Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Learning Synths

learningsynths.ableton.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 128 posts

Re: Learning Synths

#91

Post by harvodex »

f1shy wrote: post #3

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.

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/

Re: Learning Synths

#92

Post by bmitc »

shwaj wrote: post #84
bmitc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

“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.

> “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.

Re: Learning Synths

#93

Post by weatherlight »

harvodex wrote: post #90
weatherlight wrote: post #30

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 Happy patching :) There's a bunch of other really interesting types of synthesis and…

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.

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

Re: Learning Synths

#94

Post by brudgers »

weatherlight wrote: post #62
56j56n65u656 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 un…

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 ab…

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.

Re: Learning Synths

#96

Post by weatherlight »

brudgers wrote: post #94
weatherlight wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ab…

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.

Again, the OPs post is an introduction to synthesis. Good luck finding those “sounds.”

Re: Learning Synths

#97

Post by bodge5000 »

weatherlight wrote: post #30

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 Happy patching :) There's a bunch of other really interesting types of synthesis and…

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 (£150 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.

Re: Learning Synths

#98

Post by alfiedotwtf »

weatherlight wrote: post #30

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 Happy patching :) There's a bunch of other really interesting types of synthesis and…

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!

Re: Learning Synths

#99

Post by adriand »

weatherlight wrote: post #83
tarentel wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The original post is about synthesis and learning about synthesis. Not music theory or how to program an acid patch. Those are separate skills.

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).

Re: Learning Synths

#100

Post by an_aparallel »

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.

Post reply on HN