Frequency Block Synthesis

[Innovative synthesis]

Thanks for this comparison. 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 FBS is a much different concept than D50s.

[Tj Shredder]

For me it sounds like a simplified additive synthesis, instead of sine waves you break it down to 8 waveforms to cover all partials. It would be more interesting, if you‘d combine it with analysis. Play an acoustic instrument and the automatically calculate the parameters. But that would require programming skills on your side…
I can‘t see anything fundamentally new in there, its a sound design method. You are not alone in that regard, there is competition which also sell their sound sets…

[Innovative synthesis]

I think it is not a problem if something were simpler than else, but works.
This synthesis is not about programming skills, it is a unique and working synthesis method for an advanced synthesis and sound design. It is about creating new sounds easily and playing on them. What else would people need in the sense of music making?

[Innovative synthesis]

A bit detailed answer:
That's a fair observation — Frequency Block Synthesis (FBS) does share conceptual ground with additive synthesis in the sense that it builds complex timbres from layered components. But the shift from sine waves to pre-defined waveforms grouped into "blocks" isn't just a simplification; it's a deliberate design choice that trades mathematical purity for musical immediacy and character. Each block is curated to capture a broader spectral identity, which makes the system much faster for sound design without sacrificing too much versatility.

You're right that analysis-driven approaches (like resynthesis) would open up fascinating possibilities, especially for integrating acoustic material — and yes, that would definitely involve more programming. It's an avenue worth exploring, and perhaps a natural evolution of the concept.

As for FBS not being fundamentally new — that’s true in the broadest sense. Few synthesis methods are entirely without precedent. But novelty often lies in the implementation and workflow, not just the raw theory. FBS is about offering a modular, musical approach that emphasizes shaping blocks of harmonics over individually stacking sine waves. So FBS haven't reinvented synthesis, but rather offers a different angle for sound designers to approach complex timbres with this sound synthesis method.

One additional thing that is very important to see: this is not a soundset concept, this is a "synth-in-a-pack" concept. You can build your own synth-sounds building them from the same 24 frequency blocks as the presets were.

Thank you for your opinion, it makes me think it over and over, what FBS is going to be.

[Innovative synthesis]

[whyterabbyt]

Thank you for bringing up the reference from James Clark’s Nord Modular guide, not to mention, that I own a G2

So do I. In fact I used to own two.

— 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.

Yes, I know.

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.

But not method.

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

You are missing the point. I quoted this as an example of how your method is not new, not as a benchmark that delimited all implementations of additive synthesis .
It doesnt matter if your method varies slightly in comparison to Clark's description, Clark's description proves that your allegedly new method is not new.

So yes, there's a shared lineage —

And the same method.

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.

And yet its not an innovation in method.
Nor is 'grouped spectral content' new. Wolfgang Palm did that with Plex, for example.

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.
[/quote]

Irrelevant. Data is not method. None of these things constitute the new method of synthesis you claimed it was, which is what I am talking about.

Sample-based synthesis is a form of audio synthesis that can be contrasted to either subtractive synthesis or additive synthesis. The principal difference with sample-based synthesis is that the seed waveforms are sampled sounds or instruments instead of fundamental waveforms such as sine and saw waves used in other types of synthesis.

That's from a wikipedia page that was created in 2003.

It's a modular frequency-domain instrument-building kit,

Its a set of sample content, being played by a sample-based synthesis engine. As you yourself state.

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?

[crimsonwarlock]

-It explicitly defines “frequency blocks” as compositional building blocks — not just tricks or shortcuts, but core structural units.

-The “synth-in-a-pack” isn't just a collection of samples...

Calling samples by some other, fancy sounding name, doesn't change the fact that they are samples. Calling samples by some other name certainly has nothing to do with innovation.

Bottom line: you cannot make the existing synthesizer platform do something it can't do already. And everything it can do already, obviously cannot be your innovation.

Build an instrument from scratch that can do something no other existing instrument can do, and we'll talk again.

[Innovative synthesis]

All is data, the method makes sense to it.

[whyterabbyt]

Build an instrument from scratch that can do something no other existing instrument can do, and we'll talk again.

