Additive versus subtractive synthesis

Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« on: October 28, 2016, 10:20:12 PM »
So we are now in this age where a plethora of analogue synths are coming out, but they are all really subtractive synths.

In Sonic a Talk a Nick batt explained that it was the easier method of synthesis to understand.

But the Buchla school synths are additive (is my understanding) and I LOVE. The harmonics you can get out of it, add a bit of reverb as you can in the music easel, and it's really beautiful to listen to.

I'd love to know what your reactions would be to a new additive (non modular) synth...

Could it be poly? Should it have a keyboard? Would you buy it?

__________________________________________________
Synths: Sequential prophet 6 | Moog sub37, LP stage II
Korg polysix, volca beat, bass, keys | Roland jp-08 fa-06 tr-606
Arturia microbrute | Yamaha YC-25D | elektron machinedrum
Software: protools for studio, cool edit pro for field recording

chysn

  • *****
  • 1812
Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2016, 07:02:33 AM »
Since I got into modular synthesis last April, I've thought about this. It's common to think of analog synthesis as the one model that Moog used: basic waveforms modified by a (usually low pass) filter. To be sure, you can do a lot with that. And I think that concept is easier to explain than "what does a wave folder do?"

But, yeah, there should be a keyboard synth with a normalized signal path that does something different. A complex waveform generator (or two, in which case, FM also), a bypass-able wave folder, a low pass gate, three or four function generators to take the place of EGs and LFOs, and a ring modulator.

I think it's an important question. We're in this analog resurgence, but it is pretty limited. I think the attitude is still that there's one way to do analog synthesis and many ways to do digital synthesis.
Prophet 5 Rev 4 #2711

MPC One+ ∙ MuseScore 4

www.wav2pro3.comwww.soundcloud.com/beige-mazewww.github.com/chysnwww.beigemaze.com

he/him/his

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2016, 02:58:08 PM »
I doubt my version of additive synthesis is what you have in mind, but I consider using four or more oscillators to be a simple form of it.  For example, I frequently use multiple triangles set at various pitches to create timbres not available from the standard analog waveforms.  I do this most often for solo patches, but sometimes also for polyphonic pads.  Here's an example of the latter (the additional triangles begin to enter very softly at about 2:20):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzBVP5RCNVI

This is one reason I'm not in the least bit tired of traditional analog synthesis.  There are more timbres lurking in those oscillators than at first appear.  You only need to have enough of them.  Hence, the standard two-oscillator instrument is insufficient for these purposes.  I've come to consider four oscillators to be the minimum number for serious sound designing.

It seems to me that this sort of additive synthesis has been explored very little with analog synthesizers, with the exception of those times when people imitate a Hammond/drawbar.  Synthesists tend to have an either-or mentality.  Meaning, subtractive synthesis is defined as "this" and is done on analog instruments, whereas additive synthesis is defined as "that" and is done on digital instruments.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 03:25:25 PM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2016, 08:56:20 PM »
It would see that the Prophet 12 with its two layers would make a great additive synth. You could combine eight sine waves with completely independent envelopes. You could throw in other waves besides sine waves.

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2016, 09:05:03 PM »
Yes, the possibilities are almost daunting, including the addition or combination of waveforms other than sine/triangle.  The Prophet 12 would be great for this, but so isn't my Prophet '08 Keyboard/Module pair. 

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2016, 06:58:12 AM »
Wow, glad others are thinking about this too.

Nice track @sacred synthesis

One of the things I loved about the grunge era was that guitars with lots of gain and distortions could do great drones stuff, as the strings vibrate and resonate with eachother as they hit har'onics.

It's also something I love about my organ, so when you mentioned draw bars that really piqued my interest. I hadn't though of that as additive.

The filter on the prophet playing off the two oscillators, with resonance up high can again really pick out those harmonics. I find I could listen to that all day. Especially if you add a good fuzz/distortion pedal which helps the sounds wave in and out of tune with each other... I'm not sure it's pure additive,but it's fun!

