I'm a subtractive kinda guy. How 'bout you?

[Distorted Horizon]

I love to subtract clothes off from women.

that's called "theft"

Not if she asks me to do it

[himalaya]

Not specifically, but I was weaned on the sound of 70s synths, and thus prefer subtractive. The beautiful simplicity of it. I hated the DX7 sounds of the 80s, and the digital grittiness of samplers. That hate has dissipated and given way to acceptance, but I still tend to use subtractive most of all.

Subtractive synthesis is comforting. We know it so well. It's familiar ground. It's like a warm bed pillow on a cold winter's night.

I actually started with FM. I had to make it work for the analogue sounds I loved so much from all my favourite albums like Phaedra, Rubicon, Ricochet, Oxygene, Albedo, etc. So as a young synth nerd, I spent a lot of effort making FM sound 'analogue'. That was a long time ago...But as a result of having to explore FM for a long time, I have also developed a liking for sharp digital timbres, which many people who come from the vintage hardware analogue world are not keen on.

Today, I like to be taken on a journey by any given synth. See where it takes me. That's why I don't obsess whether an analogue synth emulation nails the analogue tone 100%. I just let it take me wherever it's willing to go. Although, there are occasions where I will try to make a synth sound and do things that it supposedly can not do. It's always fun.

Lately though, for my own sound making joy, I like synths that offer several synthesis engines under one hood. A bit of subtractive, layered with wavetable or resynthesis, layered with samples or granular...mix it up a bit. Which was the point of my first post in this thread.

[Andywanders]

The problem is, I can start with subtractive, but sooner or later I end up stacking 3 sine-waves together which teleports me to the additive planes of existence, then I find a comb filter (who put the comb filter there?) and enter a pseudo-world of acoustic modelling, which confuses me as I am a hermit, not really up for any modelling...since I don't have a good physique, I've been prescribed Physical Modelling, which restores my mental balance after getting too airy fairy with sample playback, too much sugar coating...but then, adding some Waveshaping brings me back to earth me even more. Still, that never lasts as the single-cycle waves get out of control and start sweeping like mad making Waves on my Table, further stimulating all the granules in my Granular pot...it's a troubled existence. Although I keep faith in Resynthesis, maybe this is the way out: you get what you put in. Very spiritual, no? Still, that spiritual balance is destroyed by special agent Fox Moulder and his Scanned synthesis. Did he get it from them aliens? Undiscovered is the Spectral realm. Scary stuff thou...

Can’t really say I have a preference. Half the time I’m playing piano rather than any other kind of keyboard, and would rather spend time playing over tweaking sounds.

I love playing the piano, and the guitar. That's where it all began for me.

For me it's FM (and phase modulation, AM etc.), wavefolding ("distortion synthesis"), resonator/feedback stuff, wavetables, and a litlte additive or phase distortion on the side. I do like lowpass gates, but really am not that much into typical resonant filter subtractive stuff -- maybe once in a while on the side.

For FM I prefer modular-style over DX7-style. Nobody needs 6 "operators" in modular... two or three oscillators will do the trick. They're not phase aligned or in perfect sync and that adds a third dimension of variation. Or they've got wildly inharmonic ratios or dynamic exponential FM, but are forced into hard sync or PLL-controlled...

That said, I do love my Akemie's Castle. 4OP Yamaha FM with new old stock OPL3 chips... lots of artifacts, grit, crosstalk and distortion going on and not entirely stable. All controlled with knobs and CV. With that one I don't miss having freer tuning ratios or a more open architecture because it has its own charm.

Plus there's fun stuff like using a wavefolder for phase modulation or using an oscillator as a wavefolder...

A filter, to me, is mainly a thing to use mostly in a feedback loop with delays, or to highpass a modulation signal, or a target for FM, or a sine oscillator, or a cool thing to throw at an envelope to give it a bipolar "bouncing ball" wobble...

I did manage to coax some very unique and usable sounds out on a CZ1 back in the 90s and they even found their way onto a couple of recordings I was on, but it was more a question of luck than skill. Listening to some of your Bandcamp tracks I can see you certainly know your way around FM etc. Respect.

I'm a 'Whatever the talented sound-designers want to use when designing lovely sounds for my music' kind of guy

Judging from your Soundcloud (listening to 98gramms as I type) I'd say that you're really doing justice to those sound designers. Nice acoustic guitar too.

Not specifically, but I was weaned on the sound of 70s synths, and thus prefer subtractive. The beautiful simplicity of it. I hated the DX7 sounds of the 80s, and the digital grittiness of samplers. That hate has dissipated and given way to acceptance, but I still tend to use subtractive most of all.

Yeah... I never like the sound of DX7s, but unlike you I've never been able to accept them. Samplers on the other hand, I love. Always have.

Subtractive synthesis is comforting. We know it so well. It's familiar ground. It's like a warm bed pillow on a cold winter's night.

Beautifully put

...mix it up a bit. Which was the point of my first post in this thread.

And a good point it is too, although initially I didn't get it.

Layering sounds in an arrangement is the key.. Composers have been doing this with real instruments for centuries, and these days we have some amazing sonic tools at our disposal which can almost do it all. I guess for me it comes down to my inadequacies as a synth programmer.

Cheers all

[deastman]

I prefer subtractive in the sense that I’ve never met a synthesis method which couldn’t benefit from a multimode filter somewhere in the signal chain.

[Winstontaneous]

Subtractive...crap I just...need...all the shit at the bottom, or do...a big hole...I make a big...crap... Fine...Well...very good...Please...misunderstand me...I have bucket-loads of...rules...So...you're...sonic...noise...

Yes sir, if you insist...
Fun with the "purely subtractive" approach to quoting.

[MadDogE134]

i am more an 'additive' guy... when she'll let me lol

sry had to

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

I'm a 'Whatever the talented sound-designers want to use when designing lovely sounds for my music' kind of guy

Judging from your Soundcloud (listening to 98gramms as I type) I'd say that you're really doing justice to those sound designers. Nice acoustic guitar too.

Blimey! Cheers, man

[cryophonik]

Subtractive, additive, preservative,...whatever, it’s all good. No need to be divisive.

[himalaya]

preservative,...

Ah, so it’s sample based.

[Dasheesh]

I'm into fm style sounds, but more importantly I'm a semi modular guy. I need freedom to explore and play around, but not full modular noise. there has to be something musical preserved underneath. The real question is are you a preset, sample, semi modular or full modular?

[lwj]

I love synth but I'm still more of a let's pull this apart with effects until something breaks and then some kinda guy. A synth just needs to synth for me.

[BONES]

I'm into whatever gets the job done. Right now I think Aparillo is my favourite synth but I also love TRK-01, Thorn and Vacuum Pro. A lot of the sounds I like tend to have the filters wide open - lots of big, gritty, raw oscillators with tons of unison. I am quite fond of notch filters. But I also use samplers a lot because they're often the easiest way to get what I'm after.