[HN Gopher] Learning Synths
___________________________________________________________________
Learning Synths
Author : holdit
Score : 362 points
Date : 2025-01-07 12:46 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (learningsynths.ableton.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (learningsynths.ableton.com)
| dang wrote:
| Related. Others?
|
| _Getting Started Making Sounds_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31434208 - May 2022 (3
| comments)
|
| _Abletone Learning Synth_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31279526 - May 2022 (63
| comments)
|
| _Synth Playground_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26429207 - March 2021 (21
| comments)
|
| _Learning Synths_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20272346 - June 2019 (172
| comments)
| richrichardsson wrote:
| I'm glad I'm not going mad thinking I've seen this link 5 times
| before here; I had an off-by-one error by including this
| example in the tally.
| f1shy wrote:
| For those so inclined, that want to play with synth in some more
| programmatic way, there is a lisp dialect
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_(programming_language))
| for it.
| tosmatos wrote:
| There's also stuff like Sonic Pi (https://sonic-pi.net/) and
| most things live coding related, but I found that I don't
| really like that approach even though I love synths and
| programming. For some reason I don't think they go together
| well. But some people are really good with that and it's
| fascinating
| diggan wrote:
| Yes, I feel the same way, but then I started making music to
| get away from the computer, rather than finding even more
| things to spend time on with the computer, maybe that's why.
| kaoD wrote:
| Similar to this, a while ago I made this online playground
| (Lambda Musika) where you can program sound realtime in your
| browser (using JS) in a functional-ish way:
|
| https://lambda.cuesta.dev/ (repo: https://github.com/alvaro-
| cuesta/lambda-musika) -- check out the examples on the bottom
| toolbar's blue button.
|
| The basic idea is you write a function `t => [l, r]` where `t`
| is time and `l`, `r` are output samples for the left and right
| channels in `[-1, 1]` range. You can think of it like ShaderToy
| but for sound synthesis.
|
| It includes a small utility library but it's meant to be just a
| few helper functions instead of a full-fledged framework like
| SuperCollider, Sonic Pi, et al. I.e. it's still sample-oriented
| instead of module-oriented. E.g. in Sonic Pi you script
| modules, their parameters, and how they connect with each
| other, while Lambda Musika is all about outputting samples of a
| waveform.
|
| It's very barebones -- I'd love to get some time to upgrade
| this to Monaco editor and add TS, intellisense, etc. -- and
| possibly buggy, but I still find myself coming from time to
| have some fun with it.
| SushiHippie wrote:
| There is also glicol, for example:
| https://glicol.org/demo#themodel Press start and after some
| time edit line 14 and press update
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| There are many, many more languages for playing around with
| audio (and video) synthesis than that. The domain is typically
| called livecoding. Here's a good list of languages for that:
|
| https://github.com/toplap/awesome-livecoding
| harvodex wrote:
| Nyquist is super ancient.
|
| The links don't even work anymore on CMU.
|
| Common Music might still work but I can't imagine bothering
| with Nyquist. https://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/clm/
|
| There is just not much reason to not use SuperCollider or
| Csound instead of these though.
|
| Edit: I did just find Nyquist has been rolled into Audacity
| scripting that sounds pretty cool https://audionyq.com/
| revskill wrote:
| What's the best way to learn piano via keyboard like a
| professional ?
| rhizome31 wrote:
| Take lessons with a piano teacher and practice a lot on your
| own.
| liotier wrote:
| As a lazy synthdad, father of a piano virtuoso who makes fun
| of my musical clumsiness, I concur: listen to music, watch
| music being played and read about music all you want... It
| won't get you very far: music requires practice, practice and
| practice daily, even if just a little - and memorizing some
| scales and chords goes a long way too.
| f1shy wrote:
| Doing scales, chords and arpeggios can get you far enough,
| that people who do both know enough think you are a
| virtuoso. You can make a piano sound great (at least for no
| experts). But at the end practice is all cannot emphasize
| enough. Take simple music you really like and want to play
| to start and have motivation. Finding a good teacher is
| hard (at least it was for me) (s)he should be interested in
| the music you want to play, be ok with what you want to
| learn (some think everybody must be an orchestral pianist)
| and have a good repertoire of techniques for helping you.
| liotier wrote:
| > be ok with what you want to learn (some think everybody
| must be an orchestral pianist)
|
| I relate to that: I was inflicted a couple years of piano
| lessons as a kid, and hated every minute of it - because
| I detested the music that my teacher and my family
| considered appropriate.
|
| 40 years later, I stumble on electronic musics and
| realize I would enjoy making some - and I joyfully (and
| incompetently) began on that path, lately becoming ripe
| for some dry theory because I now value it.