But the Buchla music easel is amazing. I'd like to see something along those lines with less patching in the lower end of the synth market.

Fm I don't understand, in my experience it's always been digital (dx7) and there are so many options it's overwhelming which is why they hide the mechanics under the dash and only give you a few presets you lay with unless you're up for serious menu diving.ifind it hard to like its sound compares to, say, a Rhodes.
__________________________________________________
Synths: Sequential prophet 6 | Moog sub37, LP stage II
Korg polysix, volca beat, bass, keys | Roland jp-08 fa-06 tr-606
Arturia microbrute | Yamaha YC-25D | elektron machinedrum
Software: protools for studio, cool edit pro for field recording

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2016, 10:39:42 AM »
It would be great to have a synth with three or four DCOs per voice for additive synthesis. I'd prefer sine waves over triangle waves because the triangle adds a lot of odd harmonics in. The LPF could be used for an additional partial (the top one, because it will attenuate higher partials). There must be a way to control the partials separately, for example, one envelope per DCO for the level. The Prophet '08 comes very close except that the two oscillator levels are controlled by a single mix parameter, which makes things confusing if you're trying to control them independently.

The downside to such a device is probably the price. But if DSI ever comes out with a successor to the Prophet '08 maybe ...

Sacred Synthesis, that track is indeed lovely.

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2016, 11:57:37 AM »
Thanks.  I, too, would prefer to have sine waveforms on the Prophet '08, rather than triangles.  In these sorts of delicate designs, there really is a difference.  But I'm glad to see some interest here in analog additive synthesis.  I actually was just experimenting to see if I could make the P'08 sound like a digital instrument.  This method deserves much more attention.  There is much untapped musical/sonic potential here.

Boy, wouldn't I love to see DSI produce a four-DCO eight-or-more-voice analog polyphonic synthesizer.

By the way, I did the reverse in this piece: first the upper harmonics, then the fundamental:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlHJ5D8EpcY
« Last Edit: October 30, 2016, 12:03:40 PM by Sacred Synthesis »

chysn

  • *****
  • 1812
Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2016, 05:55:00 PM »
There are more timbres lurking in those oscillators than at first appear.  You only need to have enough of them.  Hence, the standard two-oscillator instrument is insufficient for these purposes.  I've come to consider four oscillators to be the minimum number for serious sound designing.

If you did have access to complex waveform generators and wave folders, you might not consider four oscillators to be the minimum. With the Moog philosophy, multiple oscillators are needed to compensate for the simplicity of the waveforms. I used to use as many oscillators as I had just to have a full tone. Nowadays, I'm almost always using just one oscillator. I wouldn't want to have fewer than two oscillators available (for FM, "classic" sounds, and extra hugeness), but it's not technically necessary for rich and complex synthesis.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2016, 07:11:35 PM by chysn »
Prophet 5 Rev 4 #2711

MPC One+ ∙ MuseScore 4

www.wav2pro3.comwww.soundcloud.com/beige-mazewww.github.com/chysnwww.beigemaze.com

he/him/his

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2016, 08:28:38 PM »
There are more timbres lurking in those oscillators than at first appear.  You only need to have enough of them.  Hence, the standard two-oscillator instrument is insufficient for these purposes.  I've come to consider four oscillators to be the minimum number for serious sound designing.

If you did have access to complex waveform generators and wave folders, you might not consider four oscillators to be the minimum. With the Moog philosophy, multiple oscillators are needed to compensate for the simplicity of the waveforms. I used to use as many oscillators as I had just to have a full tone. Nowadays, I'm almost always using just one oscillator. I wouldn't want to have fewer than two oscillators available (for FM, "classic" sounds, and extra hugeness), but it's not technically necessary for rich and complex synthesis.

