Hacker News Reader

Comment by weatherlight | Hacker News Reader

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 <- your first tutorial

Happy patching :)

There's a bunch of other really interesting types of synthesis and you can explore them using the above software

    - Frequency/phase modulation synthesis
    - Vector synthesis
    - physical modeling/Karplus strong
    - Additive synthesis
    - Eastcoast (subtractive)
    - Westcoast (waveshaping/LP gates)

View on HN

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 understand subtractive you can graduate to more complicated methods of synthesis like FM, vector, ETC.

Came here to say this. I would recommend surge or vital as a starting point.

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 able to.

Sure, they may make some cool noises buy they wouldn't understand, what is what, why is hooked up to what and how that might differ on some other fixed architecture synth.

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 use them so I agree with the comment you're replying to. Get an all in one synth and start making patches.

If you gave someone an SH-101 and explained to them how it was architected it wouldn't really help them make that signature acid bass sound so ya they'd be a little more knowledgeable on how synthesizers technically work but they still wouldn't be able to make any music with it. Whereas if I showed them how to make that bass sound they could now go try it on every other subtractive synth they run into even if it doesn't sound the same. Besides that, they'd learn how a lot of it works in a musical sense which is way more important to using synths than any technical knowledge will give you if you actually want to write music.

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).

The first two-thirds of this tutorial seems to be focused on breaking down the components of a standard subtractive synthesizer (essentially the synthesis process itself). However, it doesn’t really delve into how these components are interconnected or how they operate as a cohesive system. The latter part of the tutorial is more aligned with what you're referring to. That said, the knowledge gained here isn’t universally applicable to all synthesizers, it's only applicable to Subtractive Synths. If the tutorial took just one additional step, it could provide a more complete foundation, but as it stands, it leaves you wanting more (or worse, not know you need to know more). For a more versatile pointed approach, I suggested using something like VCV Rack, because Its modular interface allows you to import only the modules you need to explore or explain a specific synthesis method. This hands-on method enables you to experiment and internalize the concepts, which can then be applied to the synthesizers you have on hand.

Most tutorial videos are 5-10 minutes long, and completely reproducible and it's very clear the signal flow from one part to the next.

Fair enough. I should try it, although I have a pretty good grasp of how subtractive synths work. What about FM synthesis, do you have any suggestions on that? I find it the least intuitive by far, not that my experience extends to many other kinds (I mainly use wavetable, sample-based and subtractive synths these days).

I'd still do the first tutorial above, so you can understand how to use VCV Rack, but here is a small tutorial (10 minutes.) That will help you understand what's going on under the hood of your favorite FM synths. He doesn't do this in the video, but I would attach the output to the oscilloscope module to get an intuition for why certain parameters affect the specific harmonics that give FM its characteristic sound.

Your FM synth at home is 100x more time complicated than this patch you build but if you grok what's going on here, you should have a better idea of what going on in your other FM synths.

https://youtu.be/gzWFunWNTjQ?si=veuGdCTc1gETntO3

Thank you, that looks super helpful!

It's not how all synths work, probably the most famous FM synth the DX-7 never had a filter, additive synths don't really need filters either, but for a subtractive synth this would be unthinkable. And the general architecture of any synth is usually not that hard, you have a source, possibly filters, an amp and some modulators.

My friend, with the app above you can take 6 VCOs, have them modulate each other and understand how the FM(phase) synthesis on a DX7 works. Instead of guessing. Explore why certain ratios produce bell like tones etc.

One of may favorite digital synths is the TX-81z. 4op FM. One of the first digital synths where the operators weren’t restricted to sine waves. (DX7 had 6op FM)

If you just look at the specs. And even play with the values you won’t understand why one synth could obtain sounds the other couldn’t.

That “source” is usually the synthesis method.(usually the complicated part outside of anything that’s not a traditional VCO)

If you have a filter, the resonance imparts a particular sound as well.

Digitone is 4op fm as the source then that’s funneled through a pretty standard east coast architecture.

> You build the synth one module and one connection at a time all connected to an oscilloscope.

making my music hobby feel like my job sounds terrible lol

I’m sorry :( I get it. It’s how I feel about DAWs.

Some of us are just synthesis hobbyists and the musical part comes second. Exploration is a joy.

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.”

You don’t have to know theory to make acid with a TB-303, i.e. the subtractive synth that changed music the most.

Not every one has a 303, Maybe they want to take that cheap Behringer mono synth and do acid on that?

one could argue what made it great was that it only has 5 parameters that affects it's sound and it's sequencer, (and it was a total flop financially for Roland and could bought 2nd hand for like 50 bucks in Detroit. and dance music is better for it!)

and as per the subtractive synth that change music the most...I'm going to go with Moog or mini-Moog, without them there's no 303, 101, Juno, Jupiter, etc.

I love me some good acid-house though, and much rather have a 303 then a mini-moog. :)

much rather have a 303 then a mini-moog

Thanks to Uli, I can afford the both. And a 2600, etc.

OP actually gave pretty sound advice. maybe be a little more constructive next time and less edgelord.

I actually really think that starting with assembly would be a great place for someone to start learning programming. But not x86 and not on a traditional PC. Instead using some microcontroller attached to a breadboard with a few simple peripherals like a keypad, simple LCD (or maybe an 8-segment).

The control-flow is obvious, the syntax is simple enough that novices shouldn't struggle with it, and writing directly to pins to control the peripherals gives immediate concrete feedback.

Surge is incredibly complex and powerful and will be way overwhelming to a new user. They will be rediced to browsing the patch library not really understanding how things work.

With VCVRack and the right tutorial, a user will build a basic synth with an oscillator, filter, amp and envelope generator - which together make up the fundamental core of subtractive synthesis. The manual patching of modular is a great way to actually learn how these building blocks interact with one another to create sound.

