Wetterberg

I have decided to build a "generic" subtractive synth to sort of 

copy-paste into my projects, but I can't - FOR THE LIFE OF ME - settle 

I know, I know, it's all a matter of taste, but I was hoping to cull a 

few good ideas from here, instead of my lame two-rect mockup.

So lay it on me - what's your ultimate synth architecture?

I have decided to build a "generic" subtractive synth to sort of 
copy-paste into my projects, but I can't - FOR THE LIFE OF ME - settle 
on a feature set.

I know, I know, it's all a matter of taste, but I was hoping to cull a 
few good ideas from here, instead of my lame two-rect mockup.

So lay it on me - what's your ultimate synth architecture?
Cheers much!

thoughts-on-msp-synths-for-flexibility

God, I hate having these conversations with myself!

PLEASE, don't make me do another "maxMSP FM synth" - I don't think I'll 

Alternatively, please answer this perhaps even simpler question:

> I have decided to build a "generic" subtractive synth to sort of 

> copy-paste into my projects, but I can't - FOR THE LIFE OF ME - settle 

> I know, I know, it's all a matter of taste, but I was hoping to cull a 

> few good ideas from here, instead of my lame two-rect mockup.

> So lay it on me - what's your ultimate synth architecture?

God, I hate having these conversations with myself!
PLEASE, don't make me do another "maxMSP FM synth" - I don't think I'll 
make it out alive :-)

Alternatively, please answer this perhaps even simpler question:
"What's your favourite synth?"

/ahem. As you were.
a.
> Hi all,
>
> I have decided to build a "generic" subtractive synth to sort of 
> copy-paste into my projects, but I can't - FOR THE LIFE OF ME - settle 
> on a feature set.
>
> I know, I know, it's all a matter of taste, but I was hoping to cull a 
> few good ideas from here, instead of my lame two-rect mockup.
>
> So lay it on me - what's your ultimate synth architecture?
> Cheers much!
>
> Andreas.
>
> .
>


I just started to get into synth building and am trying to figure out what exactly I want to put in my first major synth project.

Wow.
I'm in essentially the same situation.
I just started to get into synth building and am trying to figure out what exactly I want to put in my first major synth project.
Argh!


but how bout just playing with existing soft synth designs first to see

which functions and algorithms attract you the most.

I find Reaktor ensembles very instructive in this respect - my favourite

is Metaphysical Function. Of course this does require you have access to a

On Wed, May 28, 2008 11:15 am, Eric Sheffield wrote:

> I just started to get into synth building and am trying to figure out what

> exactly I want to put in my first major synth project.

but how bout just playing with existing soft synth designs first to see
which functions and algorithms attract you the most.

I find Reaktor ensembles very instructive in this respect - my favourite
is Metaphysical Function. Of course this does require you have access to a
Reaktor install

On Wed, May 28, 2008 11:15 am, Eric Sheffield wrote:
>
> Wow.
> I'm in essentially the same situation.
> I just started to get into synth building and am trying to figure out what
> exactly I want to put in my first major synth project.
> Argh!
>
>

-- 
Mobile 0417 566 425
E-mail: george@georgekhut.com
http://www.georgekhut.com


You could do what I started doing lately. I've been looking at modular synths, their modules and what they all do.

Deopfer's got a nice pdf catalog with all their modules, and some great technical info that can help build the patch versions. :)

You could do what I started doing lately.  I've been looking at modular synths, their modules and what they all do.

Deopfer's got a nice pdf catalog with all their modules, and some great technical info that can help build the patch versions.  :)


Quote: Wetterberg wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 16:33

----------------------------------------------------

> Alternatively, please answer this perhaps even simpler question:

Right now my favorite synth is Sculpture in Logic Pro. It's a physical modeling synth. Maybe I like it because I have no clue how to make anything that sounds like it. Probably that doesn't help you ;)

Anyway, I'm not a synth building expert, but since you are interested in subtractive synths... the basic idea is to filter a noisy signal right? I think it could be fun to experiment with generating the noisy signal in some novel ways, like waveshaping or other distortions, instead of using a rect/saw wave + white noise or whatever. And maybe doing a complicated chain of filters with some feedback. Like it might be cool to have a matrix UI for routing to different types of filters and the ability to feed the output signal back into the filtering matrix. And then you can add LFO modulators for all those different pieces. Just some thoughts off the top of my head...

