Synthesis

[Creativemind]

Hi All!

I'm going back to the beginning again with Synthesis. I'm want to really learn synthesis from the beginning. I say again, 'cause I started this approach about a year ago, then stopped before I really got a grasp lol! went back to just random tweaking until it sounded good.

Anyway, I decided to start with the Subtractor.

I know the Subtractor is Polyphonic, but it is mono as in mono and stereo and I know it uses Subtractive synthesis.

So I want to know:-

1) Does it not being stereo effect the overall sound in any way? detrimentally I mean. And how is it mono in terms of sound?

2) Is Subtractive synthesis the best type of synthesis to start with?

3) Would looking at the waveforms being created by the oscillators using Scope Jnr (Free Rack Extension) help me understand what's happening with the waveforms more?

4) What would be the best way to then advance further and train my ears. I don't want people saying here to just play with the controls and listen to what's happening, 'cause I've done that, and it doesn't learn me anything. You just end up back to square one with random tweaking. Unless I should be training my ears with this method in someway?

I am going to be using 202/20 headphones by the way, as I haven't got an acoustically treated environment and good monitors, yet.

Thanks!

[selig]

First let me start by saying that the term "Mono" is short for one of two things in the audio world: Monophony, which refers to a single note musical line (compared to Polyphony, which is multiple/harmonic lines working together), and Monophonic: one audio channel (compared to Stereophonic, which is a grouped pair of audio channels working in tandem to reproduce a stereophonic sound field). Confusion can arise because it is technically OK to use the term "Monophonic" to refer to either case, especially when speaking of a musical instrument such as a synthesizer (or trumpet, flute, etc. for that matter). Technically speaking, the audio specific term for mono is Monaural, but both terms are shortened to "Mono", and when moving between the audio and synth world this term can cause some confusing.

Adding to that confusion are synths that are both monophonic (one voice, can only play a single note at a time) and monaural (having only a single output). There are also monophonic synths that have stereo outputs, typically when there is a chorus type effect involved that creates a psudo-stereo (two channel) audio output. Of course there are also polyphonic synths that only have one output (early analog poly synths in particular), and poly synths that have stereo outputs.

Confused? I hope not, but if so feel free to ask for further clarification.

To answer your specific questions in order:
1) Mono is not "detrimental" in any way, and there are plenty of famous single channel synths that have contributed to countless amazing recordings. One technique for creating fatter sounds with these synths is to double track the parts being played.

2) Subtractive synthesis was the first type of synthesis made popular, and is generally accepted as a great first 'rabbit hole' to dive down.

3) For some, visualizing the waveforms is helpful, for others visualizing the spectrum is more helpful, and others would say to use your ears. I would say "all of the above" is probably the best way to achieve total immersion if that's your goal.

4) One approach would be to limit yourself to one oscillator and listen to all the raw basic waveforms, which would include sine, triangle, square, and saw. The names are pretty descriptive of the shape, so a scope won't tell you much more at this stage, but a spectrum analyzer would be immensely helpful here IMO. From there, use a harmonically rich waveform such as square or saw, and start listening to different filter types (Thor may be a better synth to use for these experiments). Then you can begin to study modulation sources such as envelopes and LFOs by applying them to the oscillators and filters. If you want to go for broke I would find a good book on the subject, or pursue some of the online resources that deal with the basics of subtractive synthesis. Every approach (and every student) is different, so you may have to try a few options before finding the approach that works best for you. Hopefully others here can be more specific with suggestions along these lines. But don't give up, take it slowly, and make sure you comprehend each concept before moving on!

[ncurry]

Chris Peti has/had a YouTube series called "The Peti Test" where he would break down famous sounds. I really appreciated hearing him discuss what he listened for in a sound in order to recreate it. The "Thor Demystified" series under Tutorials on the Prop website was huge for me. The authors give you steps for recreating classic synth sounds. I followed along step-by-step and it really helped me understand how those sounds were crafted.

[avasopht]

Also experiment with amp and filter envelopes. One interesting feature of the brain is for it to chunk. So when you hear a horn, the sound might display various envelopes which your brain chunks together as a single sound, which can sometimes make it tricky to figure out how to create a particular sound because your brain is looking for the whole chunk, so experimenting can help your brain to start to hear what's actually happening to the sound piece by piece

[raymondh]

I think the best way to learn synthesis is not to look at a synth and think "what do the bits do?"

The best way is to start with the end in mind. Have a listen to basic everyday sounds and think about the character of the sound, and then learn about what is required to re-create that sound. Read up as you go for tips and tricks.

Start with a violin. That's a good one. Learn about timbre, dynamics, pitch, and then that will quickly lead you to learn about the sawtooth wave, slow attack, filtering and vibrato.