It depends on your uses.  It's not merely complex waveforms that interest me, but multiple oscillators.  We have the opposite views because I also want the oscillator beating.  Whereas the Evolver might offer a certain waveshape from a single digital oscillator, I would in most cases prefer to emulate it on the Prophet '08 using multiple triangles.  Why?  Because the end result is much richer.  For example, I'll often double triangles on the same pitches just to create the oscillator beating.  Regardless of the tunings, every oscillator will be beating to one discernible degree or another, and this is far preferable to the comparatively stagnant single-oscillator tones offered by the Evolver. 

By the way, the reason I made several attempts to imitate the Evolver's digital oscillators with the Prophet '08's analog oscillators was to see if I might be able to replace the PEK with several P'08s.  I found that, at least for my purposes, I basically could.

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2016, 04:26:31 AM »
Well... I don't see why it always has to be analog synthesis... Digital do a lot better these days, especialy on synths that run at least 96KHz internally like most Clavia synths... and if you want something to do additive synthesis, you would not need to look any further than the Nord Modulars... here you decide yourself (almost) how many oscillators you want. Of course you have to "dive in" the programming, but I do not see that an analog replica would be any easier to "program" in the end really.

I was on the "everything has to be partly analog!" wagon too, but I've learned that it's better to have both really... the only two areas where I prefer analog is in the bass department, and for very clear nonaliased highs in bell tones almost at the Brinck of human hearing... for pads, synths etc. I really dont give a damn about using digital, since it sounds just as good to my ears, and can do so much more.

So yes.. .I'd like to have the option of additive synthesis, but I'd actually prefer it in the digital domain, both because of precision, but also flexibility... add an analog filter/VCA to the mix I'd of course go that route... but 100% digital would also work for me.

Besides... I would not want to even choose between subtractive and additive... I want both! ;)
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 04:29:47 AM by Razmo »
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2016, 06:43:07 AM »
Good point. I agree on your comment on analog synthesis in the high frequencies. There's no substitute in my opinion.

This discussion dovetails into one in the Prophet '08 forum about the Prophet '08's future. What I want from an additive synthesizer is a knobby UI where I can fully control the sound without turning on a computer or reaching for a mouse. I think that DSI is one of the very few instrument manufacturers that still makes a synth that you can completely control from the front panel.

I have had some good luck with digital synthesizers (my Teenage Engineering OP-1) but the interesting thing I've observed is that the sound technology and UI technology developed together. The UI has generally served to reduce the price of the front panel, which is a shame. In a way I think digital synthesizer UI technology has not developed to the point that it has matched or exceeded the expensive old 70's front panels and patch cords. Behringer's VR UI is a gimmick in my opinion, and a big step in the wrong direction.

Interestingly the OP-1 dumbs down the synthesis technology to match the simplistic UI, and it's very enjoyable to use, although the sound scupting limitations are frustrating. Now back to additive synthesis: On the OP-1 you can do additive synthesis of sorts. You generate sine waves (the FM synth is great for that) and envelope them. Then you record the enveloped partials one by one onto the tape. Then you lift and drop the composite wave into the sampler. This is an example of why a good UI is important: it gives you a set of tools that may each be limited and simple, but it allows you to combine the tools in interesting ways.

Anyway, I'd love a generalized tool that allows me do additive synthesis without the computer.

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2016, 01:35:19 PM »
Well... I don't see why it always has to be analog synthesis... Digital do a lot better these days, especialy on synths that run at least 96KHz internally like most Clavia synths... and if you want something to do additive synthesis, you would not need to look any further than the Nord Modulars... here you decide yourself (almost) how many oscillators you want. Of course you have to "dive in" the programming, but I do not see that an analog replica would be any easier to "program" in the end really.

There's no judgment on my part.  I obviously still have two Poly Evolver Keyboards, so I haven't rejected digital synthesis.  But, having compared the two sounds - either a digital waveshape from the Evolver or the emulation of it from the P'08 - I far prefer the P'08's rendition.  It sounds as if it's alive and breathing.  Plus, there's no digital aliasing, which greatly increases the range of the patch. 

