5 ms·

A Beginner's Guide to the Synth

59 points by omnibrain 11y ago

aikah 11y ago
And get a real synthesizer instead of a VST. Though synthesis will be a bit more restricted, nothing replaces the pleasure of learning by tweaking real knobs on a synth. My first synth was a digital one , a novation nova, a bit cold sounding but it had nice features though it lacked of FM synthesis ( so no "piano sounds" ). Back then the Access Virus was the shit . But today analog synths are really cheap, no need to spend 2000$ on a broken old Juno or a Moog. People doing electronic music today and wanting to buy real gear have no idea how lucky they are.
- mettamage 11y ago
  Do you have any recommendations? I happen to know how DAWs work, but have no clue when it comes to analog synths.
  - TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
    Arturia's Minibrute is a nice analog for not all that much money.
  - gtani 11y ago
    (this is from the sidebar in /r/synthesizers, there's lots of other good sources:) http://thesynthesizersympathizer.blogspot.com/2015/03/buying-your-first-analog-synthesizer.html http://thesynthesizersympathizer.blogspot.com/2015/03/buying... Good knobby starters (analog or virtual analog) Mini/microbrute (except there's been QC issues), bass station II, MS20 mini, ms2000, Radias, jp8080 or 8000, SH201, ... Roland made a few others 5-12 years back which i can't remember. tho for many people, it's easiest to borrow a mac with Logic Pro, which has some nice synth models (or ableton suite, which has at least a couple plugins). And borrow a controler with lots of pots, encoders and faders, Novation SL mk 2 or maudio axiom (i think both come with software premaped to Logic or ableton analog/operator)
- EC1 11y ago
  I started 3 months ago on my synthesis journey. Currently I only have the following: Korg MS2000B (polysynth), Ableton Push (controller), SH 101 (monosynth), 88 key piano, and an Elektron Machinedrum (for drums). Got everything I need. I started off by: 1) Reading the manuals 2) Reading the Sound on Sound series "Synth Secrets". There's an amalgamated PDF of all the series on Reddit if you search for it. I have all the tools I need to create music on the fly and it's fantastic. I can't even imagine what it would be like working with old computers, patch bays, analog sequencers ETC. I listen to things like Aphex Twin and it boggles my mind how complex his beats are, especially the stuff from the early 90's when he was only like 20. Super pumped to be learning this in 2015. Sure a Jupiter 8 cost $1k in 1989 and is $10k now, but you don't even need one at all.
- bitL 11y ago
  Or you can get some top quality VST for ~$2-3k (like Nexus 2) and a MIDI-controller with a plenty of knobs where you can map anything you wish for your sound synthesis in a DAW, far more versatile for your creative expression than most physical synths ;-) For many starters Mininova or Microkorg would be totally sufficient, with exotics like Korg Kaossilator for additional creativity. IMO the best setup nowadays is to have an ultrabook, a few pads/MIDI controllers, a mixer and maybe a studio 88-key MIDI keyboard if you really need it, that's it. Plenty of people are using 2-3 iPads for their whole live music production as well.
  - golergka 11y ago
    > map anything you wish for your sound synthesis in a DAW 1) It's a pain to set up, and unless you'll bother to populate your default project template with every VST you have (and if you have Reaktor or Kontakt, with every virtual instrument inside that VST), you'll have to do it every time. 2) Doesn't get you the full feel of the real thing. Instead of a knob that has min and max positions and is in the exact position you expect him to be, you have a plastic thing that will not give you any real tactile feedback. 3) It omits a lot of sweet limitations of physical gear. With real synths, I personally prefer simple machines that you can, or better, have to patch from memory: (1) every time you set the sound up, you're forced set it up a little bit different to your liking, so the patch evolves over time and (2) you have to get imaginative in a live situation, and sometimes play the synth while you're in process of going from one setup to another.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  While I like my Access Virus B, I found sunvox[1] to have such a nice interface it has almost entirely displaced the Virus as my general-purpose synth. Full modular synthesis is so much fun. [1] http://www.warmplace.ru/soft/sunvox/ http://www.warmplace.ru/soft/sunvox/
- nosuchthing 11y ago
  IMO hardware synth value is mostly for the interface. Analogue filters and amplifier can be nice to add colour and while software doesn't emulate smp/distortion variations yet, it's fine enough for most people. For a beginner, a midi keyboard controller with tactile faders (not endless encoders! these are horrible.) is a solid standard and affordable set up. VSTs and DAWs are at a point where real time synthesis and effects work as well as hardware synths on a normal computer. Recommendations; Propellerheads Reason, Native Instruments FM8 (excellent 8 osc FM synth engine with fantastic easy UI), Ableton Live (sample focused DAW, with VST and routing support). MPC like devices or midi grids like the Ableton Push/APC40 are nice, but they seem to very greatly in velocity/key-push sensitivity. Warning: beware dumping money into more and more instruments assuming you're missing out on sounds - it will never end and often too many choices will never let you focus.
- tuzemec 11y ago
  I have a Virus and a microBrute. Maybe I'll get a subphatty or something like that these days. It's great to play with real knobs. But when it comes to making a real track I prefer the vsts. Diva is simply amazing. Monark is so close to a real moog. The convenience of not bouncing/recording to audio track is importand to me. The sound quality of the VSTIs these days is good enough. And if my stuff doesn't sounds good - it's on me. Not the tools and the synths.
pierrec 11y ago