Then try a piano. That will teach you about decay, and applying key follow to a filter cutoff and envelope time.

And then a bell. Learn about ring modulation / frequency modulation (FM), complex waveforms, additive synthesis.

And so on...

[Benedict]

Ray is right. Having a goal makes a huge difference. Sure sometimes you miss and find something more amazing but that is a great thing as it becomes your sound/style.

Try these articles of mine as they also cover what Ray & avasopht is saying:

http://benedictroffmarsh.com/2015/08/19 ... n-patches/

http://benedictroffmarsh.com/2015/08/27 ... -strategy/

http://benedictroffmarsh.com/2015/09/01 ... aking-art/

Like Selig, you will find I repeatedly remind people to take the time to understand the concepts before rushing on. Taking the time at the start will rocket you ahead later - but far faster/further than if you rushed ahead.

[selig]

Ray is right. Having a goal makes a huge difference. Sure sometimes you miss and find something more amazing but that is a great thing as it becomes your sound/style.

Try these articles of mine as they also cover what Ray & avasopht is saying:

http://benedictroffmarsh.com/2015/08/19 ... n-patches/

http://benedictroffmarsh.com/2015/08/27 ... -strategy/

http://benedictroffmarsh.com/2015/09/01 ... aking-art/

Like Selig, you will find I repeatedly remind people to take the time to understand the concepts before rushing on. Taking the time at the start will rocket you ahead later - but far faster/further than if you rushed ahead.

Wait - I though Ray was saying not to do as I said, but you seem to be agreeing with both of us? I still say to learn "what the bits do" first and THEN set a goal. IMO it would be like trying to mix a complex song before having a clue what an EQ or compressor or reverb or delay did. But that's just me…

[Benedict]

Ray is right. Having a goal makes a huge difference. Sure sometimes you miss and find something more amazing but that is a great thing as it becomes your sound/style.

Try these articles of mine as they also cover what Ray & avasopht is saying:

http://benedictroffmarsh.com/2015/08/19 ... n-patches/

http://benedictroffmarsh.com/2015/08/27 ... -strategy/

http://benedictroffmarsh.com/2015/09/01 ... aking-art/

Like Selig, you will find I repeatedly remind people to take the time to understand the concepts before rushing on. Taking the time at the start will rocket you ahead later - but far faster/further than if you rushed ahead.

Wait - I though Ray was saying not to do as I said, but you seem to be agreeing with both of us? I still say to learn "what the bits do" first and THEN set a goal. IMO it would be like trying to mix a complex song before having a clue what an EQ or compressor or reverb or delay did. But that's just me…

Um ok. Damned if you do and damned if you don't LOL

I actually hadn't thought you and Ray were taking opposing views on this at all. I figure if you have a goal in mind then you find it easier to have a reason to care why Attack on an Env is useful/important. I was definitely agreeing with you (I think) that skipping over learning that A (of the DSR) will do more harm than good as random is rarely a useful way to design bridges (that you don't want collapsing mid-build).

Perhaps if we define our sense of Goal then it will make more sense. Ray says set a "goal of a piano" and then that helps you define what functions/modules you need to get that done. Your goal Selig is probably broader in the sense of "wanting to be able to make the sounds you want" so you learn the modules so when you want a piano you know what to reach for. I like doing both. That is how I approached my first synth and generally still do.

Big Goal worked towards by using smaller Goals.

I don't think people should try to mix complex songs with side-chained compressors etc. before they understand natural balance anyway. I think that is a great problem as kids come along and expect to make tracks that rely on tricky mixing instead of the basics. That is a nightmare for them as it is so discouraging when they fail time and again, not realizing the track is not really what they think they hear at all (avasopht's "Chunks"). I think they would come along far quicker by making more straightforward mixes and if there is really a killer track in there, someone else con come along and complex it up.

[MannequinRaces]

I learned a lot by just going through the free lessons on Syntorial when I was working on learning synthesis. Might be a good place to start: http://www.syntorial.com/try-for-free/. Tons of great advice from everybody else as well. Once you have the basics down it's easier to emulate sounds you hear in your head that you want to program, etc..

[raymondh]

Ray is right. Having a goal makes a huge difference. Sure sometimes you miss and find something more amazing but that is a great thing as it becomes your sound/style.

Try these articles of mine as they also cover what Ray & avasopht is saying:

http://benedictroffmarsh.com/2015/08/19 ... n-patches/

http://benedictroffmarsh.com/2015/08/27 ... -strategy/

http://benedictroffmarsh.com/2015/09/01 ... aking-art/

Like Selig, you will find I repeatedly remind people to take the time to understand the concepts before rushing on. Taking the time at the start will rocket you ahead later - but far faster/further than if you rushed ahead.

