Frequency Block Synthesis

[whyterabbyt]

There are 24 basic sound blocks that build up all of the 128 instruments. This is not a D50.

The number of 'basic sound blocks' doesnt make something a new synthesis method.

[Innovative synthesis]

The waveforms or partials are not complex voices or complex instruments in FBS, on D50 they are. In FBS there are specially prepared frequency blocks that are 24 building blocks for all the presets! I think/know FBS is a much different concept than D50s.

And you're absolutely right that simply increasing or decreasing the number of basic sound blocks alone wouldn’t constitute a new synthesis method. But Frequency Block Synthesis (FBS), isn't just about quantity — it's about how these blocks are structured, combined, and modulated in the frequency domain.

What sets FBS apart is its modular frequency segmentation, allowing precise, independent manipulation of distinct frequency bands with custom envelopes, modulations, or even synthesis types per block. This offers a different paradigm from, say, additive or subtractive synthesis, which typically operate across a unified spectral structure.

So while the term "basic sound blocks" might sound familiar, FBS introduces a novel architecture for working with them — and that's where the new synthesis approach emerges.

[Tj Shredder]

If I understood this correct, you could achieve this by layering 8 instances of one wavetable which contains these 24 waveforms. (A wavetable would even simplify the morphing…) These frequency blocks, as you call it, deliver the overtone structure of your sounds. Maybe enhanced with noise?
How do the waveforms look like?

[Tj Shredder]

Maybe we should move that interesting discussion to a new thread either in the instruments or sound design forum. It certainly has nothing to do with the original topic, which was meant to cover new ways to control sound. That „new“ sound design method is still made for a boring keyboard with limited expression…

[Innovative synthesis]

Layering multiple instances of a single wavetable that holds the 24 waveforms is one way to approach it — especially if the wavetable supports smooth interpolation or morphing. That morphing would indeed approximate the spectral transitions that Frequency Block Synthesis (FBS) leverages, though with some limitations.

Where FBS differs is in how it treats each "block" (essentially a spectral slice) independently in terms of frequency range and temporal activation. Rather than a linear morph across a wavetable, FBS allows dynamic, modular control over which spectral regions (blocks) are active and how they evolve — kind of like additive synthesis meets sequenced partial control.

Regarding noise: yes, definitely! Noise or filtered noise can be added as a separate block e.g. blended into upper frequency bands to enrich the texture, especially for percussive or breathy timbres.

As for how the waveforms look — good question! They're not traditional time-domain waveforms but more like partial-band limited spectral profiles. Visually, you could think of them as clusters of harmonics confined to specific frequency windows (e.g., a block might emphasize harmonics 5–9, while another block might target 13–16), each with its own envelope and sometimes modulated by LFOs or macros.

[Innovative synthesis]

There are already started discussions elsewhere in KVR forum.
This is not only an innovative synthesis, but also e.g. a new soundset concept "synth-in-a-pack" so it is already in "sound design" forum too.

[whyterabbyt]

What sets FBS apart is its modular frequency segmentation, allowing precise, independent manipulation of distinct frequency bands with custom envelopes, modulations, or even synthesis types per block.

That's why I said additive with complex waveforms.

And there probably isnt a sound designer out there who worked with a synth or sampler with layering that hasnt already done something like this; its not new, its actually obvious. Check any collection of Wavestation patches.

Or are you really insisting that noone figured out you could layer and modulate samples with different harmonic content before now?

This offers a different paradigm from, say, additive or subtractive synthesis, which typically operate across a unified spectral structure.

No, its not a different paradigm at all. You're using an existing synth engine with tailored data; that doesnt make it a new synth engine, or a new method.

Sell your stuff on what you actually achieved, not what you havent.

[whyterabbyt]

. a new soundset concept "synth-in-a-pack"

No, that's not even vaguely a new concept either. That's hundreds of Kontakt libraries. That's most of UVI's content for Falcon. That's Omniverse. That's every Proteus rompler ever. Here's just one random quote via Google.

2018 "Some years ago I demonstrated using Kontakt-Sampler as a synth"

https://vi-control.net/community/thread ... nth.76211/

[whyterabbyt]

From James Clark's 2003 classic manual/guide on the Nord Modular.