|
| Each person is different though: my daughter always
| enjoyed the technical exercises for their own sake !
| criddell wrote:
| When you say _keyboard_ are you talking about a piano-type
| keyboard or a computer keyboard?
| revskill wrote:
| Computer keyboard .
| rhizome31 wrote:
| Oh OK my bad, I didn't get that. Seems like a strange idea
| to me. If money is the issue, you can probably find a
| decent second hand MIDI keyboard for a very reasonable
| price.
| f1shy wrote:
| Oh. Dismiss my message:)
| itishappy wrote:
| Don't. Computer keyboards are inexpressive. You'll be
| giving up the ability to modulate note velocity/volume, for
| starters. Get a cheap MIDI keyboard for a few hundred
| bucks.
|
| If instead of playing you're more interested in making cool
| sounds, I'd skip the keyboard completely and download a
| free DAW like Reaper, Ableton, or FL Studio.
|
| Whichever route you take, the secret is practice. It always
| is...
| criddell wrote:
| > Don't. Computer keyboards are inexpressive.
|
| Constraints can be a great thing.
| raincole wrote:
| It can be a great thing.
|
| But it can't help you learn _piano_ , which is what the
| top-level comment asked for.
| itishappy wrote:
| Sure, but they can also be a hindrance, and that's been
| my experience playing music with my computer keyboard. If
| intervals are all you care about (and it's all you can
| care about) then I've found it easier to just enter notes
| with the mouse.
|
| Alternatively, an Akai MPK Mini MK3 costs $100 and gives
| you twice the range, no limit on simultaneous keypresses,
| velocity sensitivity, a mod wheel, analog knobs, and
| velocity sensitive drum pads.
| jnovek wrote:
| In this case it would likely be frustrating.
|
| Many synthesizers (especially softsynths) map changes in
| sound to _velocity_ , that is, how hard you hit the key.
| Hitting the key harder makes a different sound (e.g.
| layers more samples) than hitting it softly.
| recursive wrote:
| Not this one. It would be like finger painting, except
| you have to wear mittens.
| criddell wrote:
| It's not that bad.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbRXKVcQ8EA
| briankelly wrote:
| A little undermined by the fat finger within the first 10
| seconds.
| recursive wrote:
| I think it's an intentional ornament.
| recursive wrote:
| I'm amazed by this.
|
| At the same time, if this is the best one can hope for on
| a computer keyboard, I feel comfortable resting my case.
| itishappy wrote:
| It's pretty bad... This person's obviously talented, but
| their playing is riddled with mistakes and timing issues.
| That's not an issue with their playing, it's the
| constraints of the medium. For example, `[etuG]` is a
| chord from the video that's impossible to play as it
| requires a modifier key for 1 of the 4 notes. Plus, the
| use of modifier keys and the number row for low notes
| means that the experience no longer maps nicely to a
| piano. It's effectively learning a bespoke instrument.
|
| This isn't necessarily a problem. As you say, constraints
| can breed creativity. A good musician should still be
| able to play great music, but for somebody just learning
| it's a lot of unnecessary friction.
| Arcanum-XIII wrote:
| Music is about nuance, finesse, expressivity.
|
| You don't have that with a computer keyboard. Music is
| hard, don't set yourself for failure so early, for no
| good reason.
| poulpy123 wrote:
| I think OP meant to use a DAW
| recursive wrote:
| I've been playing piano/keyboards for 35 years. I
| definitely don't play at a "professional" level, but I gig
| locally, and can play pretty well by ear, and in an
| ensemble. I'm not an amazing player, but I have enough
| experience to know something about what you're talking
| about.
|
| What you're asking about is impossible. Not just difficult.
| You might be able to learn something about moving your
| fingers independently with rhythm on a computer keyboard.
| But at about the time you get to one week of experience,
| you'll probably be doing at least as much harm as good in
| terms of learning to play piano music on a computer
| keyboard. It is too different.
|
| Partial list of problems: Size of keys
| Position of keys Number of keys Travel distance
| of keys Velocity sensitivity of keys
| Sufficiently low latency of audio output (can be solved
| with pro audio hardware)
|
| To give one quick example of a deal-breaker, on a piano,
| you can comfortably, and in a neutral hand position, put
| your thumb and four fingers on 5 consecutive white keys.
| The layout of a computer keyboard doesn't allow for this at
| all.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| If you don't want to get a controller then I'd recommend
| fooling around with a sequencer instead.
| hypertexthero wrote:
| So far for me this has worked well:
|
| 1. Choose a song you like and find out what chords are needed
| to play it.