The history section is really cool (edit: OK, maybe not!), but I find the conclusion horribly opinionated. Alright, making sounds on a computer might not be as fun as playing with real Legos and getting your hands dirty. So if what you want is fun, then yes, analog can make a lot of sense. But this article, reflecting some general opinion, I believe, goes a lot further... "Today there are “analog modeling” digital synths that are good enough at mimicking the character of old-school imperfection the average ear probably can’t discern the origin of the sound." That should be "the honest ear can't discern". Digital synth programmers have recently been going to great lengths to emulate the sound of analog (lengths that I personally find ridiculous, but that's beside the point), to such an extent that claiming to be able to recognize analog emulation is, in my opinion, delusional. I can't blame purists for thinking that way, though. More generally, our brain modifies the sound that we perceive based on what we know about it, and understanding this is important to becoming a good sound designer - accepting that even you can't escape it, no matter how experienced or knowledgeable you are (quite the contrary). Unfortunately, most people don't accept it, and the idea that digital synthesis inevitably yields repetitive and boring sounds is ingrained in people's minds (especially the author's mind, it seems). And then there's the idea that digital restricts your creativity because of... presets? In the 80's, maybe. But today? I suppose there are some people who pick a popular preset and don't even bother tweaking it, but these people would make shitty music whatsoever. Creative people will create creative sounds, and they will have a lot more creative freedom and unexplored territory on digital media. But go ahead and spread the idea that analog synths make sound with magically better properties - I'll be working on the actual unexplored territory in the meantime.
- EC1 11y ago
  Worlds top musicians have said they can't tell analog from digital. I laugh at purists.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  The history section has a lot of errors. The author sort of has the basics down, but there's a lot of "I didn't research this properly" in the details. And I completely agree about digital. if you can code, digital is infinitely open. Analog is sonic Lego with a heavy dose of nostalgia and positional social signalling. It's certainly fun to play with, but musically it's a lot more limited.
cottonseed 11y ago
I can recommend the documentary, "I Dream of Wires" (on Netflix) about the history of the analog modular synthesizer.
chipsy 11y ago
Inaccuracies and overly-broad statements of this article: Bob Moog did not invent the idea of a synthesizer. It emerged much earlier in the 20th century, from a mix of electric-powered organs and various other early electronics, with many of the inventors working independently. The boundary between "organ" and "analog synthesizer" has a gray area, and there were some unique pre-Moog instruments like the Theramin. Moog's contribution was to make programmable synthesis more affordable and standardized for professional use - but many of the "synth-like" sounds used in 60's and 70's records are organs with effects pedals put on them; small electronic organs had become affordable in the post-war era. The distinctive-yet-samey sounds of the 1980's aren't entirely attributable to presets; the presets are a symptom of the underlying appearance of digital technology in music. Digital simultaneously opened up new realms of affordability and privilege - at the same time you got cheap tone boxes like the Casio VL1, you also had monsters like the Synclavier, used on "Thriller" and in many movie soundtracks, with high-end configurations billed in the ballpark of $500,000 dollars(1980's money). Digital gear also changed mixing in favor of extensive production, leading to the heavy reverb washes and gated snares everywhere. Using a "high end" sound was a status symbol, so it was flaunted even if that meant you were using the same orchestra hit as everyone else. The reappearance of analog is attributable to the same backlash seen in every media market that has experienced a race-to-the-bottom in price points: Synth designers have decided to do an end run around the piracy/DRM/price-pressure issues by going back towards manufacturing. The sounds are "classic" now, and marketed as such, with a few new tricks added to keep up interest. Musicians often get into very idiosyncratic workflows and for some of them, working directly with knobs and patch cables is the right way to go.
- CamperBob2 11y ago
  Arguably the Theremin was the first synthesizer, if you don't count earlier pneumatically-operated devices.
  - abruzzi 11y ago
    The theremin's sound (as well as the ondes martenot) is just the beat frequency between two supersonic oscillators. While it is the electronic generation of sound, it doesn't really have the ability to modify the sound. Wether that a synthesizer or not, is up to your definition. Bob Moog's modular was also not the first (he and Buchla built their synths at about the same time). There was computer music being done on the RCA synthesizer in the 50s. Hugh Le Cain also did a lit of interesting stuff that predated Moog and Buchla.
golergka 11y ago
How can an article on history of synthesizers not mention a single drum machine?
joshontheweb 11y ago
If you want to play around with some of these concepts I've built a synthesizer with the web audio api here http://robotaudio.com http://robotaudio.com. I once had ambitions to make a full featured DAW out of it but I've gotten sidetracked. Still fun to play with though.
abruzzi 11y ago
The article seems to elide the differences between subtractive synths, and all the many other forms of synthesis--Frequency Modulation, Additive (Fourier), Physical Modeling, and others that don't necessarily have all the pieces they mention like filters and VCAs. The DX7 has 6 digital oscillators that can only produce sine waves and no filter. It functions very differently form subtractive synths, but is capable, with only six sines, of creating sounds that have far more complex harmonics (and non-harmonic tones) than most subtractive synths.
neoCrimeLabs 11y ago
I'm a little disappointed that there is no mention of Raymond Scott [1], whom Moog apprenticed for when he was in his teens. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Scott#Electronics_and_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Scott#Electronics_and_...