Having a separate frequency and amplitude envelope for every sinusoid in the set of overtones is very resource intensive. This is a serious problem in systems like the Nord Modular in which these resources are limited. One way in which to increase efficiency is to group sets of overtones and associate just a single amplitude/frequency envelope pair to each group. This grouping makes the design process more difficult, as the designer must now identify those overtones which have similar frequency and amplitude dynamics. One commonly used grouping technique is to identify groups consisting of overtones that are harmonically related. The advantage of such groups is that they can be generated using single, filtered, non-sinusoidal, waveforms. This approach can be thought of as a hybrid of additive synthesis and subtractive synthesis, where the subtractive process controls the spectral properties of the individual groups, and the additive process combines different groups to obtain the overall desired result.

Lets repeat that. A hybrid of additive synthesis and subtractive synthesis, where the subtractive process controls the spectral properties of the individual groups, and the additive process combines different groups to obtain the overall desired result.

Sound familiar? This is exactly what you are claiming as your new synthesis method. The only difference is that you are baking these groups into complex waveforms (ie samples). But baking the groups into 'samples' (aka wavetables) would be about the most obvious way
of implementing this in the synthesis engine there is. Using complex waveforms, including samples, in additive synthesis is not new.

The same page of this guide it is clear that additive synthesis can be implemented with the inclusion of non-sine complex waveforms

In this patch, an impulsive noise burst and a short pulse-wave transient are mixed with a simple 5-voice additive synthesis sound. The fifth partial of the additive part is implemented with a pulse generator rather than with a sine-wave. This is a useful trick when you have a limited number of partials to work with - let the highest partial be a non-sinusoidal wave, with lots of harmonics.

Here is a link to a web-based additive synthesis waveform generator, which uses non-sine waveforms as partials, including one defined as 'violin'.

https://meettechniek.info/additional/ad ... hesis.html

These are not just prior art for your method, it is proof that your method fails on what patent law classes as 'obviousness.'
You're basically claiming that no-one but you ever thought of mixing together layers that contained samples, or tailoring the frequency content of a sample. Even though those things are absolutely bloody obvious.

And you didnt even create the synthesis engine you're using. You're claiming invention of a new method even though its implemented with an existing method. And you're doing so on the basis of your samples? Even though additive synthesis with complex waveforms was already a known thing. Even though sample layering was already a known thing. There are plenty of 'synths' built in samplers with layered waveforms.
Changing the data used by a method doesnt make it a different method, any more than frying is a different 'method' if its an egg rather than bacon.

I find this whole scenario exceptionally weird, and full of hubris. You're now the second preset maker who has turned up here claiming to have invented a new method of synthesis by making patches for an existing synth. Even though the synth is still doing the same stuff as it ever did.

Its like a taxi driver claiming to have redesigned a city because of the routes they take.

[Innovative synthesis]

Thank you for bringing up the reference from James Clark’s Nord Modular guide, not to mention, that I own a G2 — it's a valuable historical perspective. You're right that grouping harmonically related partials and using non-sinusoidal waveforms to economize on resources has been explored before, particularly in modular systems with strict DSP limits.

However, Frequency Block Synthesis (FBS) — as introduced in the current “1st Sounds FBS Synth-in-a-Pack” — goes beyond this strategy in both structure and intent.

What’s innovative in FBS compared to the modular workaround described by Clark is:

1. Explicit Frequency Block Abstraction: FBS formalizes the idea of a frequency block as a compositional unit — not just a convenience group of harmonics, but a defined spectral band with its own identity, envelope, and potential for dynamic transformation.

2. Multi-block Compositional Layering: Instead of patching individual waveforms or harmonic clusters, FBS builds timbre through layering and sequencing of entire blocks, allowing for macro-level control over spectral form and temporal development.

3. High-Level Timbre Design with Predefined Building Blocks: The current Synth-in-a-Pack includes 24 curated harmonic-based blocks that serve as ready-made, musical spectral components. These aren't just pulse or filtered waves—they’re frequency-domain elements each capturing a distinct timbral character for higher-level control.

