Any synth that really sounds different

[whitesun]

I recommend reading https://www.voicecomponentmodeling.com/
It explains in detail what i have briefly outlined above. I don't care if anyone respectfully or disrespectfully disagrees with these facts. It explains why 1000s of software synths have dead sound and how it can be fixed.

[Lostgallifreyan]

I developed an analog simulation method using the standard parameters on the Yamaha SY99, that gave waveforms that sound good without level scaling, which matters because you can use key glide for the entire pitch range with no disturbance of timbre because the modulation index does not need to change with tuning.

I extended this into my own software. The sound of the synth often has more to do with subtle variants of saw and square than it does with the filter. The reason for using phase modulation (usually called FM) is that very fine control over the wave shape can be had. It's possible to get the bold hard-edged sound of Prophet waves, or the more raspy and thin sounds like in the AN1X, or make them 'squelchy', whatever you might want them to do.

Having reverb in a synth just limits choice for the sake of convenience. Given how much CPU demands a good synth, or a good reverb, might cause, it makes more sense to me to run them on dedicated machines. A lot of good dedicated hardware reverbs may be found cheap. Whatever the reverb, there's no substitute for making the synth sound good first. A reverb can only augment what's there to start with.

[merlyn]

As far as I know the Roland D50 was the first synth to have reverb. Back when memory was at a premium, the D50 stored the attack portion and the loop portion separately. The transition was audible, and to smooth it over, reverb was added. After that reverb became standard.

[Lostgallifreyan]

As far as I know the Roland D50 was the first synth to have reverb. Back when memory was at a premium, the D50 stored the attack portion and the loop portion separately. The transition was audible, and to smooth it over, reverb was added. After that reverb became standard.

That matches my memory of it too. I remember programming reverb-like effects in a DX5, because it had none, but there were ways to use spare EG's and oscillators. Not versatile, but definitely interesting. Good for early reflection types, anyway, with some sounds. Being able to make a short sound 'reverbed' or 'dry' based purely on how long the note was held, made some very cool effects that a real one would not be likely to do.

I think the Korg M1 might have been the next big impact from self-contained reverb in a synth, after the D50. That really made a stir, I remember people flocking around it at a trade show. Didn't work for me though, impressive though it sounded. I had already decided I liked phase mod synthesis and dedicated reverb systems. Sample+synth never really sounded right to me, even in the SY99, and I love the SY99. It's all about phase modulation, filter, and reverb, in that case. I rarely found uses for the samples.

[tea for two]

https://www.voicecomponentmodeling.com/

From your site
https://www.presetpatch.com/articles/ha ... e-modeling
It's pretty neat 3rd Wave, Hydrasynth, PolyBrute, various Sequential including OB-X8, Prophet 5 10 rev4 have what you did.

There's tonnes of folk on SoS foruume know far more aboot synthesis than me.
Also as you would expect there's several World Class sound designers on SoS foruume.
As well as those who build synths have their own Synth company
They'd grasp far more readily than me what you did.

[N i g e l]

I respectfully disagree

I respectfully agree with your disagreement

----------------

Even largo VST from over a decade ago had VOICE_NUMBER as a source for the modulation matrix.

As to the Hydrasynth, more analogue *than* analogue

it can be programmed with so much tolerance slop that an equivilent analogue synth would never pass final factory inspection test.

What sounds do you want to make that cannot be made by one or other of the gazillion hardware or software synths already in existence?
Answer that question, and this discussion can evolve.

That is indeed the question.

[resistorman]

The first thing I do with a new synth is turn off all the effects, most patch designers drown them in reverb etc. And digital synths do not sound dead. Those "vintage" DCO analog synths like the JX3-P and Matrix 6 do, though As Nigel noted, Hydrasynth does the job much better.

[BillB]

To respond to the original question, here’s the answer:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques ... er-friends

They make it all sound so simple

[Arpangel]

To respond to the original question, here’s the answer:

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques ... er-friends

They make it all sound so simple

Let’s just throw money at it, and stuff, as much stuff as we can.
As I said, pure Hollywood.

[Rich Hanson]

Doesn't look like they did very in-depth research, I can think of several software and hardware synths not mentioned that have variance in their voices from note to note.

Still, if the end music is lacklustre and uninteresting, the problem is much more likely to be with the composer/producer than the instrument(s) used.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Doesn't look like they did very in-depth research, I can think of several software and hardware synths not mentioned that have variance in their voices from note to note.

Still, if the end music is lacklustre and uninteresting, the problem is much more likely to be with the composer/producer than the instrument(s) used.

I agree. The single biggest change I know of was when phase modulation arrived during the period when analog synths ruled. Phase modulation has never been exhausted, despite the sound patches out there exceeding tens of thousands. Even the basic architecture has remained relatively unchanged, apart from the addition of formant synthesis in the Yamaha FS1R, and the current price of those is rapidly going beyond that of a case of rare wine because there is still no successful software emulation.