I don't cheerlead when I'm at my instruments.  All that matters is what sounds best.  Some times it's the PEK, and other times it's the P'08.  Simple as that.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2016, 01:37:46 PM by Sacred Synthesis »

chysn

  • *****
  • 1812
Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2016, 04:29:41 PM »
We have the opposite views because I also want the oscillator beating.  Whereas the Evolver might offer a certain waveshape from a single digital oscillator, I would in most cases prefer to emulate it on the Prophet '08 using multiple triangles.  Why?  Because the end result is much richer.  For example, I'll often double triangles on the same pitches just to create the oscillator beating.

Yeah, that makes sense.

On the OP-1 you can do additive synthesis of sorts. You generate sine waves (the FM synth is great for that) and envelope them. Then you record the enveloped partials one by one onto the tape. Then you lift and drop the composite wave into the sampler.

That's neat. I've seen some really impressive demos of the OP-1, in terms of how it's used for sampling found sounds (for example, with its built-in radio). I always balk at the price, but it looks like a fun thing.
Prophet 5 Rev 4 #2711

MPC One+ ∙ MuseScore 4

www.wav2pro3.comwww.soundcloud.com/beige-mazewww.github.com/chysnwww.beigemaze.com

he/him/his

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2016, 07:52:38 PM »
I obviously still have two Poly Evolver Keyboards, so I haven't rejected digital synthesis.  But, having compared the two sounds - either a digital waveshape from the Evolver or the emulation of it from the P'08 - I far prefer the P'08's rendition.  It sounds as if it's alive and breathing.  Plus, there's no digital aliasing, which greatly increases the range of the patch.

I'm totally with ya on the aliasing part. But it would seem that you could take two digital waves on the Evolver and set them up to beat gently against each other to get a more complex yet alive sound. It seems you haven't found it to be the case? I don't have an Evolver nor do I have the Prophet 12 so I can't really try this myself. I do not doubt you. Everything you've said about the Prophet '08 has proven to be true so far.

Your experience suggests that a good additive synthesizer would actually require two or more sets of fundamentals, second harmonics, third harmonics, etc. at least if it wants to emulate an ensemble. A digital synth could generate a beating sine wave (basically a sine wave with a slow sinusoidal envelope). I really wish the Prophet '08 had separate levels for the two oscillators instead of a mix. Then I could use a triangle wave LFO to make a triangle wave beat subtly without using two oscillators.

I've seen some really impressive demos of the OP-1, in terms of how it's used for sampling found sounds (for example, with its built-in radio). I always balk at the price, but it looks like a fun thing.

I was just commenting in another thread on how I came to DSI and how I've wasted so much money trying to get the most for my money. The thing that distinguishes DSI instruments is that they provide sound toolboxes that in my opinion are second to none--but at a pretty dear price. The OP-1 is a portable music and sound toolbox that is also extremely easy to use and invites experimentation. I have never regretted buying it.

Sacred Synthesis

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2016, 08:36:20 PM »
When I say I prefer emulating the Poly Evolver with the Prophet '08, I actually mean on two P'08s, on the keyboard/module pair.  That's the reason for the preference.  Otherwise, for small-scale additive synthesis, the Poly Evolver certainly offers four triangles which work well enough. 

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2016, 11:13:40 PM »
So we are now in this age where a plethora of analogue synths are coming out, but they are all really subtractive synths.

In Sonic a Talk a Nick batt explained that it was the easier method of synthesis to understand.

But the Buchla school synths are additive (is my understanding) and I LOVE. The harmonics you can get out of it, add a bit of reverb as you can in the music easel, and it's really beautiful to listen to.

I'd love to know what your reactions would be to a new additive (non modular) synth...

Could it be poly? Should it have a keyboard? Would you buy it?