|
| 2. Learn those chords and practice playing the song.
|
| Use a keyboard with weighted keys for best results.
|
| Refs:
|
| https://hypertexthero.com/piano/
|
| https://www.pianochord.org/
|
| https://github.com/pianobooster/PianoBooster
| raincole wrote:
| It has nothing to do with Synth though. Why not just start a HN
| Ask thread?
| chrisvalleybay wrote:
| I've been playing synths and piano for a while, but I've been
| struggling to get some solid intuitions about what is going on
| when I tweak the synths. One thing that really helped on this
| site, is the <<dot>> that is bouncing back and forth on
| https://learningsynths.ableton.com/en/playground . Try tweaking
| the nobs and see how the dots movement changes. It helped me
| visualize something that I wasn't able to grasp before. Nice
| link!
| diggan wrote:
| The best way I found to understand a bit more about how synths
| work, was to give VCVRack a try. Basically "build your own
| synth" in a box, AKA " Modular synthesizer", which lets you
| build what a mainstream synth comes with, from scratch.
| actsasbuffoon wrote:
| It's also pretty easy to create your own VCV Rack modules,
| assuming you don't mind doing a little math.
| colkassad wrote:
| There is also Cardinal, a GPL fork that you can run as a
| plugin directly in your DAW of choice (I believe you need the
| paid VCV Rack to do that):
|
| https://github.com/DISTRHO/Cardinal
| jnovek wrote:
| I tend to thing that non-modular is a better place to start.
| Modular is great, I've wasted untold shameful consumerist
| dollars on Eurorack, but I think it's better to get the core
| concepts from a well-known fixed-architecture synth (like a
| Minimoog clone/VST) before moving on to modular. Modular can
| be very overwhelming when you're new.
| jghn wrote:
| To this point, are there any free/cheap apps/browser apps
| that clone simple/older/well known synths you'd (or others
| here) would recommend for skilling up a bit? Doesn't need
| to be anywhere near pro quality sound-wise, not what I'm
| after.
|
| A million years ago I had some analogue korg model and have
| been interested in playing around again. But I know myself
| well enough to know that my interest may very well be
| fleeting and I don't want to invest much in the way of $$
| to go that route.
| nprateem wrote:
| Sylenth has a free trial. Garageband probably has an
| analogue synth in it. There's also v station:
|
| https://stgdownloads.novationmusic.com/novation/novation-
| sof...
| diggan wrote:
| I guess semi-modular is a good half-way :)
|
| Personally, I'm not into modular synths, so I don't
| recommend them as "Stop buying synths and start doing
| modular synths" but more like "If you're already into
| synths, but want to learn more about how they actually
| synthesize the sound, give VCVRack a try", merely as a
| learning tool.
| beAbU wrote:
| Some VSTs animate the modulated controls, which is awesome
| because it immediately makes clear how one thing impacts
| another. I believe Serum does this?
| poulpy123 wrote:
| I can't say for sure but there is surely a VST that allows to
| visualise the signal and understand what changes do what
| anonzzzies wrote:
| I like synths with movements instead of keys a lot better. They
| give me that old sci-fi vibe. It's something that should be nice
| with the Quest VR handtracking.
|
| (but no, _really_ not like this; https://www.meta.com/en-
| gb/experiences/synthvr/3748465338566... ; then I would just get a
| real synth)
| piltdownman wrote:
| That's mainly just the 'sweep' or portamento between notes
| that's indicative of things like the Theremin or 50s Sci-Fi
| sound.
|
| Check out the Ondes Martenot for a compromise between the two
| paradigms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ondes_Martenot
| jnovek wrote:
| These days there are several tools that map hand tracking to
| MIDI CCs and notes, you might enjoy something like that. It's
| on my list to try sometime in 2025. :-)
|
| Here's an example, although I'm not sure if it's good or not
| because I haven't tried it yet. https://www.uwyn.com/geco/
| leetrout wrote:
| Syntorial is also popular and posted here many times.
|
| https://www.syntorial.com/
| poulpy123 wrote:
| I was going to post it as well. And also from the same creator
| "building blocks" a similar tool for music creation instead of
| sound design
| jnovek wrote:
| Syntorial was how I first learned and I was pretty happy with
| it.
