Overestimated synths?

[ghettosynth]

Harmour

You're British, I assume?

Sorry, yes, I make that mistake often. I've lived in the states for years, but I still do that regularly.

[.jon]

Well, you came in with another little drive-by and rather than try to understand my POV stated I had no understanding of Yahama FM!

Because you have no understanding of Yamaha or any other FM whatsoever, as you clearly demonstrated in this thread multiple times. Keeping on ranting in the face of facts is insanity, which I actually bet is the case with you. I tried to explain you in simple and clear terms what you got wrong, you rage, insult and whine because apparently being wrong and dumb would shatter your illusions of grandeur. You're a waste of time.

[incubus]

I LOVE harmor

I don't always use it though. One thing to keep in mind is it isn't limited to it's presets, or learning the settings by ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.

In fact, there are times I get so lost in it I just shut down because I'm not the sharpest tool and I get too excited about cool things.

You can become a sample/loop junkie with it and forget to feed the pets.

[Armagibbon]

It's not that much different than the "turbo" button on the front of early PCs. There wasn't really a turbo anywhere to be found, it was just a popular auto feature in the 80s that people associated with fast.

What's the legendary turbo button got to do with this?
Yeah, it's a misnomer, but it did worse than just that, since it limited the processor's operating frequency for compatibility with old software. That's like the total opposite of "go fast" that you'd think a turbo would do.

Yes, when disengaged. When engaged, it enabled the higher clock setting, hence turbo. The button's purpose was to imply the faster speed mode. Nobody in the history of man thought that turbo implied the compatibility speed. Seriously, are you just looking for an argument? Perhaps you should heed Hink's advice and get back on topic. If the best thing that you have to contribute to a conversation is to debate an example that is really pretty f**king clear, then, perhaps you could find better things to do then post on KVR?

Hey, you're the one looking for an argument here, I'm just saying shit.

Besides, the turbo worked differently based on implementation. Engaged or disengaged would do opposite things based on the manufacturer. You know, lack of standardization does that.


Why'd you have to get all offended anyway? I'm not attacking anything here. Hell, it's like some of you folks are just raring to go and hate for the sake of it.

[martinjuenke]

Some guys here love to throw stones into a calm lake and watch the induced waves to ripple...

[ghettosynth]

Some guys here love to throw stones into a calm lake and watch the induced waves to ripple...

Nonsense, it was a dumb combative comment about a simple example. Nobody thought of "turbo" as being the slow speed regardless of which way the button worked.

Neither you nor he are talking about synthesizers. Why don't you start, or go find your own thread where you debate turbo buttons and people's attitudes?

Back to synths:

Someone asked what was neither over nor underestimated. Samplers, I'd say.

[Armagibbon]

Holy moley, the passive aggression is real! Chill out.
You're not even quoting the guy who asked, it's like you're leaving a turd in this "calm lake" over here and pretending it's not there. Don't be like that man.


But yeah, I'd say samplers are pretty much never overestimated except when they can't sample anything. Like Kontakt.
Why not give the crown of indifference to organ synths? Nobody expects anything from them but the sounds they invariably make.

[martinjuenke]

Some guys here love to throw stones into a calm lake and watch the induced waves to ripple...

Nonsense, it was a dumb combative comment about a simple example. Nobody thought of "turbo" as being the slow speed regardless of which way the button worked.

Neither you nor he are talking about synthesizers. Why don't you start, or go find your own thread where you debate turbo buttons and people's attitudes?

Back to synths:

Someone asked what was neither over nor underestimated. Samplers, I'd say.

Hahaha, actually this IS my thread...
But some guys think they are smart but behave like ***************

[ghettosynth]

I LOVE harmor

I don't always use it though. One thing to keep in mind is it isn't limited to it's presets, or learning the settings by ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.

In fact, there are times I get so lost in it I just shut down because I'm not the sharpest tool and I get too excited about cool things.

You can become a sample/loop junkie with it and forget to feed the pets.

