2 ms·
> In my opinion, though, subtractive synthesis is the easiest to "get". Interesting, for me additive is the most intuitive. I find it easier to visualize sums
by privong 9y ago
> In my opinion, though, subtractive synthesis is the easiest to "get".
Interesting, for me additive is the most intuitive. I find it easier to visualize sums of sine waves than subtracting harmonics from a more complex waveform (such as a sawtooth), particularly when considering the use of notch or bandpass filters. But that may have a lot to do with my education, which featured a heavy dose of Fourier Transforms and associated techniques.
- soundwave106 9y agoI think the biggest "issue" with additive is that it can be complex to program at its most low-level implementation. I'm thinking of stuff like the K5000 where you could not only set the initial volume of a partial, but every partial had an envelope to control volume. Extremely powerful, but on more complex patches that's a lot of envelopes to think about. On the other hand, "simple" additive with relatively few partials is actually pretty easy too. (The Hammond B3 and other tonewheel organs are essentially additive synthesizers.) A lot of software (your Alchemys and Razors) is built on a simplified version of additive too, or uses additive techniques to perform "resynthesis", or has other tools that "simplify" some of the additive editing.