Automatic Gainsay wrote:
Primal Drive wrote:With all due respect, both subtractive and additive are legitimate forms of synthesis technique and are not just meaningless or silly terms.
Did you read the other things I said? How is subtractive synthesis a "legitimate form of synthesis?" It one portion of the process of "synthesis." It isn't a form of synthesis, it's a part of synthesis. Simply because SO many toss the term around like it defines something does not mean it does. All it addresses is what the filter does... and then, not even very well. If "subtractive" defines the "type of synthesis," what does it mean when you have a "subtractive" synth with multiple oscillators?
I've never seen someone contradict themselves so many times as in that last quote.
Just what the h**l are you arguing against? Subtractive synthesis ISN'T a form of synthesis, but it IS a portion of synthesis, but it ISN'T synthesis because all it involves is a filter, and what about multiple oscillators, but, but, but...
Do you even know what synthesis means?
You realize that the definition of "additive synthesis" has oscillators at different frequences generating sounds?
Yes. In case you're in doubt, re-read my post.
Any "subtractive" analog synth with multiple oscillators is also an "additive" synth.
Not in the strictest sense of additive synthesis. I suggest you do some reading.
THIS is why it is silly, in addition to only addressing what one PART of the process of synthesis includes.
You are woefully misinformed regarding synthesis technique. You may have experience regarding playing various synths, but you've a lot to learn about their technical aspects.
Analog synthesis includes both subtractive synthesis AND basic additive synthesis... as well as factors that are unnamed like modulation, envelopes, etc. It's just a misleading and ineffective means of category.
The only one using misleading terminology here is you. You've somehow blurred various components into a mishmash of your own personal view as to what synthesis really means.
Also, "subtractive" synthesis is not just analog... it can also be digital. ANY synthesizer with a filter, physical or software, is a "subtractive synthesizer." For that reason, it means nothing.
So according to you, if a synthesizer exclusively employs subtractive technique to achieve it's sound, whether analog or digital, defining it as such is meaningless?
Again, I suggest you do some reading. It doesn't matter how many synths you've played in your life time that does not mean that you know what it technically correct regarding nomenclature.
First of all, changing a waveshape is not "synthesis," by definition.
Oh really? So do you have any idea what happens to a waveform when it's processed by a filter? IT CHANGES THE WAVESHAPE! This is basic synthesis 101 yet you're not even aware of this.
Second of all, I have never heard anyone suggest that the process of waveshaping is "subtractive." In every definition I've seen, or heard, it is specifically referencing the removal of harmonics from a waveform via a filter.
And what do think is happening when a saw wave is changed into a triangle wave???
Also, just because you haven't read or heard about something doesn't mean it isn't correct or doesn't exist.
Primal Drive wrote:Additive synthesis is not just the combining or stacking of oscillators. As originally proposed, it was the combination of a fundamental sine wave combined with other sine waves set to various harmonic intervals in descending amplitude to create a complex waveform. Theoretically, by varying the amplitude of the harmonic waves an infinite number of timbres could be created. This may have not been viable with 70 - 80s technology, but it is far from being a silly concept.
The concept isn't silly, the term is if used to distinguish this form of synthesis from traditional analog synthesis.
And who exactly is using the term incorrectly here? As far as I've read in this thread, you're the only one who's brought this up.
Edit to add, sorry for going so OT.