|
Exploring the fundamentals of synthesis (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| inversoundzzz |
Buy a synth(a real physical one), and not a cheap synth...a good synth like a VIRUS or one that lets you really sculpt the sounds using filters and pwm, one that has multiple oscillators, one that has unison, maybe some onbaord fx like phaser, reverb...
then get to know it. read the manuals, undersand how each part connects to the next, understand what an envelope is, I mean really, it wwill take you a while (like many MANY hours) to grasp the concept of an envelope, and the ADSR. these are probably the most important things. you might get it logically but it will take along time to really understand how you can start to manipulate envelopes and filters and oscillators and PWM and subtractive synthesis vs additive to create exotic and "mind-alteriung" sounds that are in your mind.
understand ADSR, understand the difference between the fundamental tones and what harmonics means. understand the difference between frequency and amplitude. undersatnd what an lfo is.....I mean go look up the science about what a wave is, and why a sine wave soudns the way it does vs a hoarmonically rich wave like the square wave
when you listen someones music try and train your ears to pick out how they made that sound, is a square wave or a saw wave...or is it a mix a both...or is is it a pitch envelope or a filter envelope that is making that WEEEOOOOOHHHHH sound
go listen these artists youre inspired by and try and re create the sounds that you think are really amazing... |
|
|
| Render |
| quote: | Originally posted by evo8
what ive done:
read up on synthesis examples online
asked "how was this sound made" questions
watched various tutorials on synthesis online
read a couple of books on synthesis
its a long road and id probably still describe myself as being at a fairly novice level still |
Cool, that makes sense. If I begin piecing together as many sources of information as possible I suppose I'd have no choice but to learn more and more. I definitely have a long, long journey ahead of me. I'm looking forward to when I can start adding to what I already know, rather than skimming the surface of everything and getting nowhere. |
|
|
| Render |
| quote: | Originally posted by cryophonik
You mentioned the "mathematics" once or twice, and, I could be wrong, but I get the sense from your writing that you have a left-brain tendency. You might actually find FM synthesis right up your alley. It's very powerful and I think it's well suited for left-brain thinkers because there is a large mathematics component to it. A person doesn't need to know all the math behind it for it to be useful, but I think that it would be more intuitive to a person who excels at math.
I'm not a commercial sound designer. The only downloadable sounds I have are in a bank created by several of us TAs for the Access Virus a few years ago. If you have a Virus TI/TI2, you can download it from the Access website. I created the first 64 sounds in the bank. Unfortunately, we never created an audio demo for it. |
I actually don't know what side of my brain dominates my thinking on these levels, but yes, understanding how the values relate to each other feels like something that would really shed some light on the subject for me. I experimented with FM synthesis earlier this year. One of those "MASTER FM8 IN 3 HOURS" kinds of things. Makes me chuckle as I hear your perspectives on the subject, I knew there was no way such a thing was truly possible. What I did get from that tutorial was a taste of just how powerful and limitless the world of FM synth (let alone synth in general) can be due to how infinite the controls are. It really is an infinite science. Things can be modulated on exponentially more and more diverse levels, and that kind of notion excites me. I've always had an inkling that using a hardware synth would give me a more intuitive understanding. Especially after reading inversoundzzz's post, I imagine you really must have adopted a great understanding through getting your hands into that world. What are your thoughts on the subject? Do you feel as though approaching the art hands-on provides a better rooting system for future software synth exploration? |
|
|
| Render |
| quote: | Originally posted by farris
Cryophonik pretty much summed it up for you in his post.
I have a couple of things to add too.
Choose just ONE synth and stick with it for a long time.
Get to learn your synth inside and out.
That amazing feature on a newly released softsynth sounds cool, but you probably won’t need it (yet).
As cryophonik said, start with a basic synth.
Something like FabFilter One is a great little softsynth to learn the basics of synthesis with (which I did back in 2005).
Sometimes you just need to get back to the basics and relearn everything again.
Sound on Sound’s 'Synth Secrets' is still worth mentioning too:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/allsynthsecrets.htm
I haven’t read or used the following, but you might find them interesting:
- Rob Papen’s book 'The 4 Element Synth', which comes with a couple of DVD's.