59 points by omnibrain 11y ago

aikah 11y ago

And get a real synthesizer instead of a VST. Though synthesis will be a bit more restricted, nothing replaces the pleasure of learning by tweaking real knobs on a synth. My first synth was a digital one , a novation nova, a bit cold sounding but it had nice features though it lacked of FM synthesis ( so no "piano sounds" ). Back then the Access Virus was the shit . But today analog synths are really cheap, no need to spend 2000$ on a broken old Juno or a Moog. People doing electronic music today and wanting to buy real gear have no idea how lucky they are.

mettamage 11y ago
Do you have any recommendations? I happen to know how DAWs work, but have no clue when it comes to analog synths.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Arturia's Minibrute is a nice analog for not all that much money.
- gtani 11y ago
  (this is from the sidebar in /r/synthesizers, there's lots of other good sources:) http://thesynthesizersympathizer.blogspot.com/2015/03/buying-your-first-analog-synthesizer.html http://thesynthesizersympathizer.blogspot.com/2015/03/buying... Good knobby starters (analog or virtual analog) Mini/microbrute (except there's been QC issues), bass station II, MS20 mini, ms2000, Radias, jp8080 or 8000, SH201, ... Roland made a few others 5-12 years back which i can't remember. tho for many people, it's easiest to borrow a mac with Logic Pro, which has some nice synth models (or ableton suite, which has at least a couple plugins). And borrow a controler with lots of pots, encoders and faders, Novation SL mk 2 or maudio axiom (i think both come with software premaped to Logic or ableton analog/operator)
EC1 11y ago
I started 3 months ago on my synthesis journey. Currently I only have the following: Korg MS2000B (polysynth), Ableton Push (controller), SH 101 (monosynth), 88 key piano, and an Elektron Machinedrum (for drums). Got everything I need. I started off by: 1) Reading the manuals 2) Reading the Sound on Sound series "Synth Secrets". There's an amalgamated PDF of all the series on Reddit if you search for it. I have all the tools I need to create music on the fly and it's fantastic. I can't even imagine what it would be like working with old computers, patch bays, analog sequencers ETC. I listen to things like Aphex Twin and it boggles my mind how complex his beats are, especially the stuff from the early 90's when he was only like 20. Super pumped to be learning this in 2015. Sure a Jupiter 8 cost $1k in 1989 and is $10k now, but you don't even need one at all.
bitL 11y ago
Or you can get some top quality VST for ~$2-3k (like Nexus 2) and a MIDI-controller with a plenty of knobs where you can map anything you wish for your sound synthesis in a DAW, far more versatile for your creative expression than most physical synths ;-) For many starters Mininova or Microkorg would be totally sufficient, with exotics like Korg Kaossilator for additional creativity. IMO the best setup nowadays is to have an ultrabook, a few pads/MIDI controllers, a mixer and maybe a studio 88-key MIDI keyboard if you really need it, that's it. Plenty of people are using 2-3 iPads for their whole live music production as well.
- golergka 11y ago
  > map anything you wish for your sound synthesis in a DAW 1) It's a pain to set up, and unless you'll bother to populate your default project template with every VST you have (and if you have Reaktor or Kontakt, with every virtual instrument inside that VST), you'll have to do it every time. 2) Doesn't get you the full feel of the real thing. Instead of a knob that has min and max positions and is in the exact position you expect him to be, you have a plastic thing that will not give you any real tactile feedback. 3) It omits a lot of sweet limitations of physical gear. With real synths, I personally prefer simple machines that you can, or better, have to patch from memory: (1) every time you set the sound up, you're forced set it up a little bit different to your liking, so the patch evolves over time and (2) you have to get imaginative in a live situation, and sometimes play the synth while you're in process of going from one setup to another.
