copy'n'paste... (God, it sounds so easy - bet I can't get it right in a zillion years if I tried...

)

Cheers!
/Rico

GeckoYamori · Post by **GeckoYamori** » 28/10/2003 - 17:35

Heh, it's easy to do it in the FL Piano Roll, you just need to think a bit different. I even saved an arpeggio score for use with the Chopping tool, which I'll upload for you later.

Martin (IR) · Post by **Martin (IR)** » 29/10/2003 - 8:22

Or you can just use the arpeggiator on your synth. Crank it up real fast and you have an instant SID:ish sound. Sounds best with PWM and saw.

Xelebes · Post by **Xelebes** » 04/03/2004 - 20:55

I guess ymVST is cheating... huh? or sounds fake?

RushJet1 · Post by **RushJet1** » 06/07/2004 - 12:05

Well I don't know much about C64 arps, but I do know about NES ones, and I'm thinking they can't be too different. I think what Chris is saying is each arp is treated like a single note.

If you have c e g as an arp, you don't want each note to sound like a new one - you don't want the volume to attack&decay for each note of the arp - if the arp gets quieter, it's a gradual thing.

cegcegceg

So you see why it would sound fake in a MIDI player if you didn't get rid of the attack of the notes - if you made each note played have a constant volume I'm thinking it would sound more accurate.

Matthew Cannon · Post by **Matthew Cannon** » 01/06/2005 - 16:19

It sounded to me like most C64 chord arpeggios were executed bottom to top (C-E-G). This was ubiquitous with Hubbard, Dalglish, Whittaker etc.

Then there were composers like Martin Galway who seemed to use downward arpeggios (G-E-C). This may seem like a slight distinction, but the aural effect is totally different to upward arpeggios. The distinction is clear when top-to-bottom arpeggios are used in rhythmic figures (E.g., the stabbing chords that Martin often used). Use a bottom-to-top arpeggio and you will lose the percussive effect.

Sounding the top note of the chord inversion first also re-inforces the voice-leading.

There were also some arpeggios that sounded like they ran over more than one octave (G4-G3-E4-E3-C4-C3). I thought I could hear this in Martin Galway's work (Terra Cresta, Parallax, Short Circuit), and it seemed to me that it gave more weight to a chord, so I started using it myself when that was required. I used it on everything after Nightbreed.

As to recreating this in piano-roll... cut-and-paste a lot

What RushJet1 illustrated regarding the decay is applicable to rhythmic arpeggios, and the only way you are going to get the authentic C64 sound is to simulate that decay... I think

Matthew Cannon · Post by **Matthew Cannon** » 01/06/2005 - 16:23

Oh.. and apologies for bumping-up an old topic, but arpeggios were close to my heart!

Hope my rant helps someone

Pex `Mahoney` Tufvesson · Post by **Pex `Mahoney` Tufvesson** » 02/06/2005 - 9:18

Matthew Cannon wrote:Then there were composers like Martin Galway who seemed to use downward arpeggios (G-E-C).

Interesting. I haven't thought about that before, but now that you mention it, it is -oh-so-true-... (And this is just from my memory of these SIDs, I have not listened to them again to check this!

Thanks, Matt! Now I've actually learnt something new about the world today!