| Author
|
MAKING SYNTHS
|
psycox
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
17
Posts :
269
Posted : Oct 19, 2011 14:16
|
i like it simple  there are some cool freeware synths with nice sound but with no fx section or i need more modulators. so in fl studio i use the patcher to add them or layer two nice sounds. its also fun to put a filterplugin (with envelopefollower or modulate by envelope controller) after a monophonic synth .
with karmafx its also easy to dive into modularsynthesis.
but often semimodular its all i need to lost in sounds...
form tutorial like this ones:
http://www.youtube.com/user/uheplugins
its possible to learn to get a broad spectrum of sounds.(not only with zebra)
|
|
|
Bar Mitzwa
Inactive User
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
172
Posted : Oct 19, 2011 15:21
|
|
downlload em dont waste moneyy!!!! |
|
|
|
faxinadu
Faxi Nadu / Elmooht
Started Topics :
282
Posts :
3394
Posted : Oct 19, 2011 16:36
|
|
D7uan
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
43
Posts :
159
Posted : Oct 19, 2011 17:33
|
|
wow Zebra acually looks quite nice and not so complex to use...gonna give it a try too |
|
|
|
Maine Coon
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
1659
Posted : Oct 19, 2011 19:34
|
|
Can you create custom synths using Max for Live? Stuff like Operator with 5 filters instead of one etc... |
|
|
|
piXan
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
107
Posts :
807
Posted : Oct 20, 2011 16:39
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-10-18 22:19, faxinadu wrote:
synthmaker and reaktor are actually both pretty hardcore. nice that you manage with those pixan
|
|
im beggining to get my way around. there are great tutorials for reaktor and i found a great book called: visual vsti programming .. which i think is a must . very comprehensive reading . if anyone interested PM me.
 www.soundcloud.com/elektroakustica/sets/downtempo/ |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Oct 24, 2011 01:39
|
quick and shameless self up of what I'm working on 
This might well be my first payware.
I'm unemployed and need cash - what can I say - I've given a lot of brain juice away, and maybe I need to see a little input for my time these days.
Fear not, my copy protection is entirely passive and entirely brutal!
Anyhow, this is somewhere in between Surge, Massive and ACE, but its own thing too, with some interesting stuff going on in voicing techniques, and of course my custom filter routing that gave Vampyromorphida that savage driven sound.
Points of interest?
Unison copies the enitre synth, not just stacking oscillators - think detuned filters and keytracking LFOs.
LFOs can be keytracking and used as modulators for FM or PM.
Oscillators can be used as mod sources (the entire modulation structure runs at audio rate)
Oscillators feature powerful adjustable sub oscs.
Nearly all parameters are modulation targets.
Each note on value can contain 8 different working synth engines - proper unison! - seperate distortion filter amp and oscs for each note on voice - this doesn't hit synth polyphony at all - up to what your CPU can handle.
You get the idea
.
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Oct 24, 2011 16:18
|
the interface with the modulation and waveform is awesome love it and great features,are you making a mac version ? it would be great ,good luck man !
if you need beta testers on mac i would be happy to help |
|
|
|
monno
Grapes Of Wrath
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
454
Posted : Oct 26, 2011 00:34
|
What puzzles me most is all this talk of building synths virtually in software as if that´s super easy for novices at all. Better,faster and more ballsy stuff can really be designed and built in a very short time within the analog paradigm. Considering that what most people tend to try and achieve in the digital domain is something that for the most part could be analog. I mean subtractive synthesis in software vs analog? come now children For all the rest, digital is a godsend and most of the sounds that surprise me these days are from within that world, but it makes little sense to me to try and emulate the sounds of old synths in high level languages. Anyway, what i wonder is: Where´s all the hardware geeks at these days?
Mastering available here:
http://www.bimmelim-soundlabs.com
http://soundcloud.com/onkeldunkel
http://www.myspace.com/onkeldunkelownz
http://www.parvati-records.com |
|
|
|
faxinadu
Faxi Nadu / Elmooht
Started Topics :
282
Posts :
3394
Posted : Oct 26, 2011 01:15
|
hey mono,
agree in some ways but in analog most of us don't have the money to buy 10band pass filters just so we could have fun chaining a noise source through all of them... digital lets you do that.