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| Looks like Syntorial is an app, whereas Ableton link is web
| based. Would be nice to see Syntorial converted to a web app.
| hoseja wrote:
| On older phone I had a fun touch-synth called Etherpad but it
| says it's not compatible with my newer phone.
| ssharp wrote:
| The "Playing different pitches" section plays "The Final
| Countdown", arguably the greatest synth riff of all time. If you
| know it, just click the rhythm on that section.
| chaosprint wrote:
| The quick tour of Glicol that I made is also a way to learn
| digital sound synthesis:
|
| https://glicol.org/tour
|
| Have fun
| weatherlight wrote:
| If you want to understand (Subtractive) synthesis. The best way
| is to get copy of VCV rack and follow a few tutorials. If you
| patch one subtractive mono synth voice once, you understand 80%
| of all subtractive synth architecture moving forward.
|
| https://vcvrack.com (open source and wonderful)
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V35OhojjqDs <- your first
| tutorial
|
| Happy patching :)
|
| There's a bunch of other really interesting types of synthesis
| and you can explore them using the above software
| - Frequency/phase modulation synthesis - Vector synthesis
| - physical modeling/Karplus strong - Additive synthesis
| - Eastcoast (subtractive) - Westcoast (waveshaping/LP
| gates)
| naltroc wrote:
| unpopular hot take:
|
| subtractive synthesis isn't synthesis. It's a transformation.
| skyyler wrote:
| Well, "transformer" is already a kind of device. Do you have
| a suggested name to replace "synthesiser"?
| weatherlight wrote:
| Hold up, I'm going to send a email to every synth company
| that sells synths with filters and explain to them that they
| aren't selling synthesizers but transformers. I'm positive
| that it will be received well!
| fredoliveira wrote:
| I mean, there's a fair amount of hype about transformers
| right now.
| racl101 wrote:
| They are certainly more than meets the eye.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| So I presume your complaint is that by synthesis you mean
| taking two things, smashing them together, and producing a
| new thing. In which case, sure, subtractive synthesis isn't
| synthesis unless:
|
| - Two oscillators undergoing detune, sync, ring or amplitude
| modulation, or fm prior to getting fed into the filter?
|
| - An LFO combined with an oscillator?
|
| - An envelope (controlling the filter or amplifier) combined
| with an oscillator?
|
| Perhaps these things might be considered combinations? I
| agree this is weak. You can blame the RCA Mark I and II for
| calling subtractive synthesizers "synthesizers".
| shwaj wrote:
| By their definition, an amplitude envelope would probably
| also be a transformation.
| bmitc wrote:
| Pretty much everything in audio processing is a filter,
| whether it's called a filter or not, but that's overly
| reductive. Synthesis is just creating audio from parts.
| shwaj wrote:
| Delays aren't filters.
| bmitc wrote:
| That's not exactly true. In digital signal processing,
| delays and filters are effectively one in the same. This
| is because you implement digital filters using digital
| delays. For example, the simplest low-pass filter is just
| a summation of the current and previous sample: y(n) =
| x(n) + x(n-1).
| shwaj wrote:
| "Filters are delays" doesn't imply "delays are filters".
| In particular, the type of effect known as a delay (e.g.
| a delay guitar pedal) isn't a filter, certainly not in
| the musical sense, which is the relevant sense here.
| bmitc wrote:
| > "Filters are delays" doesn't imply "delays are
| filters".
|
| Purely logically, no, but that's not really the practical
| sense we're talking about. And by introducing a digital
| delay, you do induce a filter on the sound. So if you
| have a delay, then you have a filter.
|
| > In particular, the type of effect known as a delay
| (e.g. a delay guitar pedal) isn't a filter, certainly not
| in the musical sense, which is the relevant sense here.
|
| I think it's best to reconsider my original comment. I
| was arguing that it isn't useful to suddenly rename
| subtractive synthesis as a "transformation", because you
| could just rename all of synthesis "filtering". But
| that's not useful, and synthesis just means building up
| sound from parts. I.e., it's best to work at a given
| level of the parts and think about things like waveforms,
| envelopes, LFOs, pulses, triggers, delays, reverbs, etc.,
| most of the time.
| Arelius wrote:
| A filter perhaps isn't synthesis, but the whole system,
| including oscillators would be, which seems to be what the
| term refers to.
| nyrikki wrote:
| First time I have ever heard someone say my Minimoog, OB8,
| Prophet and modular synths weren't synthesis.
|
| ADSR is subtractive even if you ignore the filter.
|
| The (ideal) square wave contains the odd-integer harmonic
| frequencies, where the (ideal) sawtooth has all harmonic
| frequencies.
|
| I think starting in the digital world may make this less
| clear?
|
| You are subtracting overtones from a non-sinusoidal set, the
| sound synthesis in subtractive synths is the more like
| choosing digits to construct a representable number.