Wait - I though Ray was saying not to do as I said, but you seem to be agreeing with both of us? I still say to learn "what the bits do" first and THEN set a goal. IMO it would be like trying to mix a complex song before having a clue what an EQ or compressor or reverb or delay did. But that's just me…

Um ok. Damned if you do and damned if you don't LOL

I actually hadn't thought you and Ray were taking opposing views on this at all. I figure if you have a goal in mind then you find it easier to have a reason to care why Attack on an Env is useful/important. I was definitely agreeing with you (I think) that skipping over learning that A (of the DSR) will do more harm than good as random is rarely a useful way to design bridges (that you don't want collapsing mid-build).

Perhaps if we define our sense of Goal then it will make more sense. Ray says set a "goal of a piano" and then that helps you define what functions/modules you need to get that done. Your goal Selig is probably broader in the sense of "wanting to be able to make the sounds you want" so you learn the modules so when you want a piano you know what to reach for. I like doing both. That is how I approached my first synth and generally still do.

Big Goal worked towards by using smaller Goals.

I don't think people should try to mix complex songs with side-chained compressors etc. before they understand natural balance anyway. I think that is a great problem as kids come along and expect to make tracks that rely on tricky mixing instead of the basics. That is a nightmare for them as it is so discouraging when they fail time and again, not realizing the track is not really what they think they hear at all (avasopht's "Chunks"). I think they would come along far quicker by making more straightforward mixes and if there is really a killer track in there, someone else con come along and complex it up.

Yes completely agree - thanks!

I don't think we're at odds at all.
More of an iterative "agile" approach to learning and experimenting rather than a waterfall...

[Benedict]

[Exowildebeest]

It's a bit of both worlds imo. Once you get better at synthesis, your goals will be more clearly defined and you'll be able to identify parts and set sub-goals, like "detuned saws, a little chorus, long release... A sub osc with a bit off FM..." Whereas in the beginning, you're just thinking "I want that tsshhhbeep-like sound!".

[chimp_spanner]

I've always had a good working knowledge of synthesis on a per-plugin basis, but I never really knew what was going on until I got into modular synthesis. Building a synth from the ground up, one component at a time gave me a whole new understanding and more importantly an ability to load up any synth and - provided it's not totally alien in design - start making sounds.

Of course diving into something like the A-Series might not necessarily be for everyone, so it's just a suggestion. It might be useful to just watch the tutorial videos for them put together by Ochen K, and then try to recognise how the connections are made internally in other instruments.

I think more than anything I'd say try not to think of it in terms of learning Subtractor, but rather learning about the parts that make Subtractor up. Once you know what they are, how they're connected and how to identify them in other synths, you'll be on the right path.

[Creativemind]

Some very good info here. The learning how to make the individual sounds on a synth, such as a violin, a piano and a bell sound like a great approach. Also what chimp said about understanding how each component works.

Why I mentioned Scope Jnr was, I thought visually seeing the wave oscillations might help me understand what's going on waveform wise.

Do any of you think a visual ADSR envelope that can adjust the ADSR by moving the individual points on it would help me undersrand ADSR better, or don't you think that matters?

Great stuff,
Thanks guys.

[Exowildebeest]

Do any of you think a visual ADSR envelope that can adjust the ADSR by moving the individual points on it would help me undersrand ADSR better, or don't you think that matters?

Any ADSR with knobs/sliders is already "visual" imo.

And even if it's just numbers, it's not that hard to visualize in your mind.

Here's a visualization of your average envelope in pseudo-ASCII:

/TT\

[Creativemind]

I think the best way to learn synthesis is not to look at a synth and think "what do the bits do?"

The best way is to start with the end in mind. Have a listen to basic everyday sounds and think about the character of the sound, and then learn about what is required to re-create that sound. Read up as you go for tips and tricks.

Start with a violin. That's a good one. Learn about timbre, dynamics, pitch, and then that will quickly lead you to learn about the sawtooth wave, slow attack, filtering and vibrato.

Then try a piano. That will teach you about decay, and applying key follow to a filter cutoff and envelope time.

And then a bell. Learn about ring modulation / frequency modulation (FM), complex waveforms, additive synthesis.

And so on...

I've been meaning to get to grips with this since you said it. Slacker I know lol!

Anyway, gonna start with a violin. Any tips / links / video's that would help get me started. I seriously don't know where to begin.

Would I begin by listening to a violin on it's own perhaps? then go from there. The only thing that immediately springs to mind is 1) it's gonna have a slow attack and b) it's going to have a lot of low end frequencies, so filtering off the high end will be involved.

[Gaja]

In case you haven't done so already, check out the bit on subtractor in the Reason manual. It gives a great overview on the concept of subtractive synthesis in general and applying it to subtractor specifically (which I personally found was a great synth to start with). It also features a few tutorials.