- Syntorial
Good luck!
P.S. Read the manual. I'm not saying this in a patronizing way,
but you won't believe how much you can actually learn by taking a couple of hours
to read it. |
This is all great information to take into account. I actually tried syntorial at a point, and for whatever reason fell out of it due to the fact that the synths I was interested in learning the ropes of were not what they were setting me up to apply what I was learning to. All I mean is that they required that I continue along using a subtractive synth, but I wanted to use Massive, FM8 or Razor, which all had these principals but I could not seem to sync of the functions of syntorial with those selections. I should just continue along the lesson anyway, I'd definitely learn plenty. I hear Sylenth1 is a good choice for this sort of thing. I also have heard great things about Zebra and Diva. FabFilter One looks like a great little synth to get started with. Do you suggest the route of starting with something like that rather than something with a more diverse set of controls? I definitely want to focus on mastery of what I'm already learning before reaching out into other things and complicating the process. Sticking to one synth makes the most sense for that intention. |
|
|
| Render |
| quote: | Originally posted by PaULiN0
Its all good man.
I'm gonna start exploring additive synthesis soon once my kawai gets here. |
I took a look into some of their products. Looks like some high quality stuff. What model are you looking at? What drew you to that brand? |
|
|
| Render |
| quote: | Originally posted by djnitride
Yeah, I plan on attempting the second method when I have enough experience for it to be effective. I have tried it and I just wasn't there yet. Until then, the first method is how I learn.
Also just a random tip, I find tutorials on youtube for synthesis most useful when they are showing how to make a certain classification of sound (ie an evolving pad, stabbing lead, etc) from scratch. They usually explain what each step is for and show their own process which can be very insightful. I think those are generally much better then the ones where they are reproducing some popular sound but not really explaining the reason behind each step. |
Yea I feel that. I'm probably going to be floating in a similar boat, trying a bit of both to get going. I intend on trying more and more to get my initial inspiration from some internally compliant source, and then wherever that takes me it will. I usually lose the majority of my creative intention once the struggle of getting or finding the right sound begins, so as I learn that will hopefully diminish and my creative flow can make it a little further into the transcription process. That's great advice about the tutorials to keep in mind. That will help me sift through a lot of what's been useless to me. |
|
|
| tehlord |
Agreed with what Cryo said
I'd also like to add that it's a good idea to not overthink it too much.
Sure, you'll need to understand what the components of a synth are and how they effect each other, but ultimately you're trying to create 'muscle memory' in the brain by eventually just getting what each parameter does and how it'll effect the sound.
Definitely start off with a simple subtractive synth as what you learn there will be transferable to most other types of synthesis in that they'll all have envelopes, lfo's, filters and modulation sections etc
Find a patch that you like and reverse engineer it. Look at each part of the settings and see how they make up the sound as a whole. |
|
|
| Render |
| quote: | Originally posted by Teezdalien
Some good advice from some here. It's a time consuming process to really develop solid synthesis skill, requiring a lot of experimentation, patience and persistence, but it does sound like you're on the right track.
I second Simon Cann's book and the SOS articles, fantastic resources. I'd also add Welshe's Synthesizer Cookbooks as they really shows another approach to subtractive synthesis through harmonic analysis or the overtone series. This method is great for analysing any sound you like, and getting in the ballpark of recreating that sound using some simple subtractive principles.
Another important aspect of sound design I feel is often overlooked is that of recording/sampling, combining and manipulating recorded audio material, a lot of the time it's more straightforward in achieving certain kinds of complex sounds than trying to synthesize everything. |
Yea I definitely have overlooked that concept. I imagine with an in depth understanding of manipulating preexisting sound, you may be able to synthesize the majority of what you're trying to get at with a microphone or from any appropriate audio source and your potentials once again skyrocket. It's really amazing how deep this rabbit hole goes. The infrastructural approach to learning is so crucial. If I can begin on the right foot and continue, I really don't mind the length of the journey, especially with all of the new discovery along the way, as long as I'm moving toward a real developing understanding. I'm really appreciative to have been pointed in such a seemingly appropriate direction and look forward to reading through all of this suggested material. |
|
|
| Render |
| quote: | Originally posted by inversoundzzz
Buy a synth(a real physical one), and not a cheap synth...a good synth like a VIRUS or one that lets you really sculpt the sounds using filters and pwm, one that has multiple oscillators, one that has unison, maybe some onbaord fx like phaser, reverb...