|
| Additive synths are actually far more restricted...remember
| that the set of computable numbers is not quite as small as
| the cantor set, but is getting there.
| hecanjog wrote:
| You're getting downvoted for some reason but this is a
| perfectly fine way to think about subtractive synthesis.
| (From a compositional perspective anyhow.)
| kristianbrigman wrote:
| Somewhat true ... maybe it's really a hybrid, subtractive
| usually includes generating the initial sound to subtract
| from though (the oscillator) and even basic subtractive
| synths often have capability there (different waveforms,
| octaves, PWM, etc)
| timc3 wrote:
| Yes, but all synthesis types are transformation unless you
| are just replaying/outputting a waveform in one way or
| another without manipulation so that is really an all
| encompassing way of describing all synthesis methods.
|
| Subtractive synthesis has a particular meaning in common use
| whether it's right or wrong.
| 56j56n65u656 wrote:
| Good lord what a horrible recommendation. This is like telling
| someone to learn programming by starting with assembly.
|
| If you want to actually learn subtractive synthesis minus the
| complexity use an all in one synth VST like Surge which is free
| and open source and you won't have to worry about tedious
| fundamentals that don't actually matter unless you're doing
| modular synthesis. Helm is another great VST.
|
| Once you understand subtractive you can graduate to more
| complicated methods of synthesis like FM, vector, ETC.
| import wrote:
| Came here to say this. I would recommend surge or vital as a
| starting point.
| weatherlight wrote:
| I disagree... those "tedious fundamentals" is how all synths
| work, irregardless of synthesis type.
|
| Watch the video. It's 15 minutes. I wish I could learn
| assembly in 15 minutes! You build the synth one module and
| one connection at a time all connected to an oscilloscope.
|
| If I gave someone a SH-101 with no context, and let them
| noodle around with it and then asked them, to explain the
| architecture, they wouldn't be able to.
|
| Sure, they may make some cool noises buy they wouldn't
| understand, what is what, why is hooked up to what and how
| that might differ on some other fixed architecture synth.
| tarentel wrote:
| While I agree that basically all subtractive synthesizers
| work the same way I started "learning" how they work when I
| was ~12. It wasn't until my mid 30s until I got into
| modular and I realized "hey all my synths are basically
| routed this way, neat." Has it changed the way I think
| about how I make a patch? Not at all. It is cool to know
| how they're architected but it in no way will really help
| you in learning how to use them so I agree with the comment
| you're replying to. Get an all in one synth and start
| making patches.
|
| If you gave someone an SH-101 and explained to them how it
| was architected it wouldn't really help them make that
| signature acid bass sound so ya they'd be a little more
| knowledgeable on how synthesizers technically work but they
| still wouldn't be able to make any music with it. Whereas
| if I showed them how to make that bass sound they could now
| go try it on every other subtractive synth they run into
| even if it doesn't sound the same. Besides that, they'd
| learn how a lot of it works in a musical sense which is way
| more important to using synths than any technical knowledge
| will give you if you actually want to write music.
| weatherlight wrote:
| The original post is about synthesis and learning about
| synthesis. Not music theory or how to program an acid
| patch. Those are separate skills.
| adriand wrote:
| No it isn't, the original post is "Learning Synths", not
| "Learning Synthesis". It actually is a tutorial on how
| you might go about programming an acid patch (or a bass,
| or a wind instrument, or whatever).
| weatherlight wrote:
| The first two-thirds of this tutorial seems to be focused
| on breaking down the components of a standard subtractive
| synthesizer (essentially the synthesis process itself).
| However, it doesn't really delve into how these
| components are interconnected or how they operate as a
| cohesive system. The latter part of the tutorial is more
| aligned with what you're referring to. That said, the
| knowledge gained here isn't universally applicable to
| _all synthesizers_ , it's only applicable to Subtractive
| Synths. If the tutorial took just one additional step, it
| could provide a more complete foundation, but as it
| stands, it leaves you wanting more (or worse, not know
| you need to know more). For a more versatile pointed
| approach, I suggested using something like VCV Rack,
| because Its modular interface allows you to import only
| the modules you need to explore or explain a specific
| synthesis method. This hands-on method enables you to
| experiment and internalize the concepts, which can then
| be applied to the synthesizers you have on hand.
|
| Most tutorial videos are 5-10 minutes long, and
| completely reproducible and it's very clear the signal
| flow from one part to the next.
| adriand wrote:
| Fair enough. I should try it, although I have a pretty
| good grasp of how subtractive synths work. What about FM
| synthesis, do you have any suggestions on that? I find it
| the least intuitive by far, not that my experience
| extends to many other kinds (I mainly use wavetable,
| sample-based and subtractive synths these days).