The scope for new sounds is still WAY ahead of expectation, it's the expectation that is limited. People crave novelty, but in numbers much greater than of those who can make it in any meaningful way. Layering sounds won't do it, it takes raw musicality in ONE sound of great character to do this, and most people now just don't have the time or inclination to do it that way.

[Folderol]

Even the basic architecture has remained relatively unchanged, apart from the addition of formant synthesis in the Yamaha FS1R, and the current price of those is rapidly going beyond that of a case of rare wine because there is still no successful software emulation.

Yoshimi has formant filtering available on all three synth engines, and for AddSynth it can also be applied independently on the individual voices.

There is an example of it's use in the "Yiee" patch I created some years ago.

[ajay_m]

Well although they are softsynths, Absynth and Razor definitely to my mind have some sounds which are really different. Sadly, NI have killed off Absynth, but who knows, it may get revived by its original author, sure hope so.
Also Razor can act as a vocoder as well, it really is a very creative piece of work.

As for the FS1R, I do wonder why nobody's recreated it. I'd guess the patents must surely have lapsed by now and modern CPUs ought to have no trouble, although of course it is capable of playing 32 voiced and 32 unvoiced operators all at once against a single note and still has polyphony (can't recall how much).

As the owner of one, the hardware does have limitations. Obviously patch editing is a complete nightmare though the PC software editors do still work. Also the patch architecture is that cursed two-level scheme so popular back in those days and you only have 128 user-definable patches anyway.

The FSEQ editor still works, you can spectrally analyse an audio sample and create FSEQs from it. It sounds very much like a vocoder mind you. Of course, no USB, it pre-dates that era as well.

Exasperatingly, it can't handle polyphonic aftertouch, a truly strange limitation for such a powerful synth engine. So an FS2R would be a wondrous thing and I have no idea why Yamaha or someone haven't created one. Ah well.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Even the basic architecture has remained relatively unchanged, apart from the addition of formant synthesis in the Yamaha FS1R, and the current price of those is rapidly going beyond that of a case of rare wine because there is still no successful software emulation.

Yoshimi has formant filtering available on all three synth engines, and for AddSynth it can also be applied independently on the individual voices.

There is an example of it's use in the "Yiee" patch I created some years ago.

I stand corrected. Thanks. Then again, something's keeping the FS1R almost stupidly expensive. It may be that standard filter computations might limit polyphony, whatever the FS1R does is very efficient! I came across some notion that there was a way to do it without standard maths but I didn't understand the detail. I'm thinking that Yamaha did, and that something about phase modulation, or at least their mechanics for doing it, is the gateway to it. If so, there's a good chance the FS1R is still unique.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Also Razor can act as a vocoder as well, it really is a very creative piece of work.

I like vocoder sounds. I think there is always room for those in the world. It's so distinct from almost anything else, that it's hard to imagine how to make a true hybrid of vocoder with anything else. The ease of putting human performance to combine with the synthetic sound is so powerful, and an age of relentless overuse of auto-tune surely needs the vocoder; it's the perfect antidote.

As for the FS1R, I do wonder why nobody's recreated it. I'd guess the patents must surely have lapsed by now and modern CPUs ought to have no trouble, although of course it is capable of playing 32 voiced and 32 unvoiced operators all at once against a single note and still has polyphony (can't recall how much).

As the owner of one, the hardware does have limitations. Obviously patch editing is a complete nightmare though the PC software editors do still work. Also the patch architecture is that cursed two-level scheme so popular back in those days and you only have 128 user-definable patches anyway.

I got one again when the prices reached a grand, I didn't want to miss out if they rose further (they DID). I had two once, sold them on while I focused on my phase-mod work for over ten years. Maybe I'll figure out how to do that hyper-efficient formant thing, maybe not. Previous efforts say I stand a chance. Age says I may no longer find the time and stamina. Anyway, I have one to study, so I'm ok...

I settled on the Kirill Katznelson editor for PC use. I never got into the formant sequencing. I have nothing against it, JMJ used it, and it's awesome, I just didn't want to get distracted. Patch memory limitations don't bother me so much, Yamaha are efficient at packing parameters and values into SysEx banks, given that they didn't use LZ or some other compression to do it.

About poly aftertouch, I agree, that would have been awesome! I think maybe that's something a software synth might do better, with a USB MIDI source, something not limited by the original hardware 31.25 KBaud.. I know how to be very efficient with that, but poly aftertouch is a BIG ask.

[ajay_m]

I bought mine for £450 about 4 years after they came out, from a guy in Lincoln who wanted to purchase an Access Virus. They are also quite expensive now as well, so I hope he was happy. I think all the FS1Rs have ended up with owners who will probably never part with them, so they are pretty rare these days to see up for sale.

[tea for two]

Still, if the end music is lacklustre and uninteresting, the problem is much more likely to be with the composer/producer than the instrument(s) used.

^^^^

Nowt to do with Synths, I use free Orchestral sample libraries which have rather limited articulations variations.
I'm not bovverred as all the articulations variations in the world isn't going to make my turd less of a turd. So I focus on trying to not making turds lol.