pdkl95 11y ago
While I like my Access Virus B, I found sunvox[1] to have such a nice interface it has almost entirely displaced the Virus as my general-purpose synth. Full modular synthesis is so much fun. [1] http://www.warmplace.ru/soft/sunvox/ http://www.warmplace.ru/soft/sunvox/
nosuchthing 11y ago
IMO hardware synth value is mostly for the interface. Analogue filters and amplifier can be nice to add colour and while software doesn't emulate smp/distortion variations yet, it's fine enough for most people. For a beginner, a midi keyboard controller with tactile faders (not endless encoders! these are horrible.) is a solid standard and affordable set up. VSTs and DAWs are at a point where real time synthesis and effects work as well as hardware synths on a normal computer. Recommendations; Propellerheads Reason, Native Instruments FM8 (excellent 8 osc FM synth engine with fantastic easy UI), Ableton Live (sample focused DAW, with VST and routing support). MPC like devices or midi grids like the Ableton Push/APC40 are nice, but they seem to very greatly in velocity/key-push sensitivity. Warning: beware dumping money into more and more instruments assuming you're missing out on sounds - it will never end and often too many choices will never let you focus.
tuzemec 11y ago
I have a Virus and a microBrute. Maybe I'll get a subphatty or something like that these days. It's great to play with real knobs. But when it comes to making a real track I prefer the vsts. Diva is simply amazing. Monark is so close to a real moog. The convenience of not bouncing/recording to audio track is importand to me. The sound quality of the VSTIs these days is good enough. And if my stuff doesn't sounds good - it's on me. Not the tools and the synths.

pierrec 11y ago

The history section is really cool (edit: OK, maybe not!), but I find the conclusion horribly opinionated. Alright, making sounds on a computer might not be as fun as playing with real Legos and getting your hands dirty. So if what you want is fun, then yes, analog can make a lot of sense. But this article, reflecting some general opinion, I believe, goes a lot further... "Today there are “analog modeling” digital synths that are good enough at mimicking the character of old-school imperfection the average ear probably can’t discern the origin of the sound." That should be "the honest ear can't discern". Digital synth programmers have recently been going to great lengths to emulate the sound of analog (lengths that I personally find ridiculous, but that's beside the point), to such an extent that claiming to be able to recognize analog emulation is, in my opinion, delusional. I can't blame purists for thinking that way, though. More generally, our brain modifies the sound that we perceive based on what we know about it, and understanding this is important to becoming a good sound designer - accepting that even you can't escape it, no matter how experienced or knowledgeable you are (quite the contrary). Unfortunately, most people don't accept it, and the idea that digital synthesis inevitably yields repetitive and boring sounds is ingrained in people's minds (especially the author's mind, it seems). And then there's the idea that digital restricts your creativity because of... presets? In the 80's, maybe. But today? I suppose there are some people who pick a popular preset and don't even bother tweaking it, but these people would make shitty music whatsoever. Creative people will create creative sounds, and they will have a lot more creative freedom and unexplored territory on digital media. But go ahead and spread the idea that analog synths make sound with magically better properties - I'll be working on the actual unexplored territory in the meantime.