| weatherlight wrote:
| I'd still do the first tutorial above, so you can
| understand how to use VCV Rack, but here is a small
| tutorial (10 minutes.) That will help you understand
| what's going on under the hood of your favorite FM
| synths. He doesn't do this in the video, but I would
| attach the output to the oscilloscope module to get an
| intuition for why certain parameters affect the specific
| harmonics that give FM its characteristic sound.
|
| Your FM synth at home is 100x more time complicated than
| this patch you build but if you grok what's going on
| here, you should have a better idea of what going on in
| your other FM synths.
|
| https://youtu.be/gzWFunWNTjQ?si=veuGdCTc1gETntO3
| adriand wrote:
| Thank you, that looks super helpful!
| b3orn wrote:
| It's not how all synths work, probably the most famous FM
| synth the DX-7 never had a filter, additive synths don't
| really need filters either, but for a subtractive synth
| this would be unthinkable. And the general architecture of
| any synth is usually not that hard, you have a source,
| possibly filters, an amp and some modulators.
| weatherlight wrote:
| My friend, with the app above you can take 6 VCOs, have
| them modulate each other and understand how the FM(phase)
| synthesis on a DX7 works. Instead of guessing. Explore
| why certain ratios produce bell like tones etc.
|
| One of may favorite digital synths is the TX-81z. 4op FM.
| One of the first digital synths where the operators
| weren't restricted to sine waves. (DX7 had 6op FM)
|
| If you just look at the specs. And even play with the
| values you won't understand why one synth could obtain
| sounds the other couldn't.
|
| That "source" is usually the synthesis method.(usually
| the complicated part outside of anything that's not a
| traditional VCO)
|
| If you have a filter, the resonance imparts a particular
| sound as well.
|
| Digitone is 4op fm as the source then that's funneled
| through a pretty standard east coast architecture.
| dingnuts wrote:
| > You build the synth one module and one connection at a
| time all connected to an oscilloscope.
|
| making my music hobby feel like my job sounds terrible lol
| weatherlight wrote:
| I'm sorry :( I get it. It's how I feel about DAWs.
| officeplant wrote:
| Some of us are just synthesis hobbyists and the musical
| part comes second. Exploration is a joy.
| brudgers wrote:
| _Sure, they may make some cool noises_
|
| That is the point of making music.
|
| The rest is exhaust fumes.
|
| You don't have to know how something works to know how it
| sounds.
|
| And nobody ever danced to a lecture on signal flow.
| weatherlight wrote:
| Again, the OPs post is an introduction to synthesis. Good
| luck finding those "sounds."
| brudgers wrote:
| You don't have to know theory to make acid with a TB-303,
| i.e. the subtractive synth that changed music the most.
| weatherlight wrote:
| Not every one has a 303, Maybe they want to take that
| cheap Behringer mono synth and do acid on that?
|
| one could argue what made it great was that it only has 5
| parameters that affects it's sound and it's sequencer,
| (and it was a total flop financially for Roland and could
| bought 2nd hand for like 50 bucks in Detroit. and dance
| music is better for it!)
|
| and as per the subtractive synth that change music the
| most...I'm going to go with Moog or mini-Moog, without
| them there's no 303, 101, Juno, Jupiter, etc.
|
| I love me some good acid-house though, and much rather
| have a 303 then a mini-moog. :)
| brudgers wrote:
| _much rather have a 303 then a mini-moog_
|
| Thanks to Uli, I can afford the both. And a 2600, etc.
| rambojohnson wrote:
| OP actually gave pretty sound advice. maybe be a little more
| constructive next time and less edgelord.
| webstrand wrote:
| I actually really think that starting with assembly would be
| a great place for someone to start learning programming. But
| not x86 and not on a traditional PC. Instead using some
| microcontroller attached to a breadboard with a few simple
| peripherals like a keypad, simple LCD (or maybe an
| 8-segment).
|
| The control-flow is obvious, the syntax is simple enough that
| novices shouldn't struggle with it, and writing directly to
| pins to control the peripherals gives immediate concrete
| feedback.
| beAbU wrote:
| Surge is incredibly complex and powerful and will be way
| overwhelming to a new user. They will be rediced to browsing
| the patch library not really understanding how things work.
|
| With VCVRack and the right tutorial, a user will build a
| basic synth with an oscillator, filter, amp and envelope
| generator - which together make up the fundamental core of
| subtractive synthesis. The manual patching of modular is a
| great way to actually learn how these building blocks
| interact with one another to create sound.