The Way Back
https://faxinadu.bandcamp.com/album/the-way-back |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Oct 26, 2011 01:35
|
Hmm!
My synths sound digital not analog. What's more I like that! They sound warm, but digital ...
I've never really understood it tbh, I use subtractive architectures because they are easy for the majority of synthesists to understand ... And although analog does things digital can't, the opposite is equally true. Just because one uses a similar architecture does not mean the designer is trying to sound analog. I think this is true with quite a lot of synths. They use familiar structures but actually revel in their digitalness.
Also, since the late 80s most new hardware has been well ... Digital ;-) , so hardware isn't really anything to do with analog ... Analog is just one subset of hardware synths :-/
Also in a 'pure' analog emulation like say the arturia moog modular ... Which I'd imagine sounds nothing like an actual moog modular- I'm paying many many many times less for a synth that sounds very very good and has identical functionality if not sound. There is something to be said for that. I know I can't afford a full moog modular system - its as close as I'm gonna ever be able to get to that component and sounds good - what's the issue?
Sorry Pom unfortunately pc only.
.
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
aje
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
99
Posts :
1145
Posted : Oct 26, 2011 11:51
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-10-26 00:34, monno wrote:
Anyway, what i wonder is: Where´s all the hardware geeks at these days?
|
|
Here:
Meet Stefan Schmidt, creator of the Schmidt Poly Synthesizer! That thing looks awesome BTW, and he`ll build one just for you for only 20k!
Check out my album: http://www.ektoplazm.com/free-music/gay-satanic-hippie-tiefenrausch |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Oct 26, 2011 12:03
|
|
the avantages are price and flexibility with digital but a synth need filters ,oscillators,lfo,envelops..all these things it seems analog is unmatched yet in term of sound. |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Oct 26, 2011 12:28
|
I'd argue a digital synth can operate its envelopes plenty fast enough - an envelope can open fully in two samples (less if you oversample) - the quickest rate any signal change can be represented in any digital system - including analog if goes into a digital system.
LFOs are much the same. I don't think analog LFOs make better modulation sources - also, on a lot of digital synths waveforms completely unavailable on analog become available.
I'd humbly suggest that digital LFOs and envelopes are actually far superior to analog ones.
Filters - yeah, analog does have the edge here. But I'd emphasis 'edge'. The best of digital filters are very very very fine filters indeed, with a very pleasant sound indeed.
Oscillators - I don't agree analog has the edge overall. Sure, on Triangles, Saws and Pulses, analog sounds amazing ... but that is where it ends. That is all analog has to give. Digital offers so much more in terms of wavetables - which can sound stunning in its own digital right, and completely non reproducable in analog on traditional waveform stuff, or head off into totally unfamiliar territory with unfamiliar waveforms or granular techniques, impulse techniques or additive techniques.
So far as I can tell the 'analog sounds better' argument has been propagated by people trying to retain value in their equipment - far nearer the mark would be 'analog sounds different'.
Maybe someone prefers the sound of analog saturation over digital fizziness, but more and more I think its exactly that - a preference.
Both sound great, and neither can replicate the other. .
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
monno
Grapes Of Wrath
Started Topics :
9
Posts :
454
Posted : Oct 26, 2011 12:35
|
All hail digital, but i have now, for well over 15 years, tried to make friends with software based suntractive synths.
Most of the ones based on simple subtractive synthesis can create the same style of sounds as the analog counterparts or even a simple nordlead and are as a consequence really not that interesting nor powerful in their own right. I have heard tons of emulations and they all fail at fully emulating their idols. The ones that do end up being useful are IMO the ones that do not try desperately to appeal to people´s secret lust for analog synths. I see no reason in inventing the wheel all over again. Besides unless you can truly emulate the non linearities of a living! circuit, I find time spent programming better spent on other pursuits not available to me in any other way. Not to mention that building my own interface in hardware involves metalwork and drills and not having to figure out the conventions of a GUI. Physical interaction is where it´s at and the mouse and other connected peripherals are not where they could be in terms of interfacing (yet).
Mastering available here:
http://www.bimmelim-soundlabs.com
http://soundcloud.com/onkeldunkel
http://www.myspace.com/onkeldunkelownz
http://www.parvati-records.com |
|
|
|
