Additive versus subtractive synthesis

chysn

  • *****
  • 1812
Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #20 on: November 18, 2016, 04:21:45 AM »
I used to own a fairly comprehensive Eurorack system with both east, and west coast type modules.

Used to? Did you sell the whole thing?


Quote
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.

Yeah, MN makes it easy to realize the Buchla-style voice. Compare the voice you described above to the Buchla LEM4 Snoopy. It's basically a utility module away, and half the price.

It's interesting to note that, although Make Noise produces complete systems, they do not make a traditional resonant low pass filter.
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 #21 on: November 18, 2016, 10:27:16 AM »
I used to own a fairly comprehensive Eurorack system with both east, and west coast type modules.

Used to? Did you sell the whole thing?


Quote
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.

Yeah, MN makes it easy to realize the Buchla-style voice. Compare the voice you described above to the Buchla LEM4 Snoopy. It's basically a utility module away, and half the price.

It's interesting to note that, although Make Noise produces complete systems, they do not make a traditional resonant low pass filter.

Yes, I sold it all eventually (in pieces). I had the case custom made - the celtic braids were actually CNC drilled so there are depth to those patterns. The case in particular was bought by a local music shop here that sells Eurorack. They use it as a display case so it's good fate for it imho (log in to see a picture of the system at one point).

Regarding MN, they do have (or had) the MMG (Multi Mode Gate) which can act as a LP/HP filter with Q (feedback). But perhaps it's not in production anymore?

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #22 on: November 18, 2016, 02:28:51 PM »
Wow, that is/was an impressive rig! What made you sell it? - I'm just asking because these days everyone who can afford it seems to rather move towards Eurorack but rarely away from it.

eXode

  • ***
  • 251
Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #23 on: November 18, 2016, 02:54:13 PM »
Wow, that is/was an impressive rig! What made you sell it? - I'm just asking because these days everyone who can afford it seems to rather move towards Eurorack but rarely away from it.

I guess there were several factors, but the most important factor was that I was never that interested in drones and noise, but more classic synth type sounds. It occurred to me that today we are in the very luxurious position to be able get that sound without having to spend thousands of dollars.

For the things I wanted to do, I could basically just get i.e. a Boomstar together with i.e. a Waldorf Pulse 2 / Bass Station 2 / Korg MS20 mini or any of the other small and affordable synthesizers available today together with a desktop sequencer - and be just as happy, if not happier, than with the modular. :)

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #24 on: November 18, 2016, 03:10:34 PM »
That makes sense.

chysn

  • *****
  • 1812
Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #25 on: November 20, 2016, 07:09:06 PM »
It's kind of challenging to find a description of wave folding, which might be part of the reason that it doesn't get marketed in standalone keyboard synths.

My understanding, which may be incomplete, is that the gain is increased, but instead of the wave being clipped at its maximum (which would sound like distortion), the wave is "folded" back to the other side (that is: if the positive part of the cycle would clip, that "excess" part is instead subtracted). This increases the harmonics in the waveform, with a common analogy being that of a "reverse filter."

When applied to a sine or triangle wave, wave folding allows for some nice smooth timbres that are difficult to get from filtering simple waves. You can send more complex waves to the wave folder, of course; but I don't usually find the resulting chaos quite as interesting.

Since wave folding is sort of a "secret sauce" in terms of its process, different wave folders vary in their tone as much as different filters do. Like filters, you sort of have to listen to them.

The reason that I bought the WMD Ultrafold was that much of its folding range reminds me of stepping through the Evolver's digital waveforms: waves that are pleasant, but that can't be derived from the usual saw/triangle/pulse. Except with the benefit that these are analog, and don't have any problems with aliasing. Plus you can slowly morph through them with modulation, which just kicks ass.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2016, 07:10:41 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 #26 on: January 05, 2017, 10:15:40 PM »
I forgot to post this piece on this thread.  This is an example of the sort of additive synthesis that I use on my Prophet '08's.  The carillon sound does not use sync, but is produced by combining four different oscillators at certain pitches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zET_3dynsQ

Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #27 on: February 17, 2017, 12:12:26 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.

I know next to nothing about Buchla style other than I love how it sounds, and not a whole lot more about modular (beyond understanding basic synthesis).  Does this setup give you actual Buchla style, or something Buchla-esque?  Ie, can you build a Buchla synth for less than what you'd just have to pay for a Buchla?

chysn

  • *****
  • 1812
Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #28 on: February 17, 2017, 05:50:43 PM »
I know next to nothing about Buchla style other than I love how it sounds, and not a whole lot more about modular (beyond understanding basic synthesis).  Does this setup give you actual Buchla style, or something Buchla-esque?  Ie, can you build a Buchla synth for less than what you'd just have to pay for a Buchla?

Certainly there's plenty of debate on that point. Lots of the Buchla patents have expired, so there are clones of the older stuff. I must rely on folks who know way more than I do to say how faithful the clones are. Other than my half-258 clone, I'm not gritting my teeth too much over nailing the exact sound. Rather, I'm building a synth that's influenced in equal measure by Buchla (in that it has principal and modulation oscillators, timbre processing, low pass gates, and function generators instead of dedicated LFOs and ADSRs) and Evolver (in that it has a Curtis filter, sequencing, and tunable feedback).

It might, in fact, be the world's first Buchlavolver. I love it so much, and it's almost complete. It turns out that the DSM03 really ties the Buchla and Evolver halves together in a surprising way.
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 #29 on: February 18, 2017, 08:50:34 PM »
Just another thought... Kawai was on the right track with the K5 additive synth (which I have) and the K5000 series.

The K5 could generate two sets of 63 harmonics or 126 harmonics. The problem was the difficulty in setting the levels of each harmonics and assigning them to groups of envelope generators. It is tedious and the K5000 was worse, though i'd still love to have one.

I think these days it would be possible to create such instruments again but improve the user interface.
https://soundcloud.com/the-aural

https://www.facebook.com/auralproductions/

Ensoniq SQ80, Kawai K5, Yamaha CS6x & DX200, Alesis ion, Akai Z4, DSI gear: {Evolver Desktop, Poly Evolver Keyboard, Mopho x4, Tempest}, Waldorf Blofeld & Streichfett, Moog Freqbox, Roland R8 & R8m

chysn

  • *****
  • 1812
Re: Additive versus subtractive synthesis
« Reply #30 on: February 19, 2017, 06:35:55 AM »
Just another thought... Kawai was on the right track with the K5 additive synth (which I have) and the K5000 series.

The Kawai K1 was also an additive synth. It lacked the K5's filter, and had only four sound sources, but there were a good number of single-cycle sample waveforms. It had a joystick for crossfading between the sources, like a Prophet VS. If only that joystick could be sequenced, or even controlled via MIDI...
Prophet 5 Rev 4 #2711

MPC One+ ∙ MuseScore 4

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

he/him/his