Quote: Wetterberg wrote on Tue, 27 May 2008 16:33
----------------------------------------------------
>
> Alternatively, please answer this perhaps even simpler question:
> "What's your favourite synth?"
>

Anyway, I'm not a synth building expert, but since you are interested in subtractive synths... the basic idea is to filter a noisy signal right? I think it could be fun to experiment with generating the noisy signal in some novel ways, like waveshaping or other distortions, instead of using a rect/saw wave + white noise or whatever. And maybe doing a complicated chain of filters with some feedback. Like it might be cool to have a matrix UI for routing to different types of filters and the ability to feed the output signal back into the filtering matrix. And then you can add LFO modulators for all those different pieces. Just some thoughts off the top of my head...


On May 27, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Andreas Wetterberg wrote:

> God, I hate having these conversations with myself!

> PLEASE, don't make me do another "maxMSP FM synth" - I don't think 

>> I have decided to build a "generic" subtractive synth to sort of 

>> copy-paste into my projects, but I can't - FOR THE LIFE OF ME - 

>> I know, I know, it's all a matter of taste, but I was hoping to 

>> cull a few good ideas from here, instead of my lame two-rect mockup.

>> So lay it on me - what's your ultimate synth architecture?

I don't think I have a favorite architecture... it changes depending 

on vibe and mercury. One thing I do like to build into everything is 

controllable variation. Sometimes I want sample accurate 

repeatability in every keypress, other times I want slight changes in 

any or all parameters with every new sounding note, other times I want 

a brand new noise under every key only moderately related to the base 

I really like the idea of thinking of a synth sound as a range of 

parameters to move around in rather than something static, with the 

center point of the parameters and their possible width of change 

considered as the saved settings. Extra wonderment if these shifts in 

parameters are connected to hardware control like joysticks and/or 

Also, the happy accidents of random parameter generation are high on 

my list. Click - bang - new sound until you find something you like.

Knowing you, Andreas, this will be the *monster* of all "generic" 

> God, I hate having these conversations with myself!
> PLEASE, don't make me do another "maxMSP FM synth" - I don't think  
> I'll make it out alive :-)
>
> Alternatively, please answer this perhaps even simpler question:
> "What's your favourite synth?"
>
> /ahem. As you were.
> a.
>> I have decided to build a "generic" subtractive synth to sort of  
>> copy-paste into my projects, but I can't - FOR THE LIFE OF ME -  
>> settle on a feature set.
>>
>> I know, I know, it's all a matter of taste, but I was hoping to  
>> cull a few good ideas from here, instead of my lame two-rect mockup.
>>
>> So lay it on me - what's your ultimate synth architecture?
>> Cheers much!

I don't think I have a favorite architecture... it changes depending  
on vibe and mercury.  One thing I do like to build into everything is  
controllable variation.  Sometimes I want sample accurate  
repeatability in every keypress, other times I want slight changes in  
any or all parameters with every new sounding note, other times I want  
a brand new noise under every key only moderately related to the base  
values of the saved synth preset.

I really like the idea of thinking of a synth sound as a range of  
parameters to move around in rather than something static, with the  
center point of the parameters and their possible width of change  
considered as the saved settings.  Extra wonderment if these shifts in  
parameters are connected to hardware control like joysticks and/or  
synched to bpm.

Also, the happy accidents of random parameter generation are high on  
my list.  Click - bang - new sound until you find something you like.

Knowing you, Andreas, this will be the *monster* of all "generic"  
subtractive synths. ;)

Vlad Spears
Tanj!  I'm already out of Known Space!

http://www.daevlmakr.com
http://www.2secondfuse.com

saw > *~ > pong (fold) > biquad filtercoeff lowpass (with fast sine or tri cutoff modulation) > comb > phaseshift~

> Alternatively, please answer this perhaps even simpler question: 

Record it and apply some strange distributed granular clouds...

What's also cool is some modified karplus strong, with added noise and

sawtooth/pulse, different kinds of exaltation.... Recently got a nice 

> Also, the happy accidents of random parameter generation are high on

> my list. Click - bang - new sound until you find something you like.

This reminds me on these DX 7 "editors" of the eighties, because the 

average customer never understood fm, they let them create tons of sound 

banks randomly... I always was faster than these random jockeys to get 

Andreas Wetterberg schrieb:
> Alternatively, please answer this perhaps even simpler question: 
> "What's your favourite synth?"

My voice, hard to beat...
Record it and apply some strange distributed granular clouds...

What's also cool is some modified karplus strong, with added noise and
sawtooth/pulse, different kinds of exaltation.... Recently got a nice 
cello like sound with that...

Vlad Spears schrieb:
> Also, the happy accidents of random parameter generation are high on
> my list.  Click - bang - new sound until you find something you like.

This reminds me on these DX 7 "editors" of the eighties, because the 
average customer never understood fm, they let them create tons of sound 
banks randomly... I always was faster than these random jockeys to get 
good results...

-- 
Stefan Tiedje------------x-------
--_____-----------|--------------
--(_|_ ----|-----|-----()-------
-- _|_)----|-----()--------------
----------()--------www.ccmix.com


If one is willing to forgive Native Instruments for

getting so *much* right with their M7 port and then

making sure that tunings were not interoperable [no

doubt based on the assumption that no one would use

them or care] from the hardware to the software, then

it's worth mentioning that their "simplified" interface

for coaxing new sounds out of an existing FM patch is

quite nice, in my opinion. I'm a bit surprised that no

one has done much with creating an MSP variant of the

If one is willing to forgive Native Instruments for
getting so *much* right with their M7 port and then
making sure that tunings were not interoperable [no
doubt based on the assumption that no one would use
them or care] from the hardware to the software, then
it's worth mentioning that their "simplified" interface
for coaxing new sounds out of an existing FM patch is
quite nice, in my opinion. I'm a bit surprised that no
one has done much with creating an MSP variant of the
same.


On May 28, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Stefan Tiedje wrote:

>> Also, the happy accidents of random parameter generation are high on

>> my list. Click - bang - new sound until you find something you like.

> This reminds me on these DX 7 "editors" of the eighties, because the 

> average customer never understood fm, they let them create tons of 

> sound banks randomly... I always was faster than these random 

I'm a firm believer in knowing your gear inside and out. You can't 

wring good stuff out unless you understand the full range of 

capabilities. Randomization is for when I don't know what I want, and 

want to play with a sound I might not have made myself at a particular 

moment in time. It can be inspiring and provide a place to start from 

you wouldn't have thought would work, but somehow does.

One trick I like with randomization is to limit values to generally 

fruitful ranges. There are always cases outside the boundaries of 

known good sound space where I may want a parameter to go down to 0 

and up to 20,000, but for randomization I'm more likely to get better 

general results if I limit it to between 1000 and 9000.

On May 28, 2008, at 11:02 AM, Stefan Tiedje wrote:
>
> Vlad Spears schrieb:
>> Also, the happy accidents of random parameter generation are high on
>> my list.  Click - bang - new sound until you find something you like.
>
> This reminds me on these DX 7 "editors" of the eighties, because the  
> average customer never understood fm, they let them create tons of  
> sound banks randomly... I always was faster than these random  
> jockeys to get good results...

I'm a firm believer in knowing your gear inside and out.  You can't  
wring good stuff out unless you understand the full range of  
capabilities.  Randomization is for when I don't know what I want, and  
want to play with a sound I might not have made myself at a particular  
moment in time.  It can be inspiring and provide a place to start from  
you wouldn't have thought would work, but somehow does.

One trick I like with randomization is to limit values to generally  
fruitful ranges.  There are always cases outside the boundaries of  
known good sound space where I may want a parameter to go down to 0  
and up to 20,000, but for randomization I'm more likely to get better  
general results if I limit it to between 1000 and 9000.

Thanks for all the gracious replies - much appreciated - it has 

> Knowing you, Andreas, this will be the *monster* of all "generic" 

hehe, you're kind of right, which is also why I am trying to avoid 

making something enormous like that. The aim is for something simple, 

> I think it could be fun to experiment with generating the noisy signal in some novel ways, like waveshaping or other distortions, instead of using a rect/saw wave + white noise or whatever. And maybe doing a complicated chain of filters with some feedback.

I may go for a sort of wavetable frankensynth, which allows you to 

sample both itself and an audio input - that way I can include a number 

of my favourite things right in there - buffer chopping and so on, right 

Maybe I actually need to think more in terms of a modular, freely 

patchable in a sense. sampler+synth->FM->waveshaping->filters->effects. 

Question there is, however: How to simplify modularity like that.

Goal is to break the synth down so far that it gets to sort of that 

"Groovebox 8 param edit" mode, while retaining the depth... somehow.

Thanks for all the gracious replies - much appreciated - it has 
definitely sparked a lot of ideas!

Vlad Spears wrote:
> Knowing you, Andreas, this will be the *monster* of all "generic" 
> subtractive synths. ;)
hehe, you're kind of right, which is also why I am trying to avoid 
making something enormous like that. The aim is for something simple, 
yet flexible.

Adam Murray wrote:
> I think it could be fun to experiment with generating the noisy signal in some novel ways, like waveshaping or other distortions, instead of using a rect/saw wave + white noise or whatever. And maybe doing a complicated chain of filters with some feedback.
good idea, that.
I may go for a sort of wavetable frankensynth, which allows you to 
sample both itself and an audio input - that way I can include a number 
of my favourite things right in there - buffer chopping and so on, right 
inside the synthesis element.
Maybe I actually need to think more in terms of a modular, freely 
patchable in a sense. sampler+synth->FM->waveshaping->filters->effects. 
Question there is, however: How to simplify modularity like that.

Goal is to break the synth down so far that it gets to sort of that 
"Groovebox 8 param edit" mode, while retaining the depth... somehow.

> It can be inspiring and provide a place to start from 

> you wouldn't have thought would work, but somehow does.

Yes that is certainly a point to use randomisation, get a set of 

parameters you never thought of, but still produce an new interesting 

> One trick I like with randomization is to limit values to generally 

Though this would be sort of the opposite of the above approach. Because 

at the same time you limit it to your already known world...

The same would apply to some neural net approaches, let the randomizer 

learn what you like. But it would also learn what you know already and 

Its hard to explore the space between imagination and the unimaginable, 

Vlad Spears schrieb:
> It can be inspiring and provide a place to start from 
> you wouldn't have thought would work, but somehow does.

Yes that is certainly a point to use randomisation, get a set of 
parameters you never thought of, but still produce an new interesting 
result...

> One trick I like with randomization is to limit values to generally 
> fruitful ranges.

Though this would be sort of the opposite of the above approach. Because 
at the same time you limit it to your already known world...

The same would apply to some neural net approaches, let the randomizer 
learn what you like. But it would also learn what you know already and 
thus prevent the surprising settings...

Its hard to explore the space between imagination and the unimaginable, 
but any attempt is already rewarding...

On May 29, 2008, at 5:29 AM, Stefan Tiedje wrote:

>> One trick I like with randomization is to limit values to generally 

> Though this would be sort of the opposite of the above approach. 

> Because at the same time you limit it to your already known world...

What I meant is my own problem with randomizers is many of the 

generated sets of parameters include values which would not be used in 

almost any playing context, like a volume envelope that stays at zero 

until 3 seconds into the sound, then you get a percussive blast. The 

percussive blast should be right at 0. By excluding these semi- 

pointless ranges, you get more useful sounds per click.

What I'd really like to do in terms of randomization is develop 

something like the Oblique Strategies into a full set of automatically 

applied actions. Maybe this winter I'll give it a try.

> Vlad Spears schrieb:
>> One trick I like with randomization is to limit values to generally  
>> fruitful ranges.
>
> Though this would be sort of the opposite of the above approach.  
> Because at the same time you limit it to your already known world...

What I meant is my own problem with randomizers is many of the  
generated sets of parameters include values which would not be used in  
almost any playing context, like a volume envelope that stays at zero  
until 3 seconds into the sound, then you get a percussive blast.  The  
percussive blast should be right at 0.  By excluding these semi- 
pointless ranges, you get more useful sounds per click.

What I'd really like to do in terms of randomization is develop  
something like the Oblique Strategies into a full set of automatically  
applied actions.  Maybe this winter I'll give it a try.

Thoughts on MSP synths for flexibility.