I recently got the iPad app Addictive Pro which is additive, and it is truly an amazing synthesizer.  Buchla is definitely one of the last frontiers for me, in terms of my initial forays into synthesis.

At this point I'm not likely buying any more keyboards except MAYBE a P12, because I'm skeptical of using the P12 module which seems to lack knobs.  But otherwsie I'm trying to swap most things out for destktop or rackmount modules, or only buy things with the very best keybeds or that have unique sound design possibilities and only come in keyboard form (the Roland V-Synth GT, for example).  I'm also not really interested in any more mono synths except the Pro 2, unless I get into modular.  That said, I like that DSI is making both versions of most things.


eXode

  • ***
  • 251
Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #17 on: November 07, 2016, 05:17:27 AM »
It seems to me that most of the responses here are related to traditional additive i.e. a bank of sine waves that are tuned in set intervals, not too far from an electric organ. This is fine of course, but I thought I'd try to mention the Buchla approach. :)

The Buchla (and to some extent Serge) approach to additive synthesis was very much based on two oscillators combined with waveshapers (folders) that affected the timbre. Most people wouldn't think of this as additive synthesis but when you look at it closer it can be considered a form of additive synthesis.

Usually in the standard Buchla voice you have a modulating oscillator and a principal oscillator. These can function as either two separate oscillators but most commonly the modulating oscillator adds frequency content to the principal oscillator via i.e. frequency modulation. Then there is the timbre or wave folder section that is connected to the principal oscillator. A wave folder bascially ADDS harmonic content to i.e. a sine or a triangle by folding the wave in some way I don't know how to describe. :)

The modulation oscillator, principal oscillator, and the timbre are all part of the 259 (or 261e) Complex Waveform Generator.

There are variants of wave folding that allow more emphasis or odd or even harmonics. I really like the sound of wave folding, it sounds like something turning itself inside out and it's a big part of the Buchla sound imho.

I think the Buchla Easel is a really good "East Coast" equivalent to something like the Minimoog, although at the same time they are not comparable. The only way they are comparable is that if the Minimoog distilled the essence of subtractive synthesis from a modular system, the Easel could be viewed as having distilled the essence of a west coast type modular system into a smaller and more manageable format.

Finally I'm not sure it would be viable creating an analogue polyphonic instrument inspired by the Buchla philosophy due to how the different modules interact (I haven't accounted for the function generators or low pass gates, etc). Either most if would have to be done in DSP, or it would be increadibly expensive.

But if you want to get a feel for how a polyphonic buchla inspired instrument could sound, I can recommend the Madrona Labs AALTO plugin. :)
« Last Edit: November 07, 2016, 05:19:05 AM by eXode »

chysn

  • *****
  • 1812
Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #18 on: November 17, 2016, 05:09:26 PM »
I've been working on transforming my modular synth to focus on Buchla-style additive synthesis. I just got a Buchla 258 clone, and it's paired with another oscillator (STO) to function as the modulation oscillator, plus a wave folder. To make space to retool the system, I've parted ways with an ARP 2600-style low pass filter.

I'm not to the point where I feel like I can get along without filters, and I may never reach that point. But additive synthesis feels refreshing and unexplored (unexplored by me, I mean).

A link to my current modular system is in my signature.
Prophet 5 Rev 4 #2711

MPC One+ ∙ MuseScore 4

www.wav2pro3.comwww.soundcloud.com/beige-mazewww.github.com/chysnwww.beigemaze.com

he/him/his

eXode

  • ***
  • 251
Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #19 on: November 18, 2016, 02:41:31 AM »
I used to own a fairly comprehensive Eurorack system with both east, and west coast type modules.

I think the Make Noise modules are great if you want basic west coast/buchla style functionality.
The DPO, Optomix, and Maths in particular are really good for a basic voice. They might seem expensive at first, but considering the functionality they offer I think they are pretty fairly priced.

EDIT: But I see that you have similar functionality already. :)