|
fm synthesis
|
View this Thread in Original format
| azndragon0613 |
| I recently got FL Studio 5 and it comes with the so called Sytrus. I'm working fine with 3xosc, but that's subtractor. Is FM synthesis better than subtractor? The presets for Sytrus sound pretty crazy but the thing is..I have no friggen idea what the heck all the nobs mean. So yeah, FM synthesis...great potential or waste of time? |
|
|
| armanivespucci |
You mean "subractive". FM and Subractive synthesis are simply for different tasks, although, and Diginut will back me up on this, FM is theoretically capable of a wider degree of sounds, for obvious reasons, since you are "modulating" a frequency.
Learn how to work FM synths. You need to if you want to go pro. |
|
|
| IDarkISwordI |
Hey. I'll go ahead and say FM has a lot of potential to create a lot more sounds than subtractive synthesis, but you also need to understand that they are different sounds. Subtractive synthesis has and will always be analog (even if only trying) sounding. FM however, is usually referenced to the digital realm of sounds. The difference is similar to warmth and coldness. I will disagree on the point about needing to learn FM to be able to go 'pro'. Its certainly not a necessity to learn FM. Hell, the last half of the 80s where the DX7 was overwhelmingly popular in synth rock, most musicians used the presets. Now that we have things such as FM7, Blue, Sytrus and many others, its a lot easier to learn FM than it was. To be able to wrap your brain around FM and be able to fully understand it would be a miraculous acheivement. I've seen some very skilled synth programmers program several FM patches before they settled on a similar sound they were looking for. You'll find about 50% of the time, youll find that your patch does absolutely nothing. So while FM can sound really nice, I dont think its a necessity to know how to program it.
Cheers,
Zac |
|
|
| DeZmA |
true, but it's an advantage if you can.
I find myself using both subtractive and fm a lot on va synths that support this combination to give the patch some other timbre |
|
|
| DigiNut |
You can do a lot without FM, you can do a lot with FM. I certainly don't think it takes some sort of miracle to understand it. Perhaps a little more patience than standard subtractive synthesis but that's about it.
It's also not *necessarily* bright. Yes, typically, people will use FM to generate upper harmonics, but it can also be used to create lower harmonics and end up with some really dark, deep sounds. It's not great for actual basslines though - basslines deal with a very narrow frequency range so it's easier to create "phat" bass sounds with subtractive synthesis.
Also, some of the coolest sounds are hybrids of FM/subtractive or FM/sampled sounds. These can either be layered sounds OR using a sample or subtractive synth as a carrier or operator.
It's a good thing to learn - it just takes time and a reasonable level of technical skill to figure out (you can't just fart around with the knobs and wait for a good sound to come out... you have to have a game plan). |
|
|
| Diginerd |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
It's not great for actual basslines though - basslines deal with a very narrow frequency range so it's easier to create "phat" bass sounds with subtractive synthesis. |
2 words..... "Lately Bass"
it comes from a 4 Op FM synth (TX81Z) preset, responsible for a small number of dance basslines..
FM basslines can be hard to get right, but when you do they're incredible.
Something that's interesting is that by adding a filter to FM*7 Native instruments effectively turned it into a hybrid FM / Subractive synth.
Anothe point to note is that there have been many implemetantions of FM over the years. Some of the early ones were also the best.. Droool Synclavier 32 OP FM, Yummy Yamaha Sy 99 (Or it's litte brothers TG77 & Sy 77).
That said FM 7 does a great and very credible job, but like all tools it's good at somethings and weak at others. Basslines are not an area of weakness for FM though. |
|
|
| Derivative |
that depends. do you mean, dillinja big bad basslines? or scouse donks? or psytrance square wave 303 basslines?
few would argue that rigging a pro-one (or any subtractive analogue monosynth) straight into a mixing desk and then out to a PA (no effects, no post processing) is the sound of something very special. and that this sound cannot (yet) be recreated perfectly using digital synths.
subtractive analogue and subtractive virtual analogue are good for certain sounds.
fm digital synths are good at different sounds. neither is better or worse, but its easier to get ridiculously fat bass out of an real analogue synth. its as simple as plug it in and let it rip.
to do something similar that with subtractive virtual analogue, you need to program it and you will probably need to stick it through some valves and post processors anyway.
to do the same with fm. pah. whats the point. this is where diminishing returns rules.
but.
making glassy and/or bell like timbres is easy on fm synths. FM allows for a spectra of sound that isnt possible using conventional subtractive analogues. synthesizing real membranophonic percussion sounds (tablas, bongos etc) are easy on fm synths.
to do something similar on subtractive analogue is much harder, and you wont really be able to do it without a mountain of effects or some degree of fm capability.
to do the same on a real analogue? hah! not a chance.
in conclusion. depends on what you want it to do. both are just different tools with different purposes and different end results.
sytrus isnt designed like a conventional fm synth and its not the best place to learn fm synthesis or programming fm synths. its like learning subtractive synthesis on absynth. its perfect for how you use that particular synth but its not how you traditionally program subtractive synths |
|
|
|
|
