What's your favorite synthesis method--

[GuyaGuy]

Modular isn't a form of synthesis.
It's a description of the hardware.

[JayEm]

FM, and Transwave. Make this a poll perhaps, if it lets you.

Good idea, I'll do it!

Which ones should be included?

- Subtractive, modular, additive, FM, Phase Distortion, Wavetable, Granular, physical modeling, cellular automaton...


brian

sampling, granular and wavetable aren't really synth types. more descriptive of the oscillator type.

[Re-Member]

Subtractive for the most part, although I'm getting more and more into FM and find it far more interesting.

Same here. I got bit by the FM bug earlier this year when I decided to buy a DX100 on a whim. I ended up getting a DX11 almost immediately after and now I have both set up on on their own two-tier stand. I almost feel like after so many years of playing on subtractive analog synths, I no longer find myself randomly "discovering" new types of sounds. Any time I move a knob or slider, I always know what's going to happen and can already hear the changes in my head before doing so.

On the DXs, simply picking a preset and changing the parameters (mainly the algorithm and freq ratios) turns into total chaos. There's always something new and wild and I can never really predict what kind of sound I will get because it's different depending on which preset I choose. Add the fact that there's literally thousands of presets out there to download which I could into load into these machines and tweak at random... I might not be able to build a sound from scratch yet, but I'm finding it just as exciting as when I first got into analog synths so many years ago.

[CS_TBL]

Considering how all these methods become hybrids these days (FM8 has a filter, and can play a sample with the IN-operator, a Novation Supernova 2 also has FM etc.), a poll may be too exact to really form an insight into our preferences. A regular forum thread may be the most sensible way to collect this information.

[moremagic]

my favorite synthesis method is LOUD!

[briandc]

Considering how all these methods become hybrids these days (FM8 has a filter, and can play a sample with the IN-operator, a Novation Supernova 2 also has FM etc.), a poll may be too exact to really form an insight into our preferences. A regular forum thread may be the most sensible way to collect this information.

True. I guess perhaps a poll would be to have a "general, at-a-glance" idea of a certain type of synthesis.
At the same time, discussing not just "which" but "how come" is what I wanted to see too.

For example, I personally tend to prefer subtractive synthesis. Since there are literally hundreds of virtual synths available these days (I have over one hundred free ones that I enjoy immersing myself in), the quickest way (for me) to get an idea of the "character" of the synth is to crank up the filter resonance, keep the freqency cutoff low, and have the filter decay to a low sustain level. That way, I can actually "feel" the filter. (Strangely, not all LPFs are the same!) Then once I get to "know" the filter, I start working with the other parameters.

Here's an example where you can really hear the filter. In this case, the pitch modulation was also affected because the oscillator sync was also activated:

Xsynth


brian

[briandc]

Modular isn't a form of synthesis.
It's a description of the hardware.

It's true that it's not different, and yet it is, because things can be arranged in very unusual ways that you don't have the freedom to do with standard subtractive synths. Imo, anyway..


brian

[briandc]

sampling, granular and wavetable aren't really synth types. more descriptive of the oscillator type.

Kind of ditto here, too. I agree that sampling isn't synthesis, and technically if nothing is done to the sampled sound then it isn't synthesized at all.
I have a Motif 8, and although I'm now kind of a "purist" about using waveforms rather than samples, it is nonetheless a powerful machine for manipulating sampled audio files. So to me it is indeed a synthesis approach (and an approach different than other high-end samplers) even if it's not my preferred method.


brian

[mute]

All 3 of those things are legit forms of synthesis along with vector, resynthesis, etc. I don't think this thread wants to go that route though... it's teetering on becoming "one of those". Just mark them under the hybrid category and move on. CS_TBL said it best in his reply.

[dustinh]

Subtractive for the most part, although I'm getting more and more into FM and find it far more interesting.

... I might not be able to build a sound from scratch yet, but I'm finding it just as exciting as when I first got into analog synths so many years ago.

Keep sticking with it! There is a book called The Complete DX7 and its online for free. I worked through the whole book in a couple of weeks and it helped my understanding of fm synthesis tremendously. While it's not all inclusive on how to program every last sound, it has given me a big foundation to build upon. I can now program most sounds that I want with fm.

-if you don't have a dx7 to follow along with for the book, download dexed. It's a free vst that sounds and operates the same exact way a dx7 does.

[CS_TBL]

Best and easiest way to learn FM is by having anything that has a freeform algorithm. What killed the fun in the DX7 was the fact that it had fixed algorithms.

[dustinh]

I used the dx7 book because I had a hard time finding useful curriculum on fm synthes. Only a few "how to make this one sound" videos and a couple half assed articles on it. I know I'm probably missing some good online resources out there, but I couldn't find them.

The fm 8 is my favorite fm instrument because I also love assigning the operators to wherever you please as opposed to preset algorithms.

[vladimotor]

Love the sounds of FM synthesis, but do not love to program FM.

[Arcticflange]

So many people say they like FM very much in these threads, yet there are almost no new FM synths being made. This is maybe becasue noone is willing to pay top dollar for a good FM synth.

[CS_TBL]

For proper FM with a free FM-algorithm, proper segment envelopes and proper scaling, you would need hardware with the overview of software (or more specific: a large graphics interface). It already exists as software, so why make it as expensive hardware? FM today is likely to be more popular in the studio than on stage, and more 'n more producers move into the box, so again why bother making it into a hardware machine? FM8 is from 2006, and it still holds up.