then get to know it. read the manuals, undersand how each part connects to the next, understand what an envelope is, I mean really, it wwill take you a while (like many MANY hours) to grasp the concept of an envelope, and the ADSR. these are probably the most important things. you might get it logically but it will take along time to really understand how you can start to manipulate envelopes and filters and oscillators and PWM and subtractive synthesis vs additive to create exotic and "mind-alteriung" sounds that are in your mind.
understand ADSR, understand the difference between the fundamental tones and what harmonics means. understand the difference between frequency and amplitude. undersatnd what an lfo is.....I mean go look up the science about what a wave is, and why a sine wave soudns the way it does vs a hoarmonically rich wave like the square wave
when you listen someones music try and train your ears to pick out how they made that sound, is a square wave or a saw wave...or is it a mix a both...or is is it a pitch envelope or a filter envelope that is making that WEEEOOOOOHHHHH sound
go listen these artists youre inspired by and try and re create the sounds that you think are really amazing... |
All of what you said feels bang on. If I approach it with that kind of mentality I know I'll have an endless amount of developmental curves that I can progress along, so I definitely intend on doing so.
It sounds like from your perspective its a given that the best way to develop the intuitive understanding is with a hardware based synth. I've thought that at points, and it's been suggested to me from various sources, but I'm interested in hearing more about why it may be so crucial when compared to some of the software emulations that exist out there today. At the end of the day, is it not a difference of using my hands or my cursor? Is it the fact that I can get a more realistic feel for the changes in sound because I'm in direct muscular association with them? |
|
|
| Render |
| quote: | Originally posted by tehlord
Agreed with what Cryo said
I'd also like to add that it's a good idea to not overthink it too much.
Sure, you'll need to understand what the components of a synth are and how they effect each other, but ultimately you're trying to create 'muscle memory' in the brain by eventually just getting what each parameter does and how it'll effect the sound.
Definitely start off with a simple subtractive synth as what you learn there will be transferable to most other types of synthesis in that they'll all have envelopes, lfo's, filters and modulation sections etc
Find a patch that you like and reverse engineer it. Look at each part of the settings and see how they make up the sound as a whole. |
Yes, that's exactly what I'm looking for at the end of the day. Muscle memory. I want to express the sound due to intention, in the same sort of way that I'd play an instrument. Though I know it may not be exactly appropriate to compare those two forms of expression, at the end of the day I want it to be happening with less technical thought and more personal intention. I tried reverse engineering one of my favorite Massive patches called Harpolodic. I use it as my main instrument of choice on my keyboard. I don't know if any of you use Massive or have brushed by this patch, but I got to a point of being completely stumped. I was so confident that every possible parameter was set identically, yet the sound was vastly different in quality. I know its obvious that something was off, but I couldn't find it, and I looked, and I looked. If someone happens to find the time I would be delighted to hear that someone reverse engineered it. I don't mean to teach me why it works but just to find the bloody missing link. Completely demotivated me.
And yea I get you. Starting simple, so that it fits into the system of the more diverse. Definitely makes the most sense to me. Are you saying that a subtractive synth is the simplest form as opposed to the other styles? Or is at least the most universal to the rest? I feel as though you answered that question with what you said, but hearing the definitive reasoning behind it from someone of experience is always informative. |
|
|
| inversoundzzz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Render
All of what you said feels bang on. If I approach it with that kind of mentality I know I'll have an endless amount of developmental curves that I can progress along, so I definitely intend on doing so.