EC1 11y ago
Worlds top musicians have said they can't tell analog from digital. I laugh at purists.
TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
The history section has a lot of errors. The author sort of has the basics down, but there's a lot of "I didn't research this properly" in the details. And I completely agree about digital. if you can code, digital is infinitely open. Analog is sonic Lego with a heavy dose of nostalgia and positional social signalling. It's certainly fun to play with, but musically it's a lot more limited.

cottonseed 11y ago

I can recommend the documentary, "I Dream of Wires" (on Netflix) about the history of the analog modular synthesizer.

chipsy 11y ago

Inaccuracies and overly-broad statements of this article: Bob Moog did not invent the idea of a synthesizer. It emerged much earlier in the 20th century, from a mix of electric-powered organs and various other early electronics, with many of the inventors working independently. The boundary between "organ" and "analog synthesizer" has a gray area, and there were some unique pre-Moog instruments like the Theramin. Moog's contribution was to make programmable synthesis more affordable and standardized for professional use - but many of the "synth-like" sounds used in 60's and 70's records are organs with effects pedals put on them; small electronic organs had become affordable in the post-war era. The distinctive-yet-samey sounds of the 1980's aren't entirely attributable to presets; the presets are a symptom of the underlying appearance of digital technology in music. Digital simultaneously opened up new realms of affordability and privilege - at the same time you got cheap tone boxes like the Casio VL1, you also had monsters like the Synclavier, used on "Thriller" and in many movie soundtracks, with high-end configurations billed in the ballpark of $500,000 dollars(1980's money). Digital gear also changed mixing in favor of extensive production, leading to the heavy reverb washes and gated snares everywhere. Using a "high end" sound was a status symbol, so it was flaunted even if that meant you were using the same orchestra hit as everyone else. The reappearance of analog is attributable to the same backlash seen in every media market that has experienced a race-to-the-bottom in price points: Synth designers have decided to do an end run around the piracy/DRM/price-pressure issues by going back towards manufacturing. The sounds are "classic" now, and marketed as such, with a few new tricks added to keep up interest. Musicians often get into very idiosyncratic workflows and for some of them, working directly with knobs and patch cables is the right way to go.

CamperBob2 11y ago
Arguably the Theremin was the first synthesizer, if you don't count earlier pneumatically-operated devices.
- abruzzi 11y ago
  The theremin's sound (as well as the ondes martenot) is just the beat frequency between two supersonic oscillators. While it is the electronic generation of sound, it doesn't really have the ability to modify the sound. Wether that a synthesizer or not, is up to your definition. Bob Moog's modular was also not the first (he and Buchla built their synths at about the same time). There was computer music being done on the RCA synthesizer in the 50s. Hugh Le Cain also did a lit of interesting stuff that predated Moog and Buchla.

golergka 11y ago

How can an article on history of synthesizers not mention a single drum machine?

joshontheweb 11y ago

If you want to play around with some of these concepts I've built a synthesizer with the web audio api here http://robotaudio.com http://robotaudio.com. I once had ambitions to make a full featured DAW out of it but I've gotten sidetracked. Still fun to play with though.

abruzzi 11y ago

The article seems to elide the differences between subtractive synths, and all the many other forms of synthesis--Frequency Modulation, Additive (Fourier), Physical Modeling, and others that don't necessarily have all the pieces they mention like filters and VCAs. The DX7 has 6 digital oscillators that can only produce sine waves and no filter. It functions very differently form subtractive synths, but is capable, with only six sines, of creating sounds that have far more complex harmonics (and non-harmonic tones) than most subtractive synths.

neoCrimeLabs 11y ago

I'm a little disappointed that there is no mention of Raymond Scott [1], whom Moog apprenticed for when he was in his teens. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Scott#Electronics_and_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Scott#Electronics_and_...