To be honest, they dont need to do that. The design of the sample data is interesting and probably useful to some people.
(Even though layering tailored samples is actually be something fairly obvious that anyone using a sampler or rompler or anything with complex waveforms has already done, to one extent or another. )

But its being marketed and sold as a new method when it absolutely is not. The terminology and the claims about that are all basically marketing for a set of samples, and the 'method' it uses inherently pre-exists in the form of the synthesiser those samples are being used on.

[whyterabbyt]

All is data, the method makes sense to it.

So, 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?

Because I probably can knock up 'Super Frequency Block Synthesis++ ultra max SE GTX edition with Limited Edition DLC' in about half a day.

[whyterabbyt]

Many years ago, I purchased the well-known Galbanum waveforms, an incredibly extensive library of very specifically tailored single-cycle wavetables.
I guess the proposal before us is either that they constituted a new synthesis method as well, or that noone who developed them or bought them or heard of them was ever capable of 'innovating' enough to use them in an existing synthesiser to layer multiple instances.

[Innovative synthesis]

Noone says FBS is "ex nihilo", it drags earlier concepts further on. It is not a patent, it is a new synthesis method (DATA INSERTION AND PROCESSING METHOD FOR SOUND CREATION) with a new preset pack concept.
If people like the idea (as it is in its recent development phase) to invoke this exciting synthesis method into their subtractive only AWM2 multilayer platforms like Yamaha Motif XF/Montage/MODX, won't repent it for sure. They will have a fantastic hybrid synth from nowhere.

Never stop questioning me please even some commenter gets angry about this method. Its simplicity can be horrifying, but it is working like a charm.

[whyterabbyt]

It is not a patent, it is a new synthesis method

No, it is not. There is no new method, and definitely no 'new instrument.' There is only bespoke data.
Market/sell your product honestly.

[Innovative synthesis]

You're absolutely right that extensive waveform libraries (like Galbanum’s) have been around for a long time and have enabled rich sound design, especially through layering and modulation in capable synth engines.

However, FBS is not just about layering wavetables. The key innovation lies in how it treats blocks of frequencies as distinct compositional units, not just sources of timbre. Here’s how it meaningfully differs:

Structural use of frequency bands: FBS organizes partials into defined, controllable frequency blocks, which can each have their own independent evolution over time — in amplitude, phase, spatialization, or modulation depth. This gives it a semi-modular, spectral architecture closer to additive-resynthesis meets vector synthesis.

In short, while it's technically possible to approximate certain FBS-like sounds with a highly capable wavetable engine and a ton of manual layering, FBS proposes a new way of thinking about synthesis — one that is inherently spectral and modular at the block level.

So it's less about a new sound source and more about a new sound organization framework.

[Innovative synthesis]

Try to keep this pace here...my god...
I appreciate your directness, and it's important to have critical voices in the conversation — especially when it comes to evaluating claims of "newness" in synthesis.

That said, Frequency Block Synthesis (FBS) is not just about bespoke data. The core idea is to shift the unit of musical structure from the individual waveform or oscillator to frequency blocks — grouped partials or bands that can be independently shaped, modulated, and orchestrated. This isn’t just another preset pack or wavetable collection — it's a conceptual and architectural rethinking of how we organize and manipulate sound.

What makes it a synthesis method, rather than a sample pack or patch set, includes:

Parametric spectral control: Frequency blocks can each have their own temporal envelopes, spatial trajectories, and modulation systems.

Compositional use of spectral domains: Instead of layering arbitrary waveforms, FBS allows the composer to operate directly in spectral space, with a focus on balance, masking, and spectral motion.

Inter-block relationships: You can define logical and functional relationships between blocks (e.g., spectral counterpoint, rhythm in overtone clusters), something that goes beyond existing synth paradigms.

It’s fair to be skeptical — many "new synthesis" claims end up being more cosmetic than structural. But in this case, FBS is offering a framework for synthesis and composition that genuinely expands how we think about organizing sound.

Honest marketing is essential, and that's exactly why we’re trying to engage with critiques like yours — to sharpen the definition of what FBS is, and what it is not.