| xtagon wrote:
| > This is like telling someone to learn programming by
| starting with assembly.
|
| Believe it or not, this is some people's preferred learning
| style. See also: Nand2Tetris, Linux From Scratch
| mtizim wrote:
| I don't agree at all, vcv rack helped me understand synthesis
| in a much deeper way than I would have otherwise. What's a
| retrigger? Oscillator drift? Why do you modulate with a lfo?
| These are much simpler to understand when you're patching
| modules by hand in vcv, especially when you start with a
| blank slate.
|
| On the other hand, before vcv, seeing a vst synth just had me
| overwhelmed instead.
|
| I'd recommend everyone reading this to get free vcv + the
| surge vcv library, and just play around with it.
| AnthonBerg wrote:
| One man's horrible recommendation is another's...
| emancipation?
|
| We're all uniquely different!, I promise; After a number of
| other paradigms had failed to teach me programming, assembly
| was what finally did it.
|
| And with synthesis, it was FM first and then subtractive. The
| picture is more concise when looking at it from the
| perspective of frequency modulation because all oscillators
| can do everything, you know? -That's the sense it made to me,
| privately and personally.
| javier123454321 wrote:
| Don't have a dog in this fight as I don't know much about
| synthesis, but I always remember the old saying. The best
| book to learn about "hard subject" is the third book you
| read on it.
|
| How many people will comment on a youtube video, course,
| strategy or book, and say something like - It's the best
| explanation. I tried all these different things and only
| this worked. The common denominator is previous failed
| attempts at the subject.
| officeplant wrote:
| Free VSTs are great and all, but VCV Rack + a wealth of
| online tutorials and synth knowledge seems like the perfect
| option to me. Especially if someone is actually more
| interested in the synthesis part than being musical. Plus VCV
| Rack is also free to start with until you want to go much
| much deeper.
|
| I think they are both acceptable places to start and learn.
| alexjplant wrote:
| I bought a Moog Mother-32 and read the manual - I remember it
| being very thick (for modern music gear) and informative. I
| didn't do too much patching but by the time I was done I
| understood the basics of subtractive synthesis.
|
| A few years earlier I also had a DX9 that I foolishly used to
| try and emulate analog sounds. Somehow I stumbled across an
| article on Fourier series and how infinite sinusoidal
| summations could be used to create the other types of
| fundamental waves. Programming a 4-op DX synth to emulate these
| and looking at waveforms in Audacity gave me a natural
| intuition for how time series waves relate to frequency and
| harmonic content.
|
| If I had to do it all again I might get a Korg Minilogue since
| it can display waveforms on its LCD and is digitally-
| controlled.
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| Yes! The Minilogue was where it clicked for me - solely
| because is its oscilloscope
| H1Supreme wrote:
| Came here to post something similar, so I'll upvote your
| comment, and add my own. I started building a Eurorack modular
| synthesizer in 2009. Prior to that I would mostly tweak presets
| on other synths. I knew what the filter did, and could adjust
| an envelope, but didn't have a fundamental understanding of
| what was going on.
|
| When I started using the modular, I was forced to understand
| the signal flow. And, the patch cables provided a visual cue of
| what was happening. I learned more about synths in a year with
| my eurorack system than I did in the previous 10 with hardwired
| synths.
|
| After you learn those basic rules for patching a synth, then
| you get to break them. (-:
|
| Recommending something like VCV rack seems like starting with
| Calculus before you can solve 2+2, but it's really not. The
| signal flow is right there for you to observe.
| harvodex wrote:
| I have never in 30 years of synths read subtractive synthesis
| called Eastcoast or waveshaping called Westcoast.
|
| Especially to put what it is actually called in parenthesis as
| if everyone calls subtractive synthesis "Eastcoast".
|
| This is certainly something very specific to the path you took
| with synths.
| weatherlight wrote:
| I really hate to be that guy but... the terms "East Coast"
| and "West Coast" synthesis are pretty mainstream within the
| synth community, especially among those who follow the
| history and styles of modular synthesis. These distinctions
| were popularized as a way to categorize the approaches of
| pioneers like Bob Moog, I'm sure you've heard of him. (East
| Coast) and Don Buchla (West Coast).
|
| East Coast synthesis, often associated with subtractive
| synthesis, emphasizes traditional keyboard performance,
| harmonic richness, and filters to shape sound. Meanwhile,
| West Coast synthesis (credited to Buchla) leans more
| experimental, focusing on waveshaping, FM synthesis, and
| unconventional control interfaces.
