First time I have ever heard someone say my Minimoog, OB8, Prophet and modular synths weren't synthesis.
ADSR is subtractive even if you ignore the filter.
The (ideal) square wave contains the odd-integer harmonic frequencies, where the (ideal) sawtooth has all harmonic frequencies.
I think starting in the digital world may make this less clear?
You are subtracting overtones from a non-sinusoidal set, the sound synthesis in subtractive synths is the more like choosing digits to construct a representable number.
Additive synths are actually far more restricted...remember that the set of computable numbers is not quite as small as the cantor set, but is getting there.
Hold up, I'm going to send a email to every synth company that sells synths with filters and explain to them that they aren't selling synthesizers but transformers. I'm positive that it will be received well!
So I presume your complaint is that by synthesis you mean taking two things, smashing them together, and producing a new thing. In which case, sure, subtractive synthesis isn't synthesis unless:
- Two oscillators undergoing detune, sync, ring or amplitude modulation, or fm prior to getting fed into the filter?
- An LFO combined with an oscillator?
- An envelope (controlling the filter or amplifier) combined with an oscillator?
Perhaps these things might be considered combinations? I agree this is weak. You can blame the RCA Mark I and II for calling subtractive synthesizers "synthesizers".
Yes, but all synthesis types are transformation unless you are just replaying/outputting a waveform in one way or another without manipulation so that is really an all encompassing way of describing all synthesis methods.
Subtractive synthesis has a particular meaning in common use whether it’s right or wrong.
Somewhat true … maybe it’s really a hybrid, subtractive usually includes generating the initial sound to subtract from though (the oscillator) and even basic subtractive synths often have capability there (different waveforms, octaves, PWM, etc)
Pretty much everything in audio processing is a filter, whether it's called a filter or not, but that's overly reductive. Synthesis is just creating audio from parts.
That's not exactly true. In digital signal processing, delays and filters are effectively one in the same. This is because you implement digital filters using digital delays. For example, the simplest low-pass filter is just a summation of the current and previous sample: y(n) = x(n) + x(n-1).
“Filters are delays” doesn’t imply “delays are filters”. In particular, the type of effect known as a delay (e.g. a delay guitar pedal) isn’t a filter, certainly not in the musical sense, which is the relevant sense here.
> “Filters are delays” doesn’t imply “delays are filters”.
Purely logically, no, but that's not really the practical sense we're talking about. And by introducing a digital delay, you do induce a filter on the sound. So if you have a delay, then you have a filter.
> In particular, the type of effect known as a delay (e.g. a delay guitar pedal) isn’t a filter, certainly not in the musical sense, which is the relevant sense here.
I think it's best to reconsider my original comment. I was arguing that it isn't useful to suddenly rename subtractive synthesis as a "transformation", because you could just rename all of synthesis "filtering". But that's not useful, and synthesis just means building up sound from parts. I.e., it's best to work at a given level of the parts and think about things like waveforms, envelopes, LFOs, pulses, triggers, delays, reverbs, etc., most of the time.
You're getting downvoted for some reason but this is a perfectly fine way to think about subtractive synthesis. (From a compositional perspective anyhow.)
subtractive synthesis isn't synthesis. It's a transformation.