Synth Programming

Standman

I've been experimenting a lot using Operator in Live trying to replicate different sounds I've heard. I understand the basics of programming, filter/amp envelopes, different osc waveforms etc... but I just wanted to start a thread to see if anyone can provide any advice on programming different sounds that are prominent in todays electronic music.

Here's a pretty nice example I found on youtube of what you can do using operator:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAdb0GMmkVM

Neurojazz

Well that's pretty sexy - thanks for the post

krd

Standman wrote: »

I've been experimenting a lot using Operator in Live trying to replicate different sounds I've heard. I understand the basics of programming, filter/amp envelopes, different osc waveforms etc... but I just wanted to start a thread to see if anyone can provide any advice on programming different sounds that are prominent in todays electronic music.

Here's a pretty nice example I found on youtube of what you can do using operator:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAdb0GMmkVM

Operator is very complicated. Making experimental sounds is all very well, but a drop down of classic sound presets would be very nice.

Lots of sounds are easier to make if you can start with a similar sound. The Bodyrox sound is a classic bass sound with a pitch envelope on it. I have a few plugins that make the sound - but they don't have the pitch envelope - operator does. I have a piece of Roland hardware that does have the pitch envelope and it's as simple as selecting a preset bass and then playing with the attack slider for the pitch until it's doing that weird pitch thing on each note.


I would be interested in learning how to program operator - I don't fancy a thousand hours of trial and error.

jtsuited

Don't start out with fm synthesis. Learn traditional subtractive synthesis first, then move on, it'll be a lot easier.

krd

jtsuited wrote: »

Don't start out with fm synthesis. Learn traditional subtractive synthesis first, then move on, it'll be a lot easier.

Or how about starting with something that has a good selection of presets and just learning how to tweak them.

I think you could literally spend years trying to get your synthesis down from scratch.

Standman

krd wrote: »

Or how about starting with something that has a good selection of presets and just learning how to tweak them.

I think you could literally spend years trying to get your synthesis down from scratch.

That's what I usually do - start with a preset and then mess around with the parameters - but I just want to experiment a bit with creating sounds from scratch, for a bit of fun more than anything else. Also I reckon it's got to be very good for training yourself to hear different layers in any sounds or songs.

Anima

I think its a good idea to look at acoustics and psychoacoustics as well when you're learning about synthesis. Might sound a bit disconnected from it but it really does tie in and can help.

Definitely avoid presets when you're starting off or you'll never be able to find our own sounds. Just start with an oscillator and a filter and see what you can do. Take a different route each time.

jtsuited

krd wrote: »

Or how about starting with something that has a good selection of presets and just learning how to tweak them.

I think you could literally spend years trying to get your synthesis down from scratch.

Absolutely not. If you learn subtractive synthesis from the ground up, it's actually really quick.

DamagedTrax

jtsuited wrote: »

Absolutely not. If you learn subtractive synthesis from the ground up, it's actually really quick.

+1

subtractive is the basic learning point and is piss easy.

splitrmx

Oscillator -> Filter -> Envelope.

Subtractive synthesis in two seconds!

Neurojazz

Have to agree, learn the basic filters over some typical waveshapes and train your ear to how those changes affect the sound.

Put a simple lead/bass line on loop and spend a good amount of time looking at all the available filters and what happens when you resonant them and make sure you understand how the filter envelope works to shape the notes.

After that - make sure you understand how to control these via the DAW. Any grey area and hit the manuals until it's second nature.

Neurojazz

Standman wrote: »

I've been experimenting a lot using Operator in Live trying to replicate different sounds I've heard. I understand the basics of programming, filter/amp envelopes, different osc waveforms etc... but I just wanted to start a thread to see if anyone can provide any advice on programming different sounds that are prominent in todays electronic music.

Here's a pretty nice example I found on youtube of what you can do using operator:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAdb0GMmkVM

I'm doing something very, very, wrong with that sound omg.

gsparx

jtsuited wrote: »

Absolutely not. If you learn subtractive synthesis from the ground up, it's actually really quick.

