unpopular hot take:
subtractive synthesis isn't synthesis. It's a transformation.
subtractive synthesis isn't synthesis. It's a transformation.
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.
- 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".
Subtractive synthesis has a particular meaning in common use whether it’s right or wrong.
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.