> This is like telling someone to learn programming by starting with assembly.

Believe it or not, this is some people's preferred learning style. See also: Nand2Tetris, Linux From Scratch

I don't agree at all, vcv rack helped me understand synthesis in a much deeper way than I would have otherwise. What's a retrigger? Oscillator drift? Why do you modulate with a lfo? These are much simpler to understand when you're patching modules by hand in vcv, especially when you start with a blank slate.

On the other hand, before vcv, seeing a vst synth just had me overwhelmed instead.

I'd recommend everyone reading this to get free vcv + the surge vcv library, and just play around with it.

One man’s horrible recommendation is another’s… emancipation?

We’re all uniquely different!, I promise; After a number of other paradigms had failed to teach me programming, assembly was what finally did it.

And with synthesis, it was FM first and then subtractive. The picture is more concise when looking at it from the perspective of frequency modulation because all oscillators can do everything, you know? –That’s the sense it made to me, privately and personally.

Don't have a dog in this fight as I don't know much about synthesis, but I always remember the old saying. The best book to learn about "hard subject" is the third book you read on it.

How many people will comment on a youtube video, course, strategy or book, and say something like - It's the best explanation. I tried all these different things and only this worked. The common denominator is previous failed attempts at the subject.

Free VSTs are great and all, but VCV Rack + a wealth of online tutorials and synth knowledge seems like the perfect option to me. Especially if someone is actually more interested in the synthesis part than being musical. Plus VCV Rack is also free to start with until you want to go much much deeper.

I think they are both acceptable places to start and learn.

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.

I did exactly that as well. I wanted to figure out what a synthesizer does/is, so I bought a MicroBrute and had a great deal of fun with it.

So much fun, in fact, that I bought a MatrixBrute not terribly long afterward. Now _that's_ a monosynth to last me a lifetime!

I bought a Moog Mother-32 and read the manual - I remember it being very thick (for modern music gear) and informative. I didn't do too much patching but by the time I was done I understood the basics of subtractive synthesis.

A few years earlier I also had a DX9 that I foolishly used to try and emulate analog sounds. Somehow I stumbled across an article on Fourier series and how infinite sinusoidal summations could be used to create the other types of fundamental waves. Programming a 4-op DX synth to emulate these and looking at waveforms in Audacity gave me a natural intuition for how time series waves relate to frequency and harmonic content.

If I had to do it all again I might get a Korg Minilogue since it can display waveforms on its LCD and is digitally-controlled.

Yes! The Minilogue was where it clicked for me - solely because is its oscilloscope

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

Came here to post something similar, so I'll upvote your comment, and add my own. I started building a Eurorack modular synthesizer in 2009. Prior to that I would mostly tweak presets on other synths. I knew what the filter did, and could adjust an envelope, but didn't have a fundamental understanding of what was going on.

When I started using the modular, I was forced to understand the signal flow. And, the patch cables provided a visual cue of what was happening. I learned more about synths in a year with my eurorack system than I did in the previous 10 with hardwired synths.

After you learn those basic rules for patching a synth, then you get to break them. (-:

Recommending something like VCV rack seems like starting with Calculus before you can solve 2+2, but it's really not. The signal flow is right there for you to observe.

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!

unpopular hot take:

subtractive synthesis isn't synthesis. It's a transformation.

Well, "transformer" is already a kind of device. Do you have a suggested name to replace "synthesiser"?

Hold up, I'm going to send a email to every synth company that sells synths with filters and explain to them that they aren't selling synthesizers but transformers. I'm positive that it will be received well!

I mean, there's a fair amount of hype about transformers right now.

They are certainly more than meets the eye.

So I presume your complaint is that by synthesis you mean taking two things, smashing them together, and producing a new thing. In which case, sure, subtractive synthesis isn't synthesis unless:

- Two oscillators undergoing detune, sync, ring or amplitude modulation, or fm prior to getting fed into the filter?

- An LFO combined with an oscillator?

- An envelope (controlling the filter or amplifier) combined with an oscillator?

Perhaps these things might be considered combinations? I agree this is weak. You can blame the RCA Mark I and II for calling subtractive synthesizers "synthesizers".

By their definition, an amplitude envelope would probably also be a transformation.

Pretty much everything in audio processing is a filter, whether it's called a filter or not, but that's overly reductive. Synthesis is just creating audio from parts.

Delays aren’t filters.

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.

A filter perhaps isn't synthesis, but the whole system, including oscillators would be, which seems to be what the term refers to.

First time I have ever heard someone say my Minimoog, OB8, Prophet and modular synths weren't synthesis.

ADSR is subtractive even if you ignore the filter.

The (ideal) square wave contains the odd-integer harmonic frequencies, where the (ideal) sawtooth has all harmonic frequencies.

I think starting in the digital world may make this less clear?

You are subtracting overtones from a non-sinusoidal set, the sound synthesis in subtractive synths is the more like choosing digits to construct a representable number.

Additive synths are actually far more restricted...remember that the set of computable numbers is not quite as small as the cantor set, but is getting there.

You're getting downvoted for some reason but this is a perfectly fine way to think about subtractive synthesis. (From a compositional perspective anyhow.)

Somewhat true … maybe it’s really a hybrid, subtractive usually includes generating the initial sound to subtract from though (the oscillator) and even basic subtractive synths often have capability there (different waveforms, octaves, PWM, etc)

Yes, but all synthesis types are transformation unless you are just replaying/outputting a waveform in one way or another without manipulation so that is really an all encompassing way of describing all synthesis methods.

Subtractive synthesis has a particular meaning in common use whether it’s right or wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com