It sounds like from your perspective its a given that the best way to develop the intuitive understanding is with a hardware based synth. I've thought that at points, and it's been suggested to me from various sources, but I'm interested in hearing more about why it may be so crucial when compared to some of the software emulations that exist out there today. At the end of the day, is it not a difference of using my hands or my cursor? Is it the fact that I can get a more realistic feel for the changes in sound because I'm in direct muscular association with them? |
yea it's so you can feel the instrument, the synth is an instument, and a good synth has an actual keyboard. with decent keys and not one with just one octave. and youre a musician so you play an isntrument, and then you meet other people, and you take your synth over tthere and they start jamming or a drum beat and you make this WEEEOAAHHHH BRHHHHHHHH sound that only a synth can make.(hyphetically speaking)
this is MY approach, everything i said was how i did it. and I dont even know what my ultimate goal is. I have an idea...but you might do a different way. ddepends what your goal is. like get a midi controller and use only soft synths. it's just my opinion. one of many. it's the way I do it. but lots of people don't. for whatever reasons...everytones unique. because if your goal is to share the sounds online only then you dont need to take your synth anywhere., but it's just different looking on a computer screen at what you r doing compared to not needing that, all you need is the synth in front of you. it's just totally different. it creates a relationship with the synth, the synth is a box, it's what is making the sounds....but theres different types, like theres a keyboard player, he plays a casio keybpoard and doesnt even know what a pitch envelope is....then theres a crazy sound designer who doesnt know how to play music....so theres all different types. theres musicians....then theres engineers, then theres, artists, not classical musicians, but people who are musical and like twiddling knobs and make cool crazy sounds. they can just sit there for hours and mess with sounds.
oh yeah...and the synth should have a good arpegiator on it. or your DAW. knowing how to use an arpegiator is imperative to electronic music.
again this is just one way, the way I would go about it. so you might not agree with all of it but maybe some so hope it helps.
you asked in the right place because the people here have a lot of good info....that will save you alot of aggravations. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by Render
Especially after reading inversoundzzz's post, I imagine you really must have adopted a great understanding through getting your hands into that world. What are your thoughts on the subject? Do you feel as though approaching the art hands-on provides a better rooting system for future software synth exploration? |
Yeah, I do agree with inversoundzzz that working with a hardware synth is preferable, although not a necessity. For many people, having just one good hardware synth keeps you focused on the instrument, and as inversoundzzz alluded, begs you to "play" it. As mentioned, I learned on an analog mono and it was a very basic one at that (Moog/Realistic MG-1) - I believe that having such a limited synth with so few bells/whistles made it easy to stay focused on learning the fundamental controls and how they affect the sound. For that reason, I'm not sure that I agree with the Virus recommendation, but don't necessarily disagree with it either. My Virus has been my #1 synth for years, but it could be a bit intimidating/overkill for somebody just learning. OTOH, it's a synth that you'd grow into.
I think that something like a Nord Lead (particularly the older models, NL1, NL2/X) have a more focused workflow due to having more dedicated knobs, switches and a relatively simpler interface. Or, a decent analog mono or poly like a Moog or one of the knobby Dave Smith products (e.g., Prophet 08, Mopho keys, Mopho X4) might be a good choice. I've owned most of these, and recently picked up a Mopho X4 that is an awesome synth that I think would be perfect for somebody just getting into synthesis/sound design. Stay away from something like a Tetra or Mopho desktop because the lack of knobs defeats the purpose of learning synthesis on a hardware unit.
| quote: | Originally posted by tehlord
I'd also like to add that it's a good idea to not overthink it too much.
Sure, you'll need to understand what the components of a synth are and how they effect each other, but ultimately you're trying to create 'muscle memory' in the brain by eventually just getting what each parameter does and how it'll effect the sound.
Definitely start off with a simple subtractive synth as what you learn there will be transferable to most other types of synthesis in that they'll all have envelopes, lfo's, filters and modulation sections etc
Find a patch that you like and reverse engineer it. Look at each part of the settings and see how they make up the sound as a whole. |
^^^pro/commercial sound designer. Heed his excellent advice^^^ ;)
BTW, great topic! Nice to see people engaged in some serious production talk here again. TA needs more of this. |
|
|
|
|