I vaguely remember watching some videos about this sometime back. IIRC, the interface was just a bit strange.

[thecontrolcentre]

Some guys here love to throw stones into a calm lake and watch the induced waves to ripple...

Nonsense, it was a dumb combative comment about a simple example. Nobody thought of "turbo" as being the slow speed regardless of which way the button worked.

Neither you nor he are talking about synthesizers. Why don't you start, or go find your own thread where you debate turbo buttons and people's attitudes?

Back to synths:

Someone asked what was neither over nor underestimated. Samplers, I'd say.

Hahaha, actually this IS my thread...
But some guys think they are smart but behave like ***************

[aumordia]

The point isn't really about harmor in particular, rather additive in general. It's billed as being able to synthesize anything -- you have full control over the partials! In practice, it actually gets used to make dubstep basses, bells, organs, and some plucks. So, not everything, hence, overestimated.

Sure there's resynthesis, but thats basically sample mangling and rather missing the point.

Harmor is the best combination of power, sound quality, and usability to be found in an FL Studio synth -- it's deservedly the flagship synth for that DAW, and it's for that reason I think it's almost singlehandedly keeping additive synthesis alive. But that has just as much to do with the popularity of FL as with the quality of Harmor. If it was vector synthesis all the FL users would be understandably singing the praises of vector synthesis.

Beyond that, there's what, Alchemy? I missed the boat on that one, but it seems like a great synth, however, I wouldn't really call Alchemy an additive synth any more than I'd call Spire an FM synth. Rather, additive synthesis is one of the tools in Alchemy's toolbox, and that is the proper stance to take I think. It's the same thing with FM.

Classic subtractive synthesis has really exceeded expectations, and the winning approach seems to be a subtractive foundation with other capabilities bolted on. If this sounds inelegant, it's because it is, which I think drives synthesists a bit crazy (OCD is probably much more common among synthesists than the general population), but it's pragmatic, and it works. I think that's part of the appeal of modular synthesis -- you get to have the conceptual purity of "doing modular synthesis," but then you pragmatically slap together the filters and envelopes you need to make your weird sounds usable. In fact one particular popular approach is to come up with weird sounds using modular synthesis and then load them into a sampler and use them subtractively (or sequence them directly in a dawn track to essentially the same effect).

Further, note that all the specialized synths which are generally considered the best at what they do are the ones which incorporate their niche synth techique into a subtractive framework. IL's Ogun is actually more powerful in many ways than Harmor from a purely additive perspective, but Harmor, which is additive-doing-subtractive, is the clear winner here. It's not just that it's more popular, it's that a wider array of more usable sounds get produced in Harmor than in Ogun due to the power of the subtractive paradigm. Ogun even came with a sophisticated randomization algorithm built in to help explore the whole space of possibilities, but it only ever came up with the variations on the usual additive themes.

Likewise for FM synths, the winners are the ones that incorporate FM into a subtractive architecture like FM8 and Sytrus, replete with filters. In fact, I'd say a lot of the success of Zebra has to do with the brilliant incorporation of many of the best bits of various forms of synthesis. The oscillators are by turns additive, granular, and wavetable. There FM for oscillators and filters. It's modular, but in a structured way. The oscillator effects expand upon the initial ideas behind phase distortion synthesis. And on and on. I'm surprised it's a German synth, it has the pragmatic character you'd expect from an Anglo or an American.

Another great example is Serum. I think it's a mistake to just cite the UI or the low aliasing. It goes even further than Zebra in incorporation a bunch of different synth techniques -- even sampling -- into what is at heart a very classic subtractive architecture.

Of course it's a big world and maybe something will come along to prove me wrong, but I suspect that subtractive synthesis + other stuff is going to be the paradigm to beat for a loooong time.

DISCLAIMER: If any of the preceding offended you, I don't really care, find your spine. But FWIW I am guilty of all of the above, from OCD to synth idealism to being both German and American. My observations are based as much on self-reflection as on anything else.

