Can you guys please tell me more on Subtractive and Additive Synthesizers ?

Like example what are these synthesizers??

1.Image-Line Harmor ?
2.NI Massive ?
3.Sylenth1 ?
4.Xfer Serum ?
5.Waves Codex ?
6.NI Razor (reaktor) ?

 

Subtractive synthesis

Additive synthesis

 

Subtractive synthesis involves generating sounds rich in harmonics and then shaping them by subtracting frequencies utilizing a filter. Additive synthesis involves the addition of individual harmonic and non-harmonic partials that make up a sound.

1. Additive/Subtractive Synthesis.
2. Wavetable Synthesis.
3. Subtractive Synthesis.
4. Wavetable Synthesis.
5. Wavetable Synthesis.
6. Additive Synthesis.

 

If you want to know about synthesis, as opposed as to just getting us to do your homework for you , go to http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/allsynthsecrets.htm

Start at the bottom of the page with part one and enjoy

 

Article name incorrect or Not Available on this site

 

thanks!!

 

You're welcome.

 

Sorry, there was a full stop at the end that shouldn't have been there, fixed now.

 

1.Image-Line Harmor: Additive - Subtractive

2.NI Massive: Virtual Analog (Wave Scanning OSC)

3.Sylenth1: Virtual Analog / Subtractive

4.Xfer Serum: Wavetable Synthesis

5.Waves Codex: Wavetable Synthesis

6.NI Razor (reaktor): Additive

Now, let the experts here may explain the differences between them

 

I am by no means an expert but I'll take a stab at it. Additive and Subtractive I've already explained. Wavetable is a form of synthesis in which various waveforms will be scanned (or rather swept via inaudible basic waveforms) through to produce a certain characteristic timbre. A wavetable synth will allow you to morph between all points in between these waveforms (formulas) such as in Massive where if you assign a Square/Saw you can change between those two formulas with the WT Position knob which is often automated for interesting timbre changes over time. In Serum I believe each oscillator is actually a superposition of many wavetables and it can scan through them, many more than in Massive and with much higher quality audio. Virtual Analog simply means that they try to emulate the analog circuits of classic synthesizers which have that characteristic warmth as opposed to the often sterile and cold nature of digital synths (although there's a season for those as well). Or do you mean the differences between the synths? If that then I can't fully answer as I haven't yet played with Codex or Serum.

 

One of the first additive synthesizers was Discodsp Vertigo.. It's still available and cheap too..

 

Roland - SH-3A, 1974

 

I'm deffo not an expert by a long stretch but the Wavetable Synthesis that the others above mentioned that has become so popular in recent times invented by Wolfgang Palm.

He did has done loads of stuff & worth checking out all his stuff & info. I liked his Plex synth that he did for Steinberg.

You can get that free as far as I aware & even now it still good for creating & restructuring sounds & stuff.

As for additive & subractive synthesis I reckon Catalyst's explanation was an excellent place to start *yes*

Interesting topic nice one

 

I will if I may, take issue with, '.....sterile and cold nature of digital synths...' I find it upsetting that anybody who truly loves electronic music can say anything negative about electronic digital recording or synthesis, and be in hysterical yearning for that so-called 'warm analogue sound'. Electronic music is meant to be artificial, robotic, cold, non-human, machine-like, Kraftwerk nailed it very early on. I am familiar with some of the arguments about this topic, and it might add something for the OP, even if it might seem OT. I know that the first electronic music was created with so-called analogue synthesis - and? They were trying to create a cold, digital sound before digital came along Then I think what happened, is that musicians and producers just didn't (and still don't) know how to create with digital. Producers, with their strings being pulled by record companies who demand a 'certain sound' on the hi-fis, have been doomed to create with digital, a sound that is the same as analogue, and of course, that can only be properly achieved with analogue. What a shame that we don't yet know that we have a 'new sound', probably requiring new equipment to listen to it on, and even requiring new ways to listen to it, I mean new ways to appreciate it, get into it. I think we now need to 'run with it', run with this digital sound and see where it takes us. If digital doesn't have the same bass (or whatever), then it's a new (type of) sound, and we should explore it, and explore, as I said, even new ways to listen to it. Comparing analogue sound to digital sound is like comparing a harpsichord with a piano, what's the point? They are similar, but just different. I love electronic music, and I love digital. For me, when I hear e.g a low bitrate MP3 in the car (my wife's mem stick for instance. She knows little about bitrate, and cares even less about it) but when I hear a low quality MP3, to me the artifacts I'm hearing are adding to the sound, as I'm listening, I'm enjoying thinking about what the digital process had done to this recording, it's a love of digital and the electronic realm that I'm talking about; it's a new kind of enjoyment, a new kind of listening, I think about things like, 'could MP3 artifacts be used as a sound in themselves to create music, to add atmos, in the same way as distortion is used in other recording processes?' See where I'm going with this? If we're going to take the leap and truly accept digital, we have to 'get into it', get our heads around it, in positive ways rather than negative, and stop listening to dinosaurs who can't leave the analogue past behind.

 

U mean as in the old Digital vs Analogue? My own personal opinion would be that I would reckon both techniques have their own 'inherrent' good points/bad points & additive synthesis not possible in Analogue Synths?

I would also reckon that 'sterile and cold' is simply a description in general terms & doesn't have to be seen in a negative way at all. After all that could be the exact sound you want.

