|
Exploring the fundamentals of synthesis (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by Render
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. |
Subtractive is pretty much the core of most sounds you'll want to create, and arguably the simplest to get to grips with to start with. Even when you further explore other forms of synthesis such as additive, FM, wavetable etc, those forms of synthesis really just describe the tone generator and then it's onto the same architecture you'll find in a traditional subtractive synth. Sound generator into filter into amplifier with various modulators hooked into that path.
As for Massive, although it's relatively simple the ultimate sound can be altered a great deal by fairly small adjustments. You may have missed something in the modulation oscillator or even some of the modulation itself. The modulation on it is fairly abstract as it doesn't have a traditional mod matrix, rather a series of coloured numbers and corresponding coloured values around the modulated parameter.
I would recommend starting off with one of the simple VA plugins in your DAW, or perhaps something like Sylenth. Sylenth is really still the king of dance synths. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
http://www.rolandkuit.com
sells tutorilals for synthesis using modular components. You can use the nord modular demo software which is identical to the synth but 1 voice but all the patches work with it.
It goes from simple to nutty,
Personally, i think synthesis alone is only half the work. Things start getting interesting when you create unique chains of fx that make things different. Also using tools that allow very complex and caloric modulation can be cool.
a lot of people get stuck on the static sound without getting the most they can from 1 patch. |
|
|
| farris |
| quote: | Originally posted by Render
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? |
To quickly answer your question with an analogy:
I would learn the basics of aviation and how to fly in a Cessna first, then something like a Learjet and eventually have a look at a Boeing 747.
Cessna
Learjet
Boeing 747
 |
|
|
| tehlord |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
http://www.rolandkuit.com
Personally, i think synthesis alone is only half the work. Things start getting interesting when you create unique chains of fx that make things different. Also using tools that allow very complex and caloric modulation can be cool.
|
This is very true
A lot of purists get sniffy about using a synths onboard FX, but when they're used as part of the sound design process you can achieve results that you simply cannot do with synthesis alone.
Massive's space expander is an obvious example, or the distortion in the Virus. |
|
|
| Render |
| quote: | Originally posted by inversoundzzz
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. |
Yea I feel you, it really is a subjective experience. I can picture myself getting great benefits out of a hardware synth, because I've always excelled in the live playing experience. The reason I'm not seeing it as a personal necessity at this point, is because my goal really has to do with the full composition being shared over the Internet, and even for live playing my roots are in computer production. Not disagreeing though, just stating where my intentions are at relative to what you were outlining. You're statements give some good perspective on why and how the software/hardware difference makes a difference and for whom it may apply to.
I've never been a fan of arpeggiators for my personal work. The reason being that I much prefer sculpting my arpeggios and modifying them at the seams rather than aligning them mathematically. I suppose arpeggiators are great for generating melodies or support for chord progressions or whatever they may be used for, but whenever I've used an arpeggiator, I've always preferred just constructing the melody myself. Nothing wrong with it, just personal preference.
Yea this is by far the most qualitative and quantitative set of responses I've gotten from any forum that I've asked this question at so far. Really making this a much clearer decision for me to make in terms of where to start and how to progress. |
|
|
| Render |
| quote: | Originally posted by Looney4Clooney
http://www.rolandkuit.com
sells tutorilals for synthesis using modular components. You can use the nord modular demo software which is identical to the synth but 1 voice but all the patches work with it.
It goes from simple to nutty,
Personally, i think synthesis alone is only half the work. Things start getting interesting when you create unique chains of fx that make things different. Also using tools that allow very complex and caloric modulation can be cool.
a lot of people get stuck on the static sound without getting the most they can from 1 patch. |
Yea you're so right. Things only start to get really cool when you start talking with the patch's capabilities and then creating chains of those chains as well, which is an entirely interwoven language in itself. This Roland Kuit stuff looks really interesting, I've never looked into anything like it before. It's great that he offers Skype lessons. He seems to have a really different take on things than I tend to stumble upon in the typical sphere that I've been looking through. |
|
|
| Render |
| quote: | Originally posted by farris
To quickly answer your question with an analogy:
I would learn the basics of aviation and how to fly in a Cessna first, then something like a Learjet and eventually have a look at a Boeing 747. |
Perfect analogy, thanks for that. It's been pretty easy for me to overlook the obvious truths of this. Time to grab me a Cessna. |
|
|
| djshire |
| quote: | Originally posted by Soyagua
Just bought JP-8000 and was reading the owners manual http://media.rolandus.com/manuals/JP-8000_OM.pdf . Starting from page 104 there is a section called 'Underatanding sound' that clarified the thing for me. |
I have an 8080 and I LOVE IT. Have fun with your 8K, explore all the patches (there's a lot), and remember to use that ribbon controller (my 8080 doesn't have one) |
|
|
| tehlord |
Ribbon controller = Petri dish
Only to be used if you owned the synth from new.
Ew. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| ya, , i wouldn't touch the 8080. Use a controller. That synth , the keyboard version especially, kinda flimsy. |
|
|
| Looney4Clooney |
| That's why controllers are so much better. You can define that initial lag so you don't have to worry about things every clicking. The 8080 is a way better purchase. |
|
|
|
|