[ghettosynth]

The point isn't really about harmor in particular, rather additive in general. It's billed as being able to synthesize anything -- you have full control over the partials! In practice, it actually gets used to make dubstep basses, bells, organs, and some plucks. So, not everything, hence, overestimated.

Right, but, the limitations with additive and being able to synthesize "anything" is that it is non-trivial to express the parameters. This was part of the win of FM. However, whereas with additive there is something of a more direct relationship between the spectral decomposition and the process of re-synthesis, with FM this isn't true at all.

But yes, naturally, I agree with the majority of the rest of your post. With additive and with FM there comes a point where expressing the parameters is simply too complex or not possible and it's simply easier to switch to a subtractive approach to that aspect of the synthesis. This in no way should be thought of as a deficit in the sound designer's skill. To assert so is just misguided arrogance. If we think of an optimal approach to reach a desired sound there may well be times where one synthesis technology is not only possible, but ideal, there may also be some advantage in trying to think in those terms to break yourself out of certain ways of thinking, however, I don't think that this is generally the case. Applying subtractive, or frankly, really just per/voice direct spectral modification is a valid tool and may well be the optimum path to a particular sound.

Of course, yes, this is very much a part of the appeal of modular, and just because there's a lot of bad synth programming is not necessarily reason to dismiss the idea.

In general, in fact, I would say that purist approaches born from misguided beliefs that they were the holy grail of synthesis have consistently been overestimated.

[aumordia]

In general, in fact, I would say that purist approaches born from misguided beliefs that they were the holy grail of synthesis have consistently been overestimated.

Agreed completely, especially with this.

[jancivil]

Well, you came in with another little drive-by and rather than try to understand my POV stated I had no understanding of Yahama FM!

Because you have no understanding of Yamaha or any other FM whatsoever, as you clearly demonstrated in this thread multiple times. Keeping on ranting in the face of facts is insanity, which I actually bet is the case with you. I tried to explain you in simple and clear terms what you got wrong, you rage, insult and whine because apparently being wrong and dumb would shatter your illusions of grandeur. You're a waste of time.

That's some story. It has nothing to do with anything you've read from me. So mute me, you have time for telling stories about me like it makes your insulting stupid garbage something other than it is rather than just double down on being an asshole to no other point, save yourself some wasted energy.

I simply believe that the visual structure of the original, ACTUAL algorithms is the way to approach it; when you have operators in a stack seeing the stack is normative in one's process (which for me occupied a fair amount of my time for music for a couple, three years). I'm not insecure at all in this, let alone suffering any illusion. An understanding of this paradigm is not exactly what I'd call grand anyways. You've really gone to extremes with the personal attack.

While you state that there is a core algorithm, because the algorithm is the mathematical principle or some shit. That was countered by pointing out #32 is all carriers. It's one of the algorithms of the DX7 which does not use modulators at all. It's not actually FM. That's a clear understanding which refuted your claim, so what do you need to do but posture and double down (and project). How else does this get to be all about me? You be whatever, I don't care so much about our personality conflict, but if you're going to argue see if you can maintain sober points and useful definitions of terms.

[nineofkings]

Sure there's resynthesis, but thats basically sample mangling and rather missing the point.

I strongly disagree with this. You can't just casually dismiss one of the features that best shows off the power of additive synthesis just because doing so is convenient for your argument.

Additive resynthesis, and Harmor's implementation of it, is special precisely because it isn't sample mangling. Once the sample is resynthesized, it's part of the synth engine. It's no longer a sample, but a collection of parameters. Suddenly it's manipulatable at a fundamental, sound-generating level, with as much control as if you'd made it from scratch, as much as you'd have with any subtractive or FM equivalent.

This also helps reduce the issue of the extreme complexity of additive that ghettosynth mentions. If the sound you want to make is close to something that already exists, you can get most of the way there without having to reverse engineer the starting point yourself.