 

Jack
I love cold and sterile, simply trying to relay what the sound is like rather than any attached personal judgment. It also depends on genre, some genres are more suited towards digital than others (Industrial being a prime example of where digital shines). Personally I love that we have a choice because the warm drift of analog oscillators would be boring without some of the amazing complexity of sounds you can coax out of a digital synth. It's just another color in the producer's palette as far as I'm concerned not something to avoid.

 

I hear you guys. My angst is with the almost paranoid industry disdain of digital sound, and producers constantly seeking that 'warm analogue sound' as an antidote to -as they see it- the awful, lifeless, bassless digital sound. They are in a pointless pursuit, another analogy would be to have an utter dislike of the electric guitar in favour of the accoustic guitar, it would be pointless to say that the electric guitar doesn't do this or that in the same way as the Spanish guitar, they are different instruments. The argument only gets slightly interesting when the producers make a case with industry standards and current recording equipment they're forced to work with, but it's almost like preferring to master to cassette or vinyl record in favour of CD or MP3. If digital has less dynamics, then so be it, we should create to the new media, and concentrate our creative efforts in other areas of music.

 

I enjoyed reading your post but some of your points are a bit off.

MP3 artefacts is from degrading the audio. It basically throws away information to make the file size smaller. This is not good for music from both a producer and a listener point of view. We would have lost the original 'essence' of music if we were to go the full digital route with compression as you mentioned.

In regards to the (a word I prefer to use) 'precision' of digital audio, I have argued its points as positive in the past with my lecturers. An example of this is how vinyl cuts off high frequencies as well as bass. If a person were to utilise these lost or attenuated frequencies, such as making a sci-fi sound effect, it would be far better (read as "preferred")in digital domain than on something such as vinyl.

However, I feel your argument about digital vs. analogue is seen from the wrong point of view. It's not about sounds being more 'happier' when it comes to the 'warmth' that people are talking about. When audio is passed through analogue components it gains certain characters that make it more appealing to a listeners ear. This is what people are referring to as the 'warmth'. This does not dictate that the music will not be "cold and sterile". For example, you can create a 'cold and sterile' sound on a true Moog analogue synth and then recreate it as a preset on a VST. The VST version just seems to lose something that is more appealing; especially when it comes to analogue filters. The argument isn't about adaption to genres or styles of music but how sound seems to end up with certain characteristics that the digital can't currently replicate as well. Many of the software synths you're utilising have tried to emulate these analogue components so keep that in mind when you're trying to 'write off' analogue gear as you're probably using a filter based on analogue system or something similar.

 

many people, reviewers, tutorials, experts, say that after the period after 200x-2012, where people started selling their hardware, little by little, as the could just do everything in the box, since a few years, people are again moving back to hardware. outboard gear, synths, etc, more and more manufacturers produce them, and it seems like people are again adopting those. people that used to just work on logic, 100% in the box, have started buying a little virus here, a little minibrute there, a little compressor, etc etc-

it was really really tough, back in the days. and expensive.

 

I think Abacus raised some really excellent points. That's why I asked because I didn't quite understand the direction either.

As we were initially talking about additive Synthesis e.c.t. Well my first thought was that the nature of the analogue circuity itself makes additive synthesis impractical.

Therefore it is obvious to some degree that to be involved in that field you are to some extent forced into leaving behind analogue synths & move into the digital spectrum. However like Abacus mentioned to simply 'throw away' the contribution that the Anologue side played & still does/will imo would be dangerous.

Why? Because as he mentioned a lot of the software synths are in fact attemting to replicate the charecteristic sound produced by the analogue circuitry.

From my own point of view it would be similar to comparing Fractal Audio Systems Axe FX II to a tube amp. The Axe FX II an expensive digital modelling pre amp with integrated effects unit with dual DSP chips.

What it does is try (and also does it very well) and emulate the 'Warmth' created in tubes/circuits ect.

It would be similar again to transistor based amps vs tube amps.

At a high signal level the transistor amp will 'clip' & distort in doing so creating a not very nice sounding (imo) 'distortion' effect. A tube however when run at a very high level, will saturate & in doing so naturally compress and give a lovely, thick sounding overdrive sound.

However you are 'never' going (imo) to 100% replicate the sound of a tube amp with digital modelling. What the DSP modelling does offer in advantage is a huge array of different tones right across the spectrum that at the press of a switch. So it also has it's advantages & is often better in a practical sense.

So in real terms, yes the digital domain is developing at a very quick rate & getting 'better' day by day with is uses & the versatility/options it provides the user with.

But will it ever truelly, replicate the analogue domain that it is so often attempting to replicate. In my opinion *no* .

As to the nature of causing offense you could also argue that the words 'Fat, warm & thick' that are so often used the describe the analogue sound are more offensive if used out of context than 'Cold & Sterile'.

All in all, I think it is mainly about picking the 'right tool' for the job & using whatever equipment necessary to fill your own particular 'sonic pallete'

McCookie, my own opinion is that hardware never really went out of fashion.

I think it was like you said that it was so expensive that to 99.9% of every day people it was not accessible. As it comes down in price more & more my own personal opinion is that it will pop up like u say more & more in peoples home studios e.c.t.

What was not accessible in the past is fast becoming 'affordable' to many more users. I do think the way it appear though in the sense of becoming a 'complete' integrated functional unit will be fascinating to witness.