[N i g e l]

I sold my FS1r and bought a MODX. The MODX/Montage do a lot of what the FS1r can do but does it with a 7" touch screen, easy sequencing and more polyphony. Also included is an AWM2, sample playback, synth engine.

[Lostgallifreyan]

I'm not bovverred as all the articulations variations in the world isn't going to make my turd less of a turd. So I focus on trying to not making turds lol.

That works. I had some tunage that I developed with the flute on a DX7 and some sustained lead sound for a sort of counter melody, over a simple ostinato originally for a DX7 'jazz guitar'. Some years later I dug out the old MIDI file and orchestrated it with some Mellotron flutes, with an electric bass (real one, with a Stranglers-like sound but played without a pick) for the ostinato and some odd extra piano chords orchestrated with Mellotron strings. It sounded like some kind of King Crimson or Tangerine Dream intro, it awed me, really, actual shivers down the spine. I bet if I'd started with Mellotron sounds, the result would have sucked. That instrument has so much character, I doubt I could have asserted my own..

[whitesun]

At least that voicemodelling guy has made a research on that topic unlike all the pros and synth designers mentioned here as members. By the way, not only voice or separate notes can be modulated but also subvoices within unison and also each harmonic/partial within each voice/subvoice and in fact it must be implemented to emulate real hw synth of the past at least based not on dsp. Just to check how it works install ribs granular synth and rotate Ext knob to 1% and voila sound immediately becomes hardware. He asked for a peculiar synth. Ribs granular can be called such a synth, not to mention it's the best granular synth beating even the nonfree ones. It's only drawback is inability to save captures into files and lack of fine tuning ext function. But it will sound 100% hardware analog from 80s. I agree that builtin factory presets in synths are disgusting by 99%. Instead of luxury psychodelic backgrounds they propose some farts, bells and wistles sourced with foggy reverbs though reverb makes 90% of synth sound. Flintlock juno with the proper reverb will also sound 100% hw though it's very primitive. In fact many synths or call it incoming waveforms can be vitalized by a proper reverb and harmonic filtering software before reverb probably such as comb filters, pitchshifters, phasers. Synths are just suppliers of harmonics. The thing is that many of them add some sort of hidden processing which somehow spoils/muffles those harmonics - for that reason ribs is the right tool - it just extracts harmonics from your soundfile's playback and cycles them creating detuned unison. A good synth gives psychodelic effect and you can enjoy just long listening to series of chords.
Ps. You won't find any high quality synths or audio tools on linux worth of spending time on them. Linvst will make your day.

[Folderol]

Ps. You won't find any high quality synths or audio tools on linux worth of spending time on them. Linvst will make your day.

Have you actually used any Linux based synths? It certainly doesn't seem like it. I run entirely on Linux, and these days use a single soft-synth for all my compositions. For some strange reason people seem to like my work.

This may not be for you, but as far as I'm concerned the only thing that matters is the end result.

[ajay_m]

Two hydrasynth patches, happy to share except I have no idea how to do that via the forum. So I will describe them. One isn't mine, "coyote moon". The sound of crickets chirping and coyotes howling and yipping at the moon, and the second "voices" which is mine, sounds like a reverberent space in which a large group of people are talking, you can almost but not quite make out what they are saying.
Both of these patches are utterly unlike anything I've ever heard on another synth and that's just scratching the surface.the hydrasynth can compete easily with a substantial modular synth while being polyphonic as well.

[whitesun]

Well i tried only zynaddsubfx and ioshimi to only find to my regret muffled blurry presets. Ifyou can enlighten me about crisp clear harmonics based additive synth for linux i could change my opinion. So far the only linux program that impressed me as scientific was scala but it's cross platform anyway. After reaper's being ported to linux there is no need to use windows anymore but i don't find anything close to winvsts on linux. For example, ribs, wavestation, vss3/4, rayspace, reverberate. Also via linvst dlls seem to consume same cpu % as on win... so let them first create better programs for us then to switch to them. You can read my other post in topic called Most scientific reverb. Since 2005 oversimplification and lousy emulation took the lead in programing. In 2000 we were overwhelmed by fractals and stunning improvement of graphics. All that have been buried by oversimplification which was real stoppage of progress with centralization of internet on top. Wavestation from 1990 is still unrivaled for wavetables. So, we have not noticed any progress - definitely the opposite.

[Eddy Deegan]

Well i tried only zynaddsubfx and ioshimi to only find to my regret muffled blurry presets.

Either you're doing something wrong or you have other issues. Yoshimi is an excellent softsynth.

[whitesun]

No proof, no trust. Sounded blurry besides awful gui. But indeed that time i used mostly presets but have no desire to install it again after perfect windows software. Unfortunately linux became not the os for rebles but some crap at about 2002 when they started anti oss v3 campain and removed audio from kernel space to user space which meant end of os as realtime audio os because user space priorities even at chrt 99 are lower than those of kernel space. Maybe it's the reason why not so many people are interested in linux besides worse programs for it. During 00s games held people on win but nowadays when games have become crap since 2006 there is no point to stick to win anymore.