|
| The terms themselves have been around for _decades_ and have
| become shorthand to describe these philosophies of synthesis
| design and architecture of synths. You might not hear them as
| much outside modular or academic circles, but they're far
| from obscure.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Buchla
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moog
| bodge5000 wrote:
| Personally I'm not sure I'd use VCV rack as an entry into
| subtractive synthesis, simply because there's so much to
| modular synthesis it could be hard to untangle one concept from
| another. That being said, I think it is a great intro to
| synthesis as a whole.
|
| For me, it was the microbrute which really taught me
| subtractive synthesis, simply because of how stripped back it
| was, I couldn't just add a new module to cover up my bad sound
| design. Though obviously that's far less accessible (PS150
| hardware synth versus free software you can load up right now),
| I'm sure there'd be a middle ground. I know iOS is really good
| for its synth ecosystem, maybe there's a nice subtractive synth
| there.
| Crunchified wrote:
| I did exactly that as well. I wanted to figure out what a
| synthesizer does/is, so I bought a MicroBrute and had a great
| deal of fun with it.
|
| So much fun, in fact, that I bought a MatrixBrute not
| terribly long afterward. Now _that's_ a monosynth to last me
| a lifetime!
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| Tangential, if you want to learn sound from synthesis, check
| out Syntorial... you'll be able to hear a sound and approximate
| it via subtractive synthesis!
| obayesshelton wrote:
| Actually posted about learning something new in 2025 and Synths
| came up. Quite like this site.
| ge96 wrote:
| That's a neat browser permission prompt asking about MIDI,
| haven't seen that one before
|
| edit: side note making sound is one thing, making something
| actually worth listening to...
| throwaway314155 wrote:
| MIDI support in browsers has gotta be like at least a decade
| old at this point, right?
| ge96 wrote:
| I guess so I never got into making music, heard of the term
| but yeah cool to see.
| _spduchamp wrote:
| I recommend the re-issue of Allen Strange's Electronic Music:
| Systems, Techniques, and Controls.
|
| It was successfully launched on Kickstarter a while ago, and is
| now available through a few retailers.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| My browser put up a dialog asking for permission to control midi
| devices _before the site showed anything._
|
| It's a good idea to show content before your page does anything
| that asks for scary permissions. (And, honestly, without knowing
| what the site does, its pretty scary to click on a link on hacker
| news and have a site ask for elevated permissions before it shows
| anything.)
| javier123454321 wrote:
| I mean, the link is to ableton.com, the most popular
| professional music production software. You're not the target
| audience if you haven't heard of it.
| an_aparallel wrote:
| I'd recommend a simple subtractive synth as a first:
|
| >Behringer Model D >Novation Bass Station 2
|
| Recommending VCV is horrible advice - unless your idea of
| learning synthesis is getting RSI...I think VCV is a great
| testing bed for trying modular ideas...once you understand
| synthesis...i think a huge draw back of VCV is the plethora of
| choice - it's just way way too much.
|
| I learnt modular on a real life Doepfer modular...it was
| frustrating as hell until things starting clicking - i cant
| imagine the feedback loop on software being that good.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| I would challenge what you're saying. An integrated synthesizer
| like the Model D doesn't make the normalled signal path
| apparent. On the other hand, modular forces you to see exactly
| what's happening. You wire an oscillator to a filter. You wire
| the filter to the VCA. You trigger the VCA with a voltage
| envelope. You need a good teacher or tutorial, but if you have
| that, modular or virtual modular is a far better teaching tool
| IMO.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| The presentation is cool but the order here is pretty bad. When
| teaching subtractive synthesis, you really should start with the
| oscillators and their waveforms (sine, tri, saw, square), then
| talk about filter, then amplitude. That's really all there is to
| it - create a fundamental and a series of harmonics, carve it
| away with a filter and then give it an amplitude envelope. I love
| Ableton, but I think they may have been a bit too focused on
| making this look nice.
| aecorredor wrote:
| Ableton is awesome for putting this type of stuff out. The
| learning music section is also great. And, it's a perfect post
| for a shameless plug: I built a u-he Diva (my favorite VST synth)
| tool for generating presets with AI. It's called Diva Copilot and
| it can be accessed at https://divacopilot.com - I started out by
| offering a free trial with 10 free presets and then a monthly $20
| plan with 50 presets. You can also buy on-demand credits. It
| works on top of a custom built RAG system that then uses GPT-4o
| for actually generating .h2p files. I'm mainly working on
| improving the knowledge base so that results get better and
| better. Still, you can already get some super good results. I put
| some examples in the landing page. Would love to get some
| feedback!
| gdsdfe wrote:
| that's a nice wasm use case
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-09 23:01 UTC)