4. Designed for Real-Time Spectral Morphing (Future-Ready): While the current release does not yet include real-time algorithmic block generation, the FBS framework is explicitly built with that capability in mind. The long-term vision includes procedural block creation, spectral interpolation, and dynamic modulation — something that goes well beyond swapping a sine for a pulse wave.

So yes, there's a shared lineage — but the core innovation of FBS is that it elevates grouped spectral content into a modular, designable, and (eventually) morphable language of timbre, aimed at expanding sound design workflows beyond oscillator-level thinking.

[Innovative synthesis]

The FBS "synth-in-a-pack" is not a rompler, not a multisample bank, and not a soundfont rehash. It's a modular frequency-domain instrument-building kit, where the sample content is organized by spectral logic, not by traditional patch layering.

So while the delivery format (samples) may look familiar, the underlying architecture and purpose are quite distinct.

[Innovative synthesis]

I try to summarize, how I see FBS:

Let's start with what FBS is not new for:
-The idea of grouping harmonics is not new.
-Additive synthesis using complex waveforms is not new.
-Sample-based sound synthesis is not new.
-Creating presets using existing engines is not new either.

What does make FBS innovative and unique:
-It explicitly defines “frequency blocks” as compositional building blocks — not just tricks or shortcuts, but core structural units.
-It focuses on building timbres using spectrally localized, mid-resolution units, not full samples or oscillators.
-It introduces a new mid-level synthesis layer, situated between traditional additive and spectral synthesis.
-And it’s designed with future expansion in mind, including real-time spectral modulation and interpolation.

This is a conceptual framework for synthesis thinking, not just a new oscillator or DSP trick. That, in itself, carries innovation value.

In case of "synth-in-a-pack", what is not revolutionary:
-Kontakt, UVI, Falcon libraries often include layered sample packs.
-And yes, there have been preset libraries using deep synthesis under the hood.

And what is new in "synth-in-a-pack":
-The “synth-in-a-pack” isn't just a collection of samples, it is a modular, combinable timbral system, built from pre-designed frequency blocks.
-It’s not a sound pack, but a construction kit for timbre.
-Think of it like receiving not just waveforms, but spectrally meaningful partial-group building blocks that you can assemble into entirely new instruments.

[whyterabbyt]

Let's start with what FBS is not new for:
-The idea of grouping harmonics is not new.
-Additive synthesis using complex waveforms is not new.
-Sample-based sound synthesis is not new.
-Creating presets using existing engines is not new either.

ie method.

What does make FBS innovative and unique:
-It explicitly defines “frequency blocks” as compositional building blocks — not just tricks or shortcuts, but core structural units.

Its not a new method because you made up some terminology.

-It focuses on building timbres using spectrally localized, mid-resolution units, not full samples or oscillators.

Terminology is not method. It doesnt matter whether they are full samples, partial samples, or oscillators. There's nothing new about the method, this is all about your data.

-It introduces a new mid-level synthesis layer, situated between traditional additive and spectral synthesis.

No, it doesnt introduce that. That already existed. Its called 'mixing layers', because you implemented it with... mixing layers.

-And it’s designed with future expansion in mind, including real-time spectral modulation and interpolation.

That doesnt make it a new method.

This is a conceptual framework for synthesis thinking, not just a new oscillator or DSP trick. That, in itself, carries innovation value.

And yet still isnt a new method.

And what is new in "synth-in-a-pack":
-The “synth-in-a-pack” isn't just a collection of samples, it is a modular, combinable timbral system, built from pre-designed frequency blocks.

aka 'collection of samples'

-It’s not a sound pack, but a construction kit for timbre.

But not a method.

Think of it like receiving not just waveforms, but spectrally meaningful partial-group building blocks that you can assemble into entirely new instruments.

'spectrally meaningful partial-group building blocks that you can assemble into entirely new instruments' is data, not a method. The 'assembly' method is provably not new.

Feel free to prove its a new method by providing a pseudocode description of the algorithm.

And I repeat; if someone else comes along with their own 'modular frequency-domain instrument-building kit', where they say 'the sample content is organized by spectral logic, not by traditional patch layering' would that be your 'new method', or theirs?

[Innovative synthesis]

I never travel by a taxi.