My dear @Sackbut, is this a monologue?

I've read your spoiler content. Additive synthesis sounds, and I repeat myself, too thin and lacks assertiveness, which is why these synthesizers are rarely played. What you're doing is rehashing the theory; it's good that you're learning something. I'm a sound designer myself and more interested in the sound itself.

The Vital wavetable synthesizer is programmed very well compared to other wavetable synthesizers, which is why it sounds more powerful. As you can see, it comes down to expertise, a love of music, and the right engine.

The SocaLabs Wavetable (Synth Plugin)
https://socalabs.com/synths/wavetable/ sounds somewhat worse and thinner than the Vital and therefore can't assert itself, leading a niche existence.

 

That's right, Elon Musk's Grok is probably having a bad day!

Here is the complete, correct data.

U-HE is an audio software company from Berlin, founded in 2001 by Urs Heckmann.
The original one-man operation has since grown into a small team of employees and freelancers with ambitious plans for the future.

 

That's not entirely correct. There's a difference between WT and sample-based synthesis although they both utilize same principal. The SB synthesis use an entire sample as a sound source, that makes for example pitch relative where WT use samples to generate wavetables, that is chains of single cycle sounds preconfigured to the same base frequency. Synclavier, Fairlight CMI are two examples of the sample-based synthesis.

WT isn't possible in the analogue domain (this is probably what you've meant by "pure" synthesis) but in the digital domain whether its subtractive synth oscillators or WT synth oscillators doesn't matter - it's still going to be digital (thus equally "pure" or "dirty", however you like)

Unfortunately some sources don't acknowledge the difference, I've just went to LANDR's website and they list WT and SB synthesis as one and the same which is kind of hints why their synth suck bolls so much

 

I find this thread weird, can't really make heads or tails out of it. Might be only a me problem and doesn't matter. Carry on!

 

Not just you. It's a massively bizarre/random question to pose in the first place. Pick any two diametrically opposed plugins from different eras and then attempt to compare for ... reasons.

 

Wavetable vs FM vs Additive vs Subtractive Synths (Explained Simply)
https://producerhive.com/ask-the-hive/wavetable-vs-fm-vs-additive-vs-subtractive-synthesis/

Wavetable Synthesis: A Complete Guide +150 Free Wavetables
https://producerhive.com/ask-the-hive/what-are-wavetables/

 

Welcome to the hilarious but sad future of forums: where humans argue using AI to sound smart, pretending they know what they’re talking about, while AI throws in extra chaos and confusion providing incorrect and fictitious info

 

You're referring to a short quote I lifted from Native Instruments' site, the link to the full article which I provided in that comment. If they don't understand wavetable synthesis properly...

If nature produces sine waves as fundamentals, then all other synths that are not additive are, in a sense, cheats.
____
"Wavetable synthesis is basically a kind of 'cheat code' version of additive synthesis. Instead of having to design complex waveforms, you can just sample an existing one that's pretty good, and loop it, mixing it with other waveforms to create more complex or evolving sounds."

 

Last edited: Nov 27, 2025 at 7:50 PM

You should see what I say about AI on another forum. (Feel free to PM me and I'll see about finding the link.)

In any case, it's a fair thread, I stand by it, and no one is forced to read it-- including you, who nevertheless enters it anyway, right? To contribute what exactly? Little that seems constructive.

Is music creative?

 

Last edited: Nov 27, 2025 at 9:23 PM