Definitely. It's worth taking a fairly basic synth and spending a few hours over the course of a few days reading the manual and figuring out what each knob does. There's loads of youtube tutorials too.
It's really logical and once you get the basic concepts and use your ears it's invaluable and I would say essential if you're making synth based music.

krd

jtsuited wrote: »

Absolutely not. If you learn subtractive synthesis from the ground up, it's actually really quick.

Yeah, making basses may be quick. Can you make a harpsichord, a glockenspiel, or a Japanese flute?

All these sounds can be made if you have the oscillators and can control the envelopes.

The possibilities are infinite. Which may not be such a great thing.

splitrmx

krd wrote: »

Yeah, making basses may be quick. Can you make a harpsichord, a glockenspiel, or a Japanese flute?

Subtractive synthesis isn't the best tool to use for realistic instrument sounds. For the above you'd be better off with FM synthesis. Pick the tools for the job. Cutting down a tree with a scissors would take a long time, or you could just use a chainsaw.

jtsuited

krd wrote: »

Yeah, making basses may be quick. Can you make a harpsichord, a glockenspiel, or a Japanese flute?

All these sounds can be made if you have the oscillators and can control the envelopes.

The possibilities are infinite. Which may not be such a great thing.

I reckon I could do a harpsichord and glockenspiel from scratch that will sound better than any preset. Glockenspiel is really easy.

krd

jtsuited wrote: »

I reckon I could do a harpsichord and glockenspiel from scratch that will sound better than any preset. Glockenspiel is really easy.

I have the roughest idea about synthesis. I have read up on it - but I've forgotten so much. I know what the knobs do - and to certain extent I can shape a sound.

Where would be a good place to start. I don't have great synths to start with. Free plugins and what came with Ableton.

There are plenty of sounds I wouldn't mind knowing how to make.

jtsuited

Right, I'm gonna write a synthesis guide this weekend and y'all will be masters of it by monday.

Android 666

jtsuited wrote: »

Right, I'm gonna write a synthesis guide this weekend and y'all will be masters of it by monday.

What, like photo synthesis? Doesn't that only work for flowers?


It would be great to get some tips off yourself. I think it would be much appreciated by everyone around here.

jtsuited

Android 666 wrote: »

What, like photo synthesis? Doesn't that only work for flowers?

nah most flowers don't contain chlorophyll and that's needed for photosynthesis!

Android 666

jtsuited wrote: »

nah most flowers don't contain chlorophyll and that's needed for photosynthesis!

I had to try to be a smartarse, didn't I…

krd

jtsuited wrote: »

Right, I'm gonna write a synthesis guide this weekend and y'all will be masters of it by monday.

That'd be great thanks.

You can teach us how make glockenspiel - or even a marimba.

jtsuited

krd wrote: »

That'd be great thanks.

You can teach us how make glockenspiel - or even a marimba.

Was just messing around with the UNO 62 (because it's pretty hard to do real instruments with it), and have accidentally done a fairly kitsch sounding harpsichord....here's a screenshot.....



will post you up the sound later if you don't feel like copying the screenshot.

krd

jtsuited wrote: »

Was just messing around with the UNO 62 (because it's pretty hard to do real instruments with it), and have accidentally done a fairly kitsch sounding harpsichord....here's a screenshot.....



will post you up the sound later if you don't feel like copying the screenshot.

Yes, I managed to get a working glock from following the screenshot.

have to read over your syntheisis thread a few times to figure out what some of the things do to the sound. I understand the envelope well enough - but some stuff I don't.

jtsuited

you mean harpsichord????
You do glocks completely different.

krd

jtsuited wrote: »

you mean harpsichord????
You do glocks completely different.

Yeah well, it did sound a bit electronic - on a bad General Midi set it could pass for either a Glock or a Harpsichord. Harpsichords have a lot of very clear percussive harmonics. The hammer, slams a number of strings at once for each note. Glockenspiels have a single bell for each note.

Just listening to some Wendy Carlos playing Bach on a Moog to see - and